Friday Frivolity: A very good movie

So our youngest hadn't seen all of the movies the older boys grew up with when they were young.  He's seen many, but not all.  Recently he watched, for the first time, the first Sam Raimi Spiderman film.  He was impressed, but not overly.  

I remember that well.  The X-Men movie had come out and brought back some of the good will lost to the genre after the disastrous Batman and Robin starring George Clooney.  After that garbage heap, I recall some folks wondering if this time the Superhero Movie genre was dead for good.  The same conversation came after the dismal performance of the uber-preachy Superman IV back in the day, only to get a second chance from Tim Burton's first Batman movie - admittedly due to the hype around then superstar Jack Nicholson's turn as the Joker. 

But X-Men got people's attention and folks thought perhaps it could work, or at least it was worth trying again.  Then came Spiderman.  In those infancy years of the Internet, I was only partly on board with the cultural conversation trends.  And I've never been a big comic book fan in the first place.  I know some of the bigger characters, and recall Saturday morning cartoons here or there from back in the day, but that's all.  

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but hear that there was quite a lot of controversy surrounding that upcoming movie.  Because for this Spiderman, some young, rather diminutive actor named Toby Maguire had been tapped to play the superhero.  A scrawny little geeky kid?  That's not Peter Parker!  Heading into its release, I remember the scuttlebutt about the assumed pushback.  This was only exacerbated by the delay in release because of the movie erasing scenes involving the World Trade Center towers, which ceased to exist after filming.  

But when it came out, it was an out of the box smash. The idea of Spiderman as the alter-ego of an otherwise put upon, beaten up, bullied and awkward super-nerd captured the imagination of young filmgoers everywhere.  Sort of every geeky wallflower's dream.  Even if they made the unwise decision of covering the face of crack actor Willem Dafoe and not allowing him to emote as he could have, it was a mega-hit.  And then, of course, you had 'the kiss', which became the talk of the pop culture mainstream media that year. 

Now the next question was, could they do it again. X-Men 2 had come out, and many felt it was better than the first.  But the X-Men franchise was always somewhat niche for the comic book world.  Spiderman, like Batman and Superman, was a household superhero name.  I knew of the character after all, and that's saying something.  Being that well known does place a burden after all. So was it luck for the first time out, or could the success of these franchises keep the genre alive?  

Then came Spiderman 2.  The first correction to the original came to the supervillain - Dr. Octopus. This time the main antagonist was played not by some A-List actor's turn as the latest supervillain, but by accomplished character actor Alfred Molina.  No masks or face coverings here.  He was allowed to show all of his human expressions and emotion, and he did so in spades.  Being an almost would be mentor to young Peter, he is transformed by a science experiment gone terribly wrong that costs him everything.  Bringing a combination of wit, snark and at times understated delivery, he was able to do what Dafoe couldn't.  And he did it wonderfully.

But more than that, my son noticed that the movie was, well, mostly just a good movie.  The 'comic book' parts were few and far between.  In fact, a sizeable part of the movie could have been a teen romantic comedy with nothing superhero about it at all.  You could have taken away the minimal comic book  story and replaced it with a young, conflicted kid overworking to get ahead, struggling with his romantic relationships, with a disgruntled coworker whose own dreams have been dashed and is seething with resentment, and the main crux of the plot and the characters would remain unchanged. Which only adds to the punch when the actual comic book element comes crashing back into the story.

FWIW, I'm not a professional film critic, and I don't know the jargon and the gibberish that film critics use to unpack this or that film.  I just know a good movie when I see it. For example, in addition to the movie itself being hailed even now as one of the best in the whole genre, my sons tell me that the climactic confrontation upon a speeding L-Train is still considered one of the best action sequences ever, not only in comic book movies, but movies in general.  I'm inclined to agree. 

Because like the best filmed scenes in any good movie, the action flows from logical development to logical development - it helps tell a story.  Just like the lightsaber duels in the original Star Wars films.  As opposed to much of the CGI action now (including later Star Wars films), which is just endless CGI action followed by more endless CGI action almost to the point of numbed boredom.  When the action starts in Spiderman 2, it's moving the film from point A to point B, as all scenes in good films should. And it's worth noting that those scenes are surprisingly brief. 

A big shout out goes to the effects for not being merely a ton of CGI on greenscreens.  For instance, the mechanical arms of the villain were real, and worked by puppeteers off screen for most of the shots.  For those cases where CGI was needed, and certainly it was used extensively throughout the movie, it was still built upon the modeled arms for reference.  It was similar to the original Jurassic Park, which filmed all dinosaur scenes with stop motion models as reference, giving the CGI more depth and realism when it was used.  

But the most important thing, at the end of the day, is that it's a movie that is incidentally a superhero movie.  The important part of the film is the storyline, the struggles of the main character and his interactions with those most important to the story arc.  Take away the fight scenes and spiderwebs and costumes, and you're still left caring about what happens to him.  Will things work out?  Will he find his footing in life?  Who is going to get hurt?  Because the rival for Mary Jane's affection is not portrayed as a one dimensional jerk.  Rather he's shown as a great guy who is genuinely good, at which point you know someone good is going to lose.  And that's a bold decision in any story.  It would be easier on the audience to have her beaux be a jerk or frothing at the mouth sexist or something.  But nope, someone has to be hurt when the dust settles, and the film does a good enough job preparing you for the star being the one who gets the loser card at the end (assuming you don't know the comics).   The same goes, it should be mentioned, to the very shy and awkward daughter of Peter's quirky landlord.  She obviously has a crush, but for her to hope for a chance, Peter must lose what he wants the most.  Otherwise, she loses. And she is nothing but a sweet, shy girl. 

That's how the movie works so well.  Maguire does an excellent job as the beat-dog superhero who is a genius on one side, but at times socially awkward and lacking in basic life skills on the other.  The guy who just seems to be there to be kicked around.  His one benefit is being a superhero, but even that is as much bane as boon in this movie.  Kirsten Dunce does a good job with the frustration and confusion she has over this would be lifelong childhood friend and possible love interest. J.K. Simmons chews up the scenery with his few minutes of screen time as Spiderman's chief critic J. Jonah Jamison. James Franco  merely broods and growls and complains about Spiderman, but this is one more part of Parker's life that seems in shambles.  And behind the scenes but always felt is Dr. Octavius, who is his own tragic character in the mix.  One of the best such villains, he is also one of the few who pass from mentor to monster and finally redeemed hero.  His classical training as an actor no doubt lent help to his role. 

Overall, it was just a good movie.  Like the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, it transcends the genre and becomes, not just a fine superhero movie, but a fine movie overall. 

As a side note, I should mention that it's been probably over a decade since I last saw this.  That's why I was almost shocked with a movie made before the last dozen or so years of the era of bat-nuts crazy.  At the end of the day, it's a movie with mostly white people, men and women, in what used to be a focus on story, characters and action.  There is no feeling that a demographic chart is at the bottom of the screen tracking various groups and their proportional representation, ready to blacklist the moment it fails in its obligation to meet appropriate group identity quotas.  There is an African American in a small part, Molina is part Spanish and Italian (but still "white"), and some long shots of crowds show a variety of groups (it is New York after all), but that's it.  It's neither a problem nor a focus. It just is.  In those days, we wouldn't have thought much about it one way or another.  Just the fact that some diversity was represented was good enough.  Likewise, Mary Jane doesn't suddenly turn into a Ninja warrior and take out a platoon with her bare hands, pinning Dr. Octopus in a half nelson for Spiderman to finish off.  She's the damsel in distress who must be save by Spiderman.  It all seemed so ... normal, natural, common sensical, and in the oddest twist, a million times more real than agenda driven movies today supposedly based on reality but that seem anything but real. 

Original teaser art that I remember got people talking

A note for supporters of President Trump

As President Trump shocked his supporters by initially putting the kibosh on the Jeffery Epstein case, there is another thing that is far more important for his and his party's fortunes in future elections.  He must improve the economy - for the average American.  

I'm not one who says he's been in office six months and hasn't ended sin in the world so I'm out of here.  I'm old enough to remember the horrible 1982 Recession, when the press and Democrats jumped all over President Reagan, saying it's because of him that our economy was on the brink of ruin.  

Then things cleared, the economy rebounded, and we entered into a stretch of huge growth across the board.  Growth that a large swath of America happily enjoyed (including those who criticized the excess of the day).  Hence the 1984 landslide happened - and GHW Bush coasted into his first term on Reagan's coattails.  Because that Recession blip turned out to be a blip.  And we saw overall growth and improvements for the bulk of the population, in addition to a couple other significant accomplishments on the part of the Reagan administration. 

Something the Democrats/Press missed in 2016, and again in 2024.  At the end of the day, you can have everything in your pocket, but in a democratic society, you have to produce.  You have to show results.  You can't lie or deny your way out of it.  The same here with a president the media doesn't support. Despite the media's hysterics, the economy hasn't collapsed and prices haven't skyrocketed through the ceiling because of President Trump.  Which is good.

But things haven't really improved either.  And they were bad these last several years.  Very, very bad.  The post-truth media, having perfected the art of ignoring the screams of a million dying innocents if they can't be exploited, thought it could  pour a ton of manure on the economic news hoping that something beautiful would grow.  But funny thing about people.  They'll believe a lot, but not that things are fine when they're suffering as a result of them not being fine. 

Because of the press's antics, however, it's easy to forget just how bad things were these last few years.  But now the pilot of the good plane America is President Trump.  And while he has only been in office six months, he has been in office six months.  Much of what he has done appears to be impacting vast, social, national and international long term issues and, as during the Biden administration, Wall Street as good as always.  Fair enough.

But by next year, people like me and tens of millions of others better see things improve.  We better see either the results of the staggeringly disastrous inflation under Biden reduced if not eliminated, or see incomes or wages or benefits skyrocket or something.  At the end of the day, for every other topic that drove voters into the booth last November, it was - to quote the sage - the economy stupid.  And rightly so.  Not since the 2008 collapse have I seen it so bad, only this time the press was insisting there was nothing to see and thus being no help.

But things were, and are, very bad for very many millions of Americans.   Of course, just like telling people things aren't bad when they are, people will also know they're good no matter how much the bad is focused on.  See the 1984 election, when so much media emphasis was on all those failing to benefit from the improvements.  People know when things are better.  But President Trump has a limit to how long it can go without the average American voter seeing things improve.  I'd say by the midterms there better be something to grab onto, don't expect them to go well for President Trump or the GOP. 

Another birthday comes around

I've beat that dead horse about 'our time of the year', which doesn't mean as much now that our daughter-in-law, her and our son's anniversary, and our little doll granddaughter all have their big days in May.  And, as can be expected, things have always been muddied anyway, with each year various forces trying to intrude on any and all traditions, customs and ties to the past, no matter the time of year.  

Nonetheless, our third oldest's birthday, now after that goofy Juneteenth that nobody seems to know why we celebrate, has special punch to it.  It's around the six month sprint to Christmas, still that most magical time of year despite Madison Avenue's and Hollywood's attempts otherwise.  And it means we're on the down slope from Summer (my least favorite season) and heading into Fall (my most favoritest).

This wasn't one of the big, monumental birthdays.  But it wasn't a lost one either.  Comfortably in his mid 20s, he's going to culinary school to pick up where his older brother had to leave off.  Years ago, after the BLM riots caused him to step away from going into law enforcement (shame, he's the large, big hearted type you want as a police officer, but that's leftwing activism for you), he confided in me about something.  That is, he also enjoys cooking and wouldn't mind going into the world of gourmet cooking - he just didn't have the heart because of his brother.  I told him that's commendable, but he also has his life and own calling to think about.  After some time, and hard work, and getting to work next to one of central Ohio's top chefs, he decided to take the plunge - with his oldest brother's blessings. 

As birthdays go, with all the health roller coasters we've been riding these last couple months, it was a little sedate.  We got him the obligatory wargame (he is our board game guru after all).  He was gifted a couple other things that he enjoyed (he's so easy to buy for). We were shocked at how much he loved one of his gifts.  We weren't really imagining that, but that's the fun of gift giving.  His menu request was rather simple this year - Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, with fixins.  And a nice family time with the others and the grandbaby bringing the fun.  

Plus, for added fun, a while back we decided to take the plunge into that colossus of all wargames that I've written about, World in Flames.  The ultimate comprehensive WWII game.  It's a favorite of his; more a stand alone hobby than a game.  More about logistics than military maneuvers, and he's all about logistics.  No matter what he does in life, he'll be happier if it involves crunching numbers.  Of course we no longer can get all the brothers around for something like that.  But we decided this time we'll adopt a sort of 'deal me in/deal me out' approach.  That is, as long as one is on each side and available, we can play.  The others will be brought up to speed when they're around.  I also promised this time I'll keep a log so whatever crazy might happen to disrupt things, we won't have to start from scratch because we can't remember what was happening. That made him happy.

So as birthdays go in tumultuous times, not bad.  Here's to another year and a blessed one ahead. 

It just breaks your heart

Rod Dreher, who I know can be both hit and miss, takes time to muse on the difficulties we have processing such tragedies.  Crimes, wars, abuses, murders - these we can chalk up to the evil that  men do.  And sometimes, as suggested by the testimony of that nurse at Camp Mystic, it can be the fact that we are flawed people.  The goes for some of those in charge of the alerts that were delayed.  Or just the decision to build a camp in low lying areas known as 'Flash Flood Alley.'  We make mistakes. That is not to condemn these or others for decisions made.  It happens.  We're an imperfect brood in a fallen world, and sometimes those imperfections can cause endless pain and suffering.  I don't envy them the guilt they may live with in the coming years. 

But there are still times when you do want to go out and shake your fist at God. The Psalmists knew this all too well.  Though I've never known why this was supposed to be some slam dunk against the existence of God that atheists seem to imagine.  Dreher suggests Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov had better arguments than the often puffed up Voltaire. Perhaps. Nonetheless, the most such arguments could do would be to cast some doubt at the proclamation that God is Love, all Powerful, and yet such things happen (see Harold Kushner).  They have nothing to say about a God existing one way or another.  

And it isn't like Atheism's answer is any better.  Which is basically conceding that suffering happens  because it happens, like atoms and gravity.  Besides all notions of meaning are subjective illusions anyway.  You suffer, so do birds and caterpillars and honey badgers.  Sucks to be you I guess. In the end you matter no more than a donkey burp.  Which is about all atheism can honestly offer.  Would we suggest, therefore, that this proves atheism is wrong?  

Anyway, it's a deeper subject to delve into than this little blog can handle.  And, as we used to say in ministry, it's not like getting an answer would take away the pain.  It's not as if Job would be comforted if he found out his suffering was due to a wager between God and Satan.  Yet my son did notice something.  Recently there has been newstalk about younger Americans not wanting kids.  Apparently some celebrity came out and said kids are the pits, and everyone she knows who has kids is a miserable schmuck.  Which, of course, is an extension of our abortion era mindset about kids as a disease to be cured, only to be blessings if and when convenient to certain people.  

Nonetheless, when something like this happens, it seems everyone is shaken.  Not that we don't care when tragedy strikes adults or older people or anyone really.  But when children are impacted, no matter how our pop culture might suggest the best kids are no kids, it's just not in our DNA to really believe it. Like so many dogmas that our post-God era promotes.  So often reality is the first line of defense against what we are taught nowadays.  Which, in its own weird way, gives hope.  No matter how much our best and brightest appear to want us to toss the real and embrace the mortal sins of the world, there's just too much of that Divine spark in us for it to last against overwhelming common sense and common virtue.  Which might be why, no matter how the Psalmist laments the question of why God has forsaken him, he inevitably ends up proclaiming that the same Lord is his shepherd.  

That lack of loyalty again

There's a funny saying that if you want to know what God thinks of money, look who He gives it to. I thought of that when I heard the news that Elon Musk is threatening to form a rival political party to combat both parties, including President Trump. 

This continues to be a giant fly in the ointment for President Trump.  Not in my lifetime have I seen a president inspire so little loyalty among his own allies.  I mean, you have your turncoats and the ones who decide they can no longer support a leader. You have those who jump ship and vie for control by usurping the leader in question.  It happens.

But wading through the stadium full of people who have turned on Trump and betrayed him and joined his opponents is telling.  I said that before, here.  I'm sure some of it is as above.  It happens.  Sometimes you have your Benedict Arnold types. But so many, with it happening so often, as to be almost the rule rather than glaring exception, has to mean something beyond 'it's not Trump but because they're all the nasties.' 

Oh, and eventually President Trump must fix the economy. So far his opponents have performed miracles by making the hysteria so bad that our country could plunge into a Depression and it wouldn't live up to the panic.  Nonetheless, when the dust settles, and the months have turned to years, we'll need to see the disaster of the last three years fixed.  Those prices will have to be cut, or incomes catch up, or something.  Otherwise I can't say who will be the next president, but I know who won't be.  Just saying.  

Prayers for the families in Texas

By now you've probably heard.  Tragic, and that camps for children were so prominently impacted, a parent's worst nightmare.  Right now, prayers are all that we can do.  Prayers and thankfulness for those out there, even risking their lives, to help save others.  

UPDATE: We should avoid like the plague any idea of blame here.  Already, as if on que, you have the blame game going on.  Fact is, I saw interviewed on ABC this morning a nurse at Camp Mystic.  By her own admission, she received the first Flood Warning alert.  She said it was raining but not bad, so she took no other action.  An hour later another camp counselor notified her that water was already coming into the cabins.  Then she said she notified camp staff and, rather than move the children, they simply toured the camp to see the state of things.  And based on everything stated by those who saw the floods rise, that was the fatal error.  Instead of immediately getting the girls to higher ground and then surveying the camp to see what was happening, by her own admission they didn't do that.  We call that human error.  She didn't appear to realize the implication of what she was saying in the interview.  I'm not sure why she said it.  I sat in stunned silence as she unpacked the chain of events.  I won't point fingers, because you never know what else was happening.  But no matter what led them to feel leaving the girls sleep as waters were pouring into some of the cabins, that has to be a factor behind the disastrous loss of innocent life that happened.  Again, I won't condemn.  Unless there is some big part of the story she didn't mention, however, when the gravity of how things went down hits her, I'm sure it will be something that will plague her the rest of her life.  

Of course it's fine to ask questions.  For those in the broader area who died, perhaps changing things around might be a good idea.  Having different warning signals.  Perhaps not having camps in low lying areas known as Flash Flood Alley.  I don't know.  But right there we have an added layer of that human tragedy that can be overlooked if we rush out to make political hay from such human suffering.  A woman who probably is in shock and will be hit hard by the decisions made.  That's why prayers, rather than politics, are the right thing to do for all involved, especially as the tragedy continues to unfold.  

Happy Birthday America

For all that has gone on in our country, it's amazing that when you think it's time to move somewhere else, you're still hard pressed to imagine where.  As I've told my boys over the years, there are people in the world who would kill to have our worst day.  Not that an American with a brain tumor the size of a watermelon is therefore not really suffering or shouldn't complain.  It's just that we have so many wonderful blessings we can take for granted that barely rank fiction in many places in the world, and throughout most of human history.  That's why it's easy to forget how thankful we should be. Which might be part of the problem; a problem perhaps intentionally manufactured. 

UPDATE: Another example of the malaise among those forgetting our blessings comes from Where Peter Is. A young John Grosso demonstrates that common line of thought, especially among the Left, that says America deserves to be celebrated only if and when America votes Democrat and acts as the Left dictates, and not a minute before.  This is accomplished under that liberal umbrella that claims to be tolerant of everything but evil, while defining evil as anything that isn't liberal.  So they're not saying Americans must conform to their politics, they're merely saying America shouldn't celebrate in such evil times, which looks to all observers like being defined as not conforming to progressive politics.  While leftwing activists like you'll find at WPI are more flagrant with the notion that praiseworthy only means progressive, I fear it has filtered down into a common mentality, especially among younger generations.  An excuse to avoid sacrificing or committing to a cause unless it's worthy of me - and I can always make sure it never is worthy of me, so I needn't bother with those sacrifices and commitments to other causes.  

BTW, I've taken to visiting WPI semi-regularly to note the sparseness of Pope Leo articles compared to how you couldn't go five minutes without seeing new articles singing the praises of Pope Francis on a regular basis. I find that interesting, and yet I've noticed it across the liberal Catholic spectrum.  We'll see. 

You wouldn't think this needs to be said

Only if you aren't a student of human history.  A fellow who pops up in my feed every now and then, who seems to be about 3 or 4 hits to 1 miss, points out what should be obvious: Why you should judge people as individuals, not races.  

Of course societies and nations and empires, being made up of people, suffer that same tendency we all suffer as people.  That is, it's easier to descend into vice than to ascend to virtue.  Let's face it, when was the last time anyone said, "You know, all my life I wanted to be a lazy couch potato, but I just couldn't overcome the temptation to eat right and exercise."  Vice and bad and unhealthy are easier than virtue and good and healthy. Let's be honest.

Which is why civilizations and cultures, being made up of people, tend to suffer the same thing.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, equality and fraternity, of the people and by the people are tough.  Tyranny, oppression, conquest, bigotry and imperialism are easier.  As we're seeing now.  

Even now, we have journalists informing us that freedom of speech can be dangerous and sometimes we need a little of the old government censorship (kudos for that one 60 Minutes).  Barry Lynn once told Anderson Cooper in 2005 that the First Amendment clearly didn't mean religions that promote discrimination and prejudice (that is, that disagree with him).  And since BLM we've been informed that it's time to stop judging based on content of character and get back to judging based on the color of one's skin or any one of a thousand other demographic identities.  With the caveat, as Deacon Greydanus pointed out, that saying JD Vance is white has nothing to do with him being white.  It being postmodernity with its post-reality dogmas.  

At the end of the day, that post-WWII PTSD that the world slipped into in which we decided everything before must have been flawed and we were now going to get it right, has passed. Many of those lofty ideals of total and complete tolerance, respect, openness, freedom of expression, and most of all never judging based on group identity or accident of birth are dead Jim.  As any student of history should be able to predict.  If they ever really lived. 

We call this revealing

 One of these things is not like the other: 

Did you notice?  Look again.

That's right, the 'Tomatometer' score, that is the compilation and average of individual, professional critics, is missing on The Chosen.  I looked it up, and that means for a production already released, that not enough such critics have bothered to review the show or movie in question.  Despite its mammoth, global success or that it's been out now for almost eight years, still not enough have bothered.  

Let's review: 

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’"

That's from the Gospel of St. John, chapter 15. 18-25.  Now, liberal and leftwing Christians often make a mess of this passage.  Not infrequently they'll claim the reason why the world hates Christianity, Jesus or the Church today is that there are Christians who still refuse to vote Democrat or support the latest leftwing activism or talking points.  Perhaps they confuse their politics with God or the Faith.  Or they really think the Left to be so infallible that to not support it is akin to rejecting God, despite the Left's increasingly open advocacy for the most egregious evils and mortal sins.  I don't know.

I just know that's not what the passage means.  It's not really about where one falls on the political spectrum, be it left or right or center. 

No, I'm not equating The Chosen with God or Jesus. But let's face it, whatever you think of it, it's clearly trying to promote the Christian Faith and the Gospel.  And despite being a global phenomenon of staggering levels, with worldwide audience views in the hundreds (not tens) of millions each episode - it's crickets from the critics.  That's what all those thousands and thousands of professional critics around the world have to say.  

The other shows?  Just random ones.  I searched popular shows and movies on Rotten Tomatoes and grabbed a few.  One of them actually had a story about how they've gone from 1.5 million to 3 million viewers!  Huzzah!  As opposed to those hundreds of millions watching The Chosen that critics haven't appeared to notice. 

Again, the Church always believed it must have some impact on the world.  Perhaps we didn't know what to do when the world decided it no longer wanted what the Church was selling. But a perusal of the Bible or Christian history should demonstrate that however much God loves us and reaches out, we will forever smack His hand and tell Him to take a hike.  As we're seeing now. 

Oh, it's different now, as Rod Dreher pointed out.  For centuries and eons, the Gospel moved into new lands that had never heard it, and then made inroads.  Not all was accomplished at the end of a sword or gun, despite what the modern narrative says.  Sometimes the message came and was eagerly accepted by those living in the darkness of paganism and heathen gods.  

But today, the World that once heard the Gospel is now tired of it, and wants to go back to that world of paganism and heathen gods, at least from a secular angle.  An angle that has a vague religious underpinning that says I'll either die and become worm food or perhaps, if not, there'll be some happy light place we all go when we die because of course we do.  Otherwise, the trappings of old paganism are becoming popular among our best and  brightest.  And they are increasingly willing to demand conversion to the cause by rhetorical sword and figurative gunpoint.  Because that's what the World does.  See John's Gospel above. 

Does this seem a lot to hang on a single show, however popular, that is missing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes?  If this was the only thing I could point to, then perhaps.  But you know as well as I do that this is only one of a million examples of the World's increasingly open hatred for God, Christ and His Church.  Those who say the problem is that Christians don't vote the way I do, one way or another, are worthless in confronting this development.  

Because even if we did everything the modern World wanted - bring back race based hatred, dabble with broadening the mass extermination of undesirables, porn sex younger and younger children, embrace Marxism outright and end national identities and tear down principles of equality, freedom, forgiveness, and religious liberty (or fully embrace a Free Market for that matter) - the World simply would find other reasons to continue the hatred of Christ while openly embracing the rulers of darkness of this world.  Because we know from our Bible studies, that's what the World does.  And I'm sure I don't know how much more the modern world could do to make that clear.  

Those who don't follow the ways of the World are about one of four.  If the Parable of the Sower has anything to say about statistics.  And if we work to remain in that group and avoid making excuses for the World by changing the Gospel to conform to the World, we can take heart.  Because John continues:

“Do you now believe?” Jesus replied. “A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me. I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”  John 16.31-33

Maranatha 

*Brief Note: I mentioned to one of my sons that I was posting this.  He said there is a possibility that critics have reviewed the series, but RT has chosen not to link to them.  I suppose.  But that seems almost more purposefully corrupt.  It's easier, and perhaps more charitable, to assume they are simply blinded by their own biases - biases which today are clear as day - than that there is some purposeful conspiracy to suppress those critics.  Plus, I searched myself for reviews and have only seen a couple beyond some religious outlets and publications.  So I'm going with a notable lack of reviews from critics as the reason.  It seems, kinder.  

This might come as a shock

But we've been hit with a wave of medical problems over the last few weeks.  Hence my slowness in either posting or responding to comments, which I always try to do.  Hopefully things will slow down soon.  It's almost July and we haven't even finished our herb garden yet (or done much in our yard for that matter)!  This is getting serious.  

But as soon at things slow, I should be back with a couple things.  In the meantime, if I'm not back by then, have a safe and blessed Independence Day and relish that time of year that things begin to come back to us.  

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