Understanding why some are parsing Putin in one easy image

I know.  When Putin first invaded Ukraine, some nuts ran out and said how awesome he was and he's a genius.  That was to score points against Biden mostly. It was stupid and wrong.  Especially since Putin's invasion has been anything but genius.  It's also wrong to put a positive spin on such an atrocious action as invading a neighboring country.

Nonetheless, with that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at this from a distance to see what is happening.  If I don't like folks praising Putin, I like even less those saying we all must scream 'It's the Nazi fascists all over again and we must do anything or  you love Hitler!'  That rush to push me down a road nobody wants to define has me as bothered as anyone putting an Einstein label around Putin. 

Included in this is smacking anyone down for daring to do anything but say 'Putin/Hitler, end of debate.'  There is plenty to look at here.  It's fair to ask how we got here.  It's fair to ask what the stakes are.  It's fair to see what is happening.  And it's fair to ask why some are trying to halt the 'If it's Putin/Russia, it's bad' juggernaut. 

One of the things several have pointed out is Putin's stance on the LGBTQ movement.  To the Left, that's one more piece of evidence that he's evil Hitler redux.  Even to those who oppose the LGBTQ movement, his methods and policies have been cringe worthy, brining back visions of gulags and labor camps dancing in our heads. 

Nonetheless, allow me to explain why we need to be careful.  Here is a single image that says it all:

It's from a group rallying support against Florida's parental rights bill that prevents sex lessons for students under fourth grade.  Derogatorily named the Don't Say Gay bill by the gay rights movement (a label universally accepted by the LGBTQ partners in the global press), it stops what we were told would never happen, and that's teaching kids about genitals and sex urges in grades where kids are too young to pack their own lunches.  

Note the circled part (I did that).  See that?  There is no such thing as other people's kids.  Sorry Left, but your continued insistence that anyone right of center is a fascist masks the fact that most of what the Left wants is nothing but a fascist state.  That's where the LGBTQ movement is going, and the Left is helping it.

Not because I think the Left cares a rip for gays or transgenders any more than it does blacks or women.  It just sees the LBGTQ movement as invulnerable.  Even churches and faith leaders cower before it, begging mercy for doing anything but celebrating all things non-heterosexual and post-gender, and breaking the back of reality to accommodate this movement in all ways but the most trivial (that is, marriage is still technically for men and women, but civil unions can rock it awesome style!).

Knowing and counting on this, the Left realizes the LGBTQ can openly say we're coming for your kids.  That we will soon be teaching elementary school kids, the way we now teach middle schoolers, the joys of oral sex or why using science to change your body is the most praiseworthy action a person can take.  The Left knows the LGBTQ movement can do this, admit they are doing it, and almost everyone will turn their heads and wish it would go away, if they do anything at all.  

Such faith leaders and shakers as Ms. Eden won't stop it.  They won't speak to it.  After all, where are the Catholic leaders about this issue?  The Evangelical leaders?  The Orthodox leaders?  The establishment conservative leaders?  Anyone?  Bueller?  If anything they will attack anyone who tries to stop this as some half-baked gay basher who wants all transgender kids murdered because they hate black people. 

If such voices speak to it at all, they'll make a quick and slick statement about men and women, immediately followed by bemoaning the first two thousand years of reprehensible Christians terrorizing the always beautiful people in the ever expanding LGBTQ++++ movement.  They'll then reach out and insist there's nothing real and nothing to get hung about, we only want love and love and all you need is love and walruses and blackbirds and raccoons. Again, reserving true wrath for anyone trying to take a stand against this, especially if they're white. 

So when you see this on our shores, you can get why some are saying Putin might be a monster.  He is certainly the villain here and needs defeated.  But it might be worth our while to see what Putin was likely pandering to.  Whether he personally cares about stopping the gay based steamroller or not, I don't know. But he points to an issue that needs addressed.

At the end of the day, we're going to have to admit an ugly truth about our particular era of history. Many bemoaning the thousands killed in Ukraine more than happily accept the tens of millions who have died of AIDS.  And, based on everything, are intent on continuing to do so.  Perhaps the smart move is to call out both atrocities equally, as well as those who wail over the thousands but have learned to stop worrying and almost celebrate their tens of millions.  

From the CDC, the breakdown of the latest batch of HIV infections

Not sure what to take from this

Except to don my merry secularist and call it a cosmic coincidence.  So I still check Facebook once in a while to see what's going on with old acquaintances.  One of my classmates from days of yore had this on her page:

I almost never waste my time with these things, but since I was just getting going on the day and was getting our youngest up for school, I thought I'd do it on a lark.

As it happened, he's getting ready to read The Merchant of Venice as his next lit assignment, so that was right here on my desk.  I know, that was cruel of me to assign that.  Him being in seventh grade and all.  I could have chosen Macbeth or Hamlet, but he knows those to well.  I wanted to challenge him with a Shakespeare yarn he's unfamiliar with. 

It's one of the Signet Classics versions, BTW, with academic notes and writes ups, plus vocabulary and footnotes to help the modern reader though some of the terms and phrases that seem strange to us today.  I recommend those versions whenever possible. 

Anyway, I picked up the book, and turned to page 18.  Now, as a qualifier, let me say I skipped the intro as it was numbered with Roman numerals, as such intros often are.  I went to the pages numbered in Arabic numerals, since that was used in the above image, which began with the play proper.  From there, I went to the eighteenth page.  Then I read down to line four, and this is what it said:

"The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

Wow.  Given my musings on salvation and getting hung up on numbers that I posted today, I thought that was a bit ... odd.  Certainly odd timing.  It also made me wonder.  Funny, we dismiss such things today in a very secular way.  Dumb luck.  Cosmic coincidence.  Just weird that I posted that and suddenly this turned up in a goofy Internet exercise.  And yet there was a time in ages past when such a thing would make even the most hardened theologian rub his chin and ponder. 

Not that everything has to be demons and angels doing it.  In even the most superstitious age, people were able to discern between the natural and the supernatural.  It's just sometimes I think we've moved the bar too far in the direction opposite of superstition. 

With that said, I'm not going to delete the post.  Nor am I going to assume it must  be confirmation that all those other people are misusing Scripture.  I'll likely have a good chuckle as I have now, and then move on.   But it is worth noting that I'm doing this because I've been very well trained by our secular age.  I've been taught to hold the bar very high indeed for any idea that something could be nothing other than natural cause or mere coincidence.  

Really?

CNN appears quite shocked that Dept. of Health guidance in Florida suggests the Covid-19 vaccine might not benefit healthy 5 to 17 year olds.  Read it here.

If we were honest, it might do some good. It might even foster some good will among those reluctant to follow various Covid guidelines, including the Covid shots.  If we admitted that the vaccines clearly have underperformed, that their effectiveness tends to ebb and flow based on the latest virus variants, and that obviously if we've missed those marks, we can't be sure if there are long term side effects, at least that would be honest. 

But like most things today, especially if they are glommed onto by our mass corporate media industries, it's a case of shouting down and name calling.  Or, if possible, bringing in the crushing hand of government - or worse, corporate - retaliation against any who would question the latest dogma. 

Covid has been a mess, make no mistake. Admitting that might be the first step in a long walk to bring people back to some semblance of trust in the institutions that have repeatedly dropped the ball.  If, in fact, that is what we want to happen.

The few, the faithful, the saved

Nowadays, outside of some Protestant fundamentalist holdouts, I'm not sure our faith in Christ has any real bearing on our eternal destinies.  In fact, I'm not sure how much our eternal destinies play in our religious thinking in this old twenty first century.  

For those who think about it, an implicit universalism seems to be common.  Sometimes it's an explicit universalism.  This isn't something new or 21st Century.  There have always been some who failed to square a loving God with some eternal separation from that same loving God.  But in recent generations, visions of hellfire and damnation have clearly diminished as more and more Christians, consciously or otherwise, accept a somewhat secular understanding of religion and a worldly understanding of creation. 

In this setting it appears quite common to assume, without much thought, that most everyone is guaranteed to pass through the light after we shuffle off our mortal coils.  Much discussion, when it comes up, is around how many are saved - everyone or just mostly everyone?  I've seen that discussion on Catholics sties and outlets many times, and it's almost always around the assumption that it's a matter of how few, if any, will fail to be joined with God in the New Jerusalem.  

Here's what I've noticed, for what it's worth.  Last year for Holy Week I did a quick series on the seven churches of Revelation.  No particular reason, it just came to my mind.  One thing that hit me was that out of the seven churches, only two were given high praise and a pass.  The other five were given warnings.  Get with the program or else.  Yes, we all know the churches at Sardis and Laodicea were the pits and got stern warnings to shape up or pay the piper.  

The fact is, however, three of the others got the same.  Even if they had elements that were praiseworthy, including suffering for the Faith, they still ended getting the same stern warnings.  No amount of praiseworthy works in those churches made them immune from the same warnings that everyone's favorite loser churches got.  

In other words, our walk with God and God's appraisal of us is not based on trade and barter.  We don't get to stand in front of God and say, "Sure, I didn't do this or that, but I was awesome over here."  We're expected to follow God and do what we're supposed to do.  If we don't, see the warnings. Even if we go so far as being willing to suffer for the Faith, that doesn't balance out ignoring the teachings of Christ over here or over there.  It's sort of an all or nothing package. 

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  I reflect on the modern obsession with 'does everyone but Hitler get saved or is it everyone saved?'  Much of the scriptural basis for this comes from two key passages in the New Testament, beyond some philosophical wrangling over love and punishment and eternal fates.  The main verses appealed to are 2 Peter 3.9 and 1 Timothy 2.4.  Some have also appealed to Ezekiel 18.23.   The gist is that God wants everyone to be saved and come to repentance. 

If God wants it, how can it not happen, correct?  I mean, if God wants the universe, God gets the universe.  Why not everyone being saved?  At best we can imagine everyone but Hitler is saved.  Or maybe everyone, since that's what God wants. 

Here's something I noticed when I reflect on my former colleagues who tended to cleave unto the liberal side of theology, who often embraced this implicit/explicit universalism. I noticed that in most cases with most modern topics, the Bible, even the New Testament, is usually confined to Jesus and His teachings (in recent years, mostly Matthew 25).  That's where we learn God is our good buddy, it's all about love, no condemning of sinners, no condemning of the world, because Jesus says so. Be a swell person and that's all we need for righteousness. 

And yet when it comes to scriptural references to buttress universalism, it's almost always the above passages in the New Testament.  Almost never is it Jesus, unless you want to parse something like Matthew 23.37.  Why is that?  Why do they almost always appeal to Jesus as the great lover of love and forgiveness and mercy and nothing else where our sex lives or other religions are concerned?  It's all tolerance and inclusion when you read Jesus.  But when it comes to universalism, we rush over to the rest of the New Testament as our go to reference? 

I can't help but guess it's for one simple reason.  If you look at the Gospels, you'll notice when Jesus does talk about things like paths to life or final judgments, if numbers or amounts are mentioned, those not cast into the outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth, or those not going along the path leading to destruction, tend to be described as 'few.'  You want bad results of standing before our eternal judge?  That's where you get terms like 'many', 'most' and similar 

In fact, one of the sometimes glossed over parts of Jesus' appearance at the synagogue in Luke 4 is  how he invokes instances in the lives of Elisha and Elijah when discussing His return to His own home.  He notes that out of everyone, those OT prophets reached out to only two individuals, the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian, during times of great famine and suffering.  Which, if you think on it, is often the proportions given in the entire Old Testament.

Like it or not, my Old Testament professor in seminary had it right.  The Bible, for want of a better phrase, is usually a minority witness.  That is, those who cling to God and stay faithful are almost always portrayed as the minority.  Sometimes, as in Noah, it's literally one family in the whole world who stays faithful and escapes destruction.

Or in the Wilderness, it's only two spies who keep the faith.  Or there may have been seven thousand who did not bow to Baal, but there were only seven thousand, not the majority.  And on it goes.  You get the point.  The 'story' of the Bible is often of the majority falling away and bowing before the Golden Calf when only a 'few' remain faithful and escape God's judgment and, yes, punishment. 

Jesus invokes this proportion when He chastises the synagogue in Nazareth.  It also underpins His continual teaching that many may be called, but few are chosen.  That the path to destruction is where many go, versus the few who find and traverse the narrow path that leads to life.  In fact, I might say if you're looking for evidence that everyone gets to heaven, the last place you want to go is Jesus.  Which might be why those who make that argument, in this case at least, prefer the rest of the NT to what Jesus has to say on the matter.

None of this is to say hellfire awaits almost everyone but 140,000.  I'm not even haggling over what Jesus means by path to destruction or weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Does it mean some middle ground where people get purged ala purgatory before being saved for eternity? Does it mean burning in Hell for eternity?  Is it oblivion and eternal destruction, but no real eternal suffering?  Is it the least versus most in the Kingdom of Heaven, where the unhappy 'many' who take the wide path end up with a room next to a noisy ice machine for all eternity? 

That's not what I'm focused on.  In fact, I think when we approach it that way - just how are we really all saved despite how we live or what we have to say about God - we're already missing the point.  Sort of like my dad asking me to do chores and then wondering what will happen if I don't.  The point isn't wondering if I'll be grounded, spanked or just have the car keys taken away for the weekend.  The point is to do the chores because my dad told me to.  Since I love and respect my dad, that should be my response, not 'how little might I be punished if I ignore him?'. 

The point isn't to really parse what is meant by destruction or outer darkness, as much as it should be something we don't want no matter what they mean.  Not because it might be really bad, but because it means we've fallen from what God wanted in the first place.  

But such warnings are omnipresent enough to warrant our attention.  The tendency of Jesus to describe those taking the path to life as the minority, when added to the Scriptural story of most people rebelling or falling away to their punishment and regret, suggests asking how many are saved might mean an answer we don't want.  It also might mean we need to rethink how we've packaged the Faith in recent generations.  

The tendency of  modern churches to quickly modify, adapt, change and even surrender before the world is at least partially grounded in a diminished belief that there are any real consequences to getting it wrong.  A focus on just how everyone will get a blue ribbon when we die has made it easy to shrug off any concern about missing the mark. 

Yet that is something the churches in Revelation learned.  It's important not to get it wrong, because warnings of dire consequences are given us all, no matter how much we get right.  And if Jesus is to be believed, it won't be the majority who end up in the path to life, skipping along no matter what since everyone gets the prize at the end. 

In fact, it might be some sad self fulfilling prophecy that our efforts to accommodate and adjust and modify the historical revelation might just end up leading to that very vision set out in the scriptures.  That is, no matter what God does, the majority will find ways to ignore Him and walk the other way.  Instead of repenting, the majority will instead curse God when the time comes.  Which would then suggest a reading of the Bible as minority witness might be the most accurate way to read the numerical witness in the many mansions of the Kingdom. 

Again, I'm not saying the majority are going to burn in hell!  Or heaven is an exclusive club reserved for everyone name Dave only (and those he loves).  Nor am I quibbling over what many or few means.  After all, 51% of the human race could technically be many or most, and still let 49% of humanity be saved.  I think all of that is going the wrong direction with the topic. 

I think both the history of Christian doctrine and the scriptural revelations themselves show that whatever the case, when God says X, the majority of the world will nonetheless reject X.  And of those who God entrusts to deliver the message of X, the majority will choose to abandon X when the going gets tough.  And sometimes that doesn't mean failing to suffer for the faith, as several churches in Revelation were willing to do.  Rather it can just be giving in to the old temptations and sins of immorality and false teachings.  Which, if we try to twist it all to say nothing matters since everyone ends up on the path to life in the first place, might be the worst teaching of all to allow.  

When the Three Joes became the patron saints of America's higher education

That is, Joe McCarthy, Joe Goebbels, and Joe Stalin.  In this case, it's the University of Washington going after a celebrated researcher with a long career working on a cure for, of all things, HIVwhile working to aid Africans.  Her crime?  She's white.  That's what the crime actually is.  The excuse?  She - I can hardly bring myself to write it - showed up at a Halloween party in 2009 dressed like Michael Jackson. 

If we put aside our identities as 21st Century Americans by trying to remember the past, we'll recall that Michael Jackson died that year.  As a result, many tributes emerged involving Americans of all skin colors - even including the wrong skin colors - dressing like the gloved one.  That was in response to the press doing its typical about face and going from pre-death Wacko-Jacko, to post-death Musical Genius Pioneer of the ages.  

But who can tell with the Left?  I didn't think people would be fighting to teach kindergarteners the glories of gay sex and genitals.  But here we are.  If you don't say men can get pregnant then naturally some on the Left want you fired.  So the thought that a white skin dressing like a black skin for any reason can be used to retroactively destroy an esteemed career should be as shocking as gas fumes at a gas station. And far more explosive. 

The saddest part?  I have a gut feeling she thought she was being perfectly obedient to the leftist celebration of Jackson by turning out dressed like that bold Civil Rights activists who broke the MTV race barrier.  Now?  Sorry.  You just can't be leftist enough.  And without even having total power yet, the Left let's us all know what is in store for everyone: Not only can our lives be destroyed for what we do, they can be destroyed because of who and what we are and what we may ever have done in the past.  Yet most seem to want this, so there you go. 

I have to admit it made me laugh

Funny alternate dialogue from my college days come to mind

I never put much stock in what celebrities, Hollywood or athletic or music or otherwise, have to say about almost anything.  I care about their opinions less than those who are important to me, such as my priest, the guy fixing my car or the girl taking my money in the checkout lane in the grocery store.  To me, such locals' opinions are not only more important, but likely better informed, than most coming from old Tinsel Town. 

Plus, it's a sure fire way of becoming disappointed in people.  So Mark Hamill, a childhood hero of mine, who has embarrassed himself for anyone with a maturity level above puberty for years, had this to say about Florida's bill prohibiting sexual themed lessons aimed at children under fourth grade:

That's from the LGBTQ talking point erroneously calling it the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which has been repeated by almost every objective national news outlet in the country.  So betting Hamill likely never read the bill in the first place, I'll give him a pass as yet one more Internet era pundit who simply vomits talking points from the correct side, actual facts and truth be damned.  

Nonetheless, I did get a kick out of this response:

Heh.  Taking a shot at Hamill  and backhanding Lucas in the meantime.  Which I don't mind.  Lucas continues to be a genuine jerk by refusing to release the original theatrical cuts of his first Star Wars trilogy.  That's because he remains forever pissed at his fanbase for saying his CGI enhanced releases in the 1990s were der poop piles, with most preferring the original cuts. A fellow who treats his fanbase like thralls who are only there to worship his billionaire grandness deserves a few backhanded digs at the obvious aimed his way. 

Mark Shea, Gollum and a Lenten reflection

The late M. Scott Peck once wrote that the character Gollum, from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, "is perhaps the finest depiction of evil ever written."  It was from his book People of the Lie. In that book, Peck took a look at evil from the view of psychoanalysis.  Much of that appraisal of Gollum could be wrapped up in the singular obsession Gollum had for the One Ring to the exclusion of almost anything other priority or action. 

I thought of that when I saw this over at The American Catholic:

Whew.  Tough to stomach.  Tough to imagine that this is what Mark came away with after that horrible news of mothers and babies killed and maimed in a war zone.  I think Donald McClarey says it right: 

Imagine hearing about a possible war atrocity and thinking that this is an opportunity to bash your domestic political opponents.

That's serious Gollum level obsession there on Mark's part.  I would like to think that Mark doesn't see every bomb and every dead child as an awesome chance to attack those white conservatives he so clearly despises. But I have a hard time doing so.

A word of warning to all of us:  Mark can make us rather complacent because, well, most of us aren't Mark, so we imagine we're not doing all that bad.  But as Elrond said of Sauron, even Sauron was not evil from the beginning.  Mark was not always this way, no matter what you think of him.  Why Mark is where he is now, I don't know.  How he incarnates almost everything he once condemned about Internet discourse, while spending his online life attacking so many things and people he once cherished or valued, I don't know.  I have my gut feelings, but I could never be sure.

What I do know is that I don't want to end up like Mark, or the many on Catholic sites and outlets who know what Mark is and cheer him all the more because he's on their side.  That sort of thing is as good as giving Jesus two black eyes and a bloody nose.

Therefore, especially during Lent, let us all reflect and make sure we're not heading down that broad path that Mark and so many of his supporters have chosen, and all for politics and defending the latest media narrative.  That could also include those fighting the latest media narrative, or siding so passionately with the other side of the political aisle.  As believers, our sights are supposed to be set on higher things.  Things that tell us the appropriate response to the awfulness of Mark's above Twitter post is simply to pray for his soul. 

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.  Colossians 3.1-4

A tried and true tactic for progressives since I can remember

The faces of modern leftwing punditry

Act like children.  Literally, sneer and mock and make fun of and call names.  In short, act like someone a decade away from hitting puberty. 

So this story broke across several outlets.  A white woman - whose skin color will figure prominently among some criticisms of her - documented the growing intolerance in universities for dissenting opinions.  Though she insists she is no conservative, she is nonetheless bothered by the atmosphere in modern college campuses where more and more students are feeling intimidated and threatened if they voice their opinions.  Rod Dreher picked up on the story of her editorial here. 

There was an old Saturday Night Live skit I remember.  It was from the earlier days of the show.  It featured Bill Murray and Steve Martin going onto the stage, pointing toward the audience, and spending the skit going back and forth with variations of "What in the hell is that?  I know what the hell that is."  It was so absurd I actually laughed - and I seldom laughed at SNL.

That's about what most progressive/liberal discourse nowadays is, if you get down to it. A young, self-proclaimed liberal women points out what my sons have noticed - that free and open debate is becoming an endangered species in our universities.  Both because of the universities, and the increasingly hostile - sometimes in the form of physical threats - reactions from students and student groups.  In this case, the editorial is picked up by the leftwing flagship The New York Times.

The response?  Read them and follow links if you dare.  Outrage at the Times for betraying the cause, and liberal variations on 'I know what the hell that is" aimed at the young woman.  That is, variations on 'she's so lame man, and so lame man.  Can you believe she's that lame man?   And lame and a wimp man.  And dumb man.  Can you believe she's so lame and a wimp?"  And on it goes.  Note, in most responses, that's the core essence of what they're saying.

There is no engaging with her claims. There is no desire to see it from her perspective.  In some cases, her skin color torpedoes her as others replace the above 'I know what the hell that is' mantra with variations on 'skin color and race and race skin color race'.  Certainly there isn't the slightest inkling that there could be some validity to her observations.  Heck no on that.  She is an admitted leftist who has betrayed the cause and fallen from 100% obedience, so she needs to be put in her place. 

It's like watching children interacting on a playground in elementary school.  Which, to be honest, is rather unfair and unkind of me to talk about children on playgrounds that way.  When someone says they have seen something wrong, the usually decent thing to do is ask and see where they're coming from.  You know, say you sure hope this hasn't happened, and you can't believe it has.  But you'd be interested in learning more. 

Once again, however, I get the feeling those on the left are less interested in learning more about this young woman's perspective than they are smacking down anyone or anything that challenges their dogmas of diversity and inclusion.  

More thoughts on the War in Urkaine

Just a few more random thoughts, not that they're based on anything by hunches and observations on my part.

1. It is a war.  I find people's lack of willingness to call it a war interesting.  Some do.  But in the press, I notice many still say the Crisis  in Ukraine, or Ukrainian Crisis, or similar. A couple I've heard say the Invasion of Ukraine, or Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  But seldom actual War.  I wonder why that is. 

2. Remember Ukraine is fast replacing Remember Pearl Harbor.  With no clear indication of what is being demanded, many are insisting we say Putin/Russia is Hitler/Nazis and that's it. Otherwise, you're a Putin worshipping traitor stooge Russian propagandist.  Which automatically makes me stop and think why this urgency to frame it in such simplistic of terms.  Especially when I reflect on the modern love for simplistic terms and phrases (BLM, #MeToo, non-binary, Get the Shot/Stop the Spread). I've already said Putin and the Russian military are the bad guys here.  It's not rocket science.  But that doesn't mean we must therefore say 'anything has to happen or you worship Putin.'  Pull that trick, and I instinctively begin asking questions, as I was taught to by my post-WWII liberal educators and pop culture. 

3. What do we know about history?  In keeping with 'Putin/Russia bad/end of statement' option, I've seen plenty of pushback against those trying to sort this out, figure how we got there, and how we can proceed without spiraling into an escalated war.  Those who have tried to compare it to the outbreak of WWII are learning that apparently nothing led to WWII except Hitler and the Nazis (we'll ignore Japan for the moment).  Hitler and the Nazis did it, no sense squabbling over details, they were the bad guys, so is Putin/Russia.  Hearing such a take, to my ears, is like hearing people say we were wrong, the moon is made of cheese.  All my life a massive part of WWII studies was hearing all of the myriad factors and blunders outside of Germany that set the stage for what happened.  Now?  See your support of Putin as the answer. 

4. We don't want to admit the obvious.  That is, Zelenski's Ukraine is just the type of thing destroying Europe and Western Christianity and Democratic civilization.  As I said earlier, we can celebrate him for being a hero and brave in the face of all this, without making him into a god to be worshipped.  Given his own way, he represents that post-Western mindset that says sex, abortions and all thing leftists must reign supreme, but maybe it's time to get over this old 'glories of the past' rubbish.  Not that Putin is any better mind you.  It might help to imagine this the way the Left has taught us to see the American Civil War.  Not good guys versus bad guys, but two bad actors with bad designs in a conflict where the only distinguisher right now is that one is the real bad guy for invading a sovereign neighbor. 

5. I necessarily have no clue what is going on.  I trust the news media like I trust Honest Larry the used car salesman.  All I have to do is see how the press reports on Democratic Party voting reforms, or how it is reporting on the educational legislation in Florida, or how it is treating the conflict between school boards and parents.  If the press is only half as biased in its reporting from Ukraine, that means I still know virtually nothing about the facts.  It would be foolish of me to think otherwise. 

6. As I said in 2, many are insisting there is no approach to this but "Damn Putin to hell!" or you're a Russian thrall.  With that said, I'm hearing almost no clear explanation of what this means.  Does this mean we should go to war?  Does it mean we should put ourselves in a situation where war could happen? Does it mean we should keep doing what we're doing and hope it works before too many are killed?  Should we ride a missile down into Russia like Slim Pickens?  I'm always itchy when people say I have to conform or else, and yet seem reticent about just what it is I'm support to conform to. 

7. Isn't it nice to hate the enemy again?  Remember the first and second Gulf Wars?  Remember our post-9/11 responses?  Wow.  No way could we just 'hate on Muslims', or 'hate on Iraq', or 'hate  on Afghanistan'.  Not even close.  Heck, we weren't even allowed to hate on Osama bin Laden.  Remember when he was killed and some poured into the streets to celebrate?  Remember not a few pols, religious leaders and pundits rushed out and condemn it?  Remember how it's wrong to hate, to celebrate his death, to do anything but pray for him?  Remember how we learned we should never have hated Germans or Japanese in WWII, or Vietcong in Vietnam?  Now I'm seeing those wanting to pray for Putin being accused of worshipping the same.  Russia is evil.  Russians?  Well, sorry about their luck!  Russian soldiers and Putin?  The more death and misery they get the happier we are!  Why do I get the feeling that's because, when all is said and done', they're white in 2022?  They're European.  They're "Western".  Allowing ourselves to think badly of non-white/non-Western folks is a good way to lose the Left's main template: That the Caucasians of Western Civilization are the sole cause of evil in this world.  Focusing on the 9/11 terrorists for too long, or questioning modern Islam, challenges that.  Come to think of it, asking where Covid may have originated is the same as saying you want Asians killed in death camps.  But white Russians and white Putin being the bad guys?  Bring out the propaganda posters and let's show just how wicked and evil they are and why all peace loving people of good will should proclaim it. 

8.  Those who rushed out to score points by saying how awesomely brilliant Putin is have eggs on their faces.  

9. Most of this, I'm afraid, is a war within a war.  It's an actual war everyone thought was a thing of the past.  I mean, did anyone believe last year that we would ever again see a European nation line up military divisions and invade a neighboring European nation?  Did anyone think it would ever happen, much less happen this year?  I don't think so.  And yet it did.  But at least here in America - perhaps Europe too, I don't know - it seems all of this is filtered through the really big war, and that's the war to end or maintain America and the West.  Yet, at least among those fighting to maintain America, there appears to be divisions.  With some on the 'it's Putin or you're a Russian' side, and others going full conspiracy theory about how this is a giant Soros conspiracy and Ukraine is making it all up.  In any event, I get the feeling that for not a few on this side of the Atlantic, each bomb dropped is merely a weapon to use against the real enemies of the world - each other. 

10. I can't help but wonder how all of this would look, how it would be covered, what we would be allowed to ask, and who would be saying what, if Donald Trump was president (R), instead of President Biden (D).  I have a hunch much of what I've watched and heard would change.  The strange thing here?  I bet those conservatives who are more or less aligned with those on the Left who are saying 'it's evil Putin/Russians or shut up' would still be doing so.  I have a feeling almost everyone else would be sounding like their ideological opponents in this.  And when you have that assumption around something as critical as the outbreak of war, the only ones to ultimately win will be those happy to see Russia, Ukraine, Europe and America all burn to the ground.  Many of whom have remained on the fence in all of this I've noticed. 

11. There is a legitimate pro-war movement.  It does include some conservatives, but is quickly becoming dominated by those on the Left.  Part of this no doubt has to do with linking Putin as Hitler to Trump as Putin's Mussolini.  Part of it is trying to deflect from the disastrous last year, the crushing inflation and the problems under Biden's administration.  But some of it is clear and naked jockeying for war.  Real, honest to goodness war.  Get our boots out, get our planes up, and get to war!  Given that one of the uber-narratives of my life has been 'liberals about pace/conservatives all about war', this is a strange development.  Not that there hasn't been this tendency of supporting war because a (D) is in the White House.  But this time it's potential total war, and even - some suggest - potential nuclear war.  Yet so much of the "To War!" rhetoric is coming from left of center, at least as far as I can tell. 

12. Why is it that wealthy celebrities telling Americans to suck on inflation and gas prices for the cause rings hollow?  I know in WWII, Hollywood celebrities joined the bond drives and called on Americans to sacrifice, while they remained wealthy Hollywood celebrities.  For some reason I can't pinpoint, it didn't seem as callous and elitist then as it does today.  I think partly because you get the feeling much of this is trying to deflect from Biden's performance, or downplay problems, and has only a little to do with anything war effort.  As opposed to WWII, where you feel those wealthy celebrities really were in it for the cause. Perhaps that's unfair of me, but it's the hunch I have. 

Why we homeschool

 In its simplest explanation:

Yep.  You read that right.  Our schools have every right to crawl into bed with our children and help them obsess about surgically altering their pelvic regions.  Parents, on the other hand, have no such right to even know what their children are thinking about the subject.  That is a privilege that must be earned.  So says the above facilitator guide from Eua Claire, Wisconsin public schools.

I doubt we will be able to stop the advance, but we can delay the influence of the secular heathen storm heading our way.  We can take what time we have and instill in our sons a sense of God, reality, truth, facts and dignity.  It may not work in the long run, but it's the least we can do.  If we had to crawl on our hands and knees across a thousand miles of broken glass to keep our youngest away from the public school system today, we would do it in a fast heartbeat. 

On the other side of the field, John C. Wright looks at the Seven Demonic doctrines of modernity

In contrast to Mark's 'what's wrong with progressive modernity' approach, John C. Wright muses on what's wrong with progressive modernity.  Basically it's the Seven Deadly Sins understood through the prism of modernist sins.  

It's hardly a dissertation, but it does remind us of things that are sinful in light of Revealed Truth, and yet sins we've almost become used to.  For instance, the sin of Materialism, and how it finds itself as Christianity helping the poor for the sake of helping the poor and for no other reason than helping the poor.  Because this world and really only this world. 

It's not a long article, for JC Wright.  But there's a lot to chew on. 

Mark Shea demonstrates modern Christianity's great surrender

Read it here.  I usually don't link to Mark's website for obvious reasons.  As I've said, learning  about Christianity from Mark today is as useful as asking Fred Phelps to explain the Gay Rights Movement. The Mark Shea of 2005 long ago left the building. 

Nonetheless, it's an interesting case study of the approach of forever hiding any part of the Gospel under a bushel when the world demands.  Mark, like so many Christians today, justifies constantly retreating and giving up whenever we're told by insisting we don't know what we know. Mark, for instance, knows full well what CE and BCE mean.  Those who use the terms make it clear what they mean, and why they use the new replacement terms.  

But note the denial.  Denial or compromise that are always wrapped in a Jesus banner of righteous justification.  Or worse, the idea that CE means Jesus to me, but can mean anything to you.  As if somehow Jesus is just a Christian thing, but others are just fine in their own walks.  Not something ever endorsed  by orthodox Christianity that I'm aware of. 

Many Christians don't see the problem with the emerging post-Western  revolution, since they've all but admitted they will acquiesce, compromise and surrender whenever the new modernist world demands.  But those who would resist see the obvious problem and the gathering storm clouds. They can already see the catastrophic body count and endless suffering this revolution has brought. 

Why so many Christians are quickly jettisoning the entire Christian Western tradition, Christian culture, Christian values, and even other Christians, is something I can't guess.  Whether they secretly no longer believe, or they simply weren't prepared for a movement of intolerance and crushing oppression that will happily fire you and ruin you if you don't conform, I don't know.  My guess is that anyone Mark's age or older never imagined we'd be in a nation where people are called upon to be fired for insisting men can't have babies.  

In any event, I just know we're watching a movement making it clear - nakedly, painfully, obviously clear - that it wants the heritage of the entire Christian Faith and Christian West to be burned to the ground.  If it must convince us that all Whites are racists and can only be redeemed by the saving blood of the Leftist State, so be it.  Whatever the reason or whatever the tactics, the goals are more and more apparent.  

What is equally obvious is what has always been obvious since biblical times: Whenever someone comes in with the latest Asherah pole, you can bet the majority of believers will find ways to keep one foot in the Temple, and one foot at the base El's consort. Slick arguments that insist all true believers should bow before Asherah were doubtlessly no different than those thousands of years later. 

Happy National Sons Day!

 And a chance to gloat.  Here is a recent picture:

We don't have as many group photos anymore, owing to schedules and life and all.  Still, they try to get together and spend time with the brothers and family when they can.   This was obviously Christmas morning.  It was also the waning days of Covid Era living.  We would all get Covid over the next week or so.  In fact, it's likely we had it then.  But within a few weeks, it would be back to normal.  They would all trim beards (except the youngest), get haircuts, and get back to life in a semi-normal way.

They do make us proud. I've gone on about why in other posts, so I won't repeat it all here.  Our guess is that once our second oldest moves out after the wedding, barring catastrophic world events, the other two older brothers will quickly follow.  Even if they believe it's smart to stay home and amass a fair savings, they will no doubt get the itch once their brother moves on.  They've already said they will stagger moving out, to mitigate the impact on their youngest.  But I'm sure they will move out in the not too distant once those wedding bells have tolled.

To be honest, with all the games or fun trips or special events we've experienced with them over the years, I'll miss the regular talks the most.  We've been blessed by sons who actually seem to value talking with ol'mom and dad.  At times it's just one son coming to us to talk, but it's often the team of them. Sometimes it's trivial: Discussing the evolution of the Star Wars franchise, or comparing Potter and Frodo, or musing on what made The Heiress or The Third Man such compelling films to the eyes of 21st Century teens weaned on endless Marvel movies.  

Other times it's theology and religion, or history, or science, or current events.  That's when the discussions can get pretty heated.  Despite media attempts to the contrary, however, they never imagined differences in opinion should negate family relations.  And for that, we're thankful.  While we pray that we'll always continue to get together, the easy availability of fellowship and conversations we've had with the boys over the years will no doubt be a thing we will miss.  

Nonetheless, here's to our sons on this National Sons Day.  If we had nothing else in life but the boys, we'd consider ourselves abundantly blessed by God.  

Musings on the war in Ukraine

The following are just random thoughts and observations from watching and listening to things.  It in no way represents some back room informed list of opinions.  Just what I know of history, of current events, and from getting whatever information I can get.  Some of it is from my sons' observations, which I have come to value as much as any pundits on the news.  In no particular order: 

No matter how you slice or dice it, Putin and Russia are the bad guys. You don't invade to conquer, killing innocents in the process, and not be the bad guy.  

We who are opposed to Russia are fighting to defend a dying West eager to commit suicide.  

After years of hearing how stupid and wrong America was for villainizing all Japanese or Germans in WWI or WWII, or for Americans going after Iranian Americans during the hostage crisis, we're once again seeing the same dogs go back to the vomit and push for the same attitude against 'Russians", both here and abroad.  

Zelenski is a hero in the same way De Gaulle was a hero.  He's shown courage, and his stalwart opposition to the invasion is to be commended, but many of the things he stands for are the very things conservatives despise and see as poison in the Western bloodstream.

The anti-Russian alliance has pretty much played most of its cards.  Short of military intervention, we've boycotted, banned and blocked financially and corporately.  If it doesn't work, we'll have to wait and see what Putin will do next, putting the ball back in his court.

Anti-war sentiment in Russia is more than many expected.

With that said, many anti-war Russians appear like Zelenski: they want a Russia like the rest of Europe, no war, just party about and whatever happens to the nation's heritage is of little consequence. 

Exactly why Putin began all this with only a couple hundred thousand total troops is beyond me.  One typically doesn't overrun a nation like Ukraine with a force like that.

We're likely getting little of the actual facts, since the divisions here at home mandate spin put on any news in order to avoid making this or that side look bad. 

Obama's "the Cold War is calling" retort is now one of the most boneheaded and disastrous statements in the last fifty years. 

It's more than one president's fault, but we can't ignore the obvious impact President Biden's Afghanistan debacle had in encouraging Putin.  

Resistance from Ukraine and its Dancing With the Stars president was probably more than Putin expected.  Just like some other B-Movie actor Russia underestimated a few decades ago. 

China has been rather vague about things, and that could make a big difference for Putin's overall plans. 

In addition to deflecting blame from chosen political parties, expect the media to find ways to insert the narrative of 'evil [White] West vs. rest of oppressed, discriminated against world, at home and abroad, people.' 

President Biden has shown more resolve than many - including Putin - likely imagined.  That's not to say he's been perfect, but he has acted more swiftly and decisively than many critics (like me) imagined he would. 

There are probably two outcomes from this:  If Putin and Russia are defeated because of a vast, global conspiracy of multi-billion dollar corporations acting in tandem with various national governments, expect that to remain in their minds the next time someone pops up they want to conspire to destroy (ahem, trucking protesters or anyone holding to the heritage or traditions of the Christian West)

If Putin ends up winning and somehow Russia emerges with a victory, on the other hand, expect more countries to go old school when it comes to those rascally neighbors across the border. With the global corporations figuring how they can capitalize on such a development. 

In just a few days, the world has shifted in a way it took two years to shift under Covid, and ten years since the Obama revolution.  That's a lot of shifting in barely more than a decade.  Whatever happens, things won't be the same again. 

In case you need a refresher

 Here is a nice little visual history of the changing borders of Europe over the years:

I always loved maps, and this is the sort of think that strikes my fancy.  Granted you could possibly quibble over this or that, but the broader point remains.  Things have changed a bit over the years.

The main reason it's being passed around is to rub Russia's nose in its state of affairs ages ago when Poland and other regions were quite established.  Fair enough.  

But notice something else.  Note the Mongols, then the Ottomans.  Swing west to the Iberian Peninsula in the early years.  We forget - purposely or otherwise - that the first centuries of European history saw Europe with its back against the wall, fending off one invasion after another. 

Even when the early colonies in America were being established in the 17th Century, the Ottomans remained in south central Europe, chomping at the bit for a chance to break through and subdue that land mass Muslims have been eyeing for centuries.  

By the 18th Century the scales tipped and Europe emerged as the clear dominant force in the world.  Europe would soon gobble up much of the globe over the next century or two.  The question is, did those other regions suddenly see the light and decide how wrong it was that their ancestors spent so much time trying to break across the European borders?  Or was the last couple centuries merely a temporary setback?  I'm sure generations of Europeans and Americans not yet born hope we get the right answer to those questions. 

What he said

It appears to be a show of sorts, and much of the video is the rest of the episode involving discussion panels and what have you.  Don't know who he is or anything about him.  But in this at least, he hits the nail on the head.  In all honesty, his accent - as any accent from the British Isles will do for American ears - gives him a +10 on the awesome meter. But beyond that, he's honest and he's right.  We're watching the end of the Western tradition because we took freedom for granted and weren't paying attention.  Watch it through - the first part is the main part to get a good rundown on the state of affairs today.

A Happy Annivesrary to my lovely wife

Here is a collage I did a couple years ago for our anniversary.  I posted it on Facebook, which I used to do more than now:

It was well received and people spoke well of it.  It was a collection of pictures dating to right before I met her (top left) to, in no particular order, the most recent at that time (center top).   Since that was a few years ago, I thought I would update the collection with some more pictures of the longsuffering Mrs. Griffey:

It wasn't easy finding pictures because Covid and all.  But it works.  Except for the top left (one I've always liked - from the first night after we moved to Louisville in 1993), they're all recent, from the last date we had right before Covid to a few different outings we've been able to enjoy in the midst of the crazy.   

This being our 29th Anniversary, we didn't plan much.  For our 25th, our boys pulled their resources and sent us to a nearby resort hotel, built in the manner of a castle, in the northern Ohio woodlands.  I posted a few picks here.  It being February in Ohio (in Florida, that means 70s and a cool, gentle breeze),  we got snowed in while there.  But what a beautiful place to be snowed in.  The room had a high tower you could ascend by way of a spiral staircase.  Sitting up there and looking out at the snow covered hills while having a small breakfast and a fireplace going was as atmospheric as it comes. 

For this time, they surprised us with an overnight stay at a local Bed and Breakfast.  It was going to be a smaller room, since it was only one night.  As fortune would have it, they were unable to get the previous guests to leave on time, and weren't ready for us.  therefore they gave us their big suite for the same cost - plus a complementary bottle of champagne for our troubles.  Along with a wine basket the boys put together, we enjoyed our first real outing since March, 2020.  

The other part of their gift (three other wine bottles not showing)

Next year will be the big year, in which we celebrate three decades together. Right now it will also be at least one wedding for one of our sons.  And who knows what else.  But it was a nice time, a pleasant time, even as the world seems to be going crazy.  Sometimes getting away from the crazy isn't bad. 

The unbearable existence of white people

Yep, even when it comes to board games.  Somewhere, within the last hundred years, we decided that European and American civilization have no right to exist.  That includes anything connected with Caucasians.  Much less Christianity.  

African, Chinese, Japanese,  Aztec, pre-Columbian American, Mongolian, Indonesia, Indian, Hindu, Muslim, and an endless list not-Caucasian, not-Christian, not-European/American cultures have every right to exist.  They are to be celebrated and embraced, honored and respected without exception.  But that does not apply to anything north of the Mediterranean or west of the Urals.  

I've said before how I remember like it was yesterday the first time I heard the term WASP described.  It was fourth grade.  That's about 1976/1977.  It was a dark time in American history when we were a WASP  (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) nation, or so we learned that day.  Then came that first ray of light when Catholic John Kennedy was elected president, breaking the stranglehold that those/us WASPs had on our nation.  Glory be it was a new era of possibilities. 

More than one Catholic I've known over the years accepts that narrative. Heck, many still do.  Was a time when America was the nation of bigotry and prejudice, discrimination and oppression in those old Protestant majority days.  But we became much better that November in 1960. 

Problem?  Obviously the problem is plain to see.  It took no time at all to swap the P with C, for generic Christian.  By the late 70s it was time to ditch the hold that old Judeo-Christian values and beliefs had on our society.  By the late  80s, the J-word and Christianity were to be seen, not heard.  

Same with the AS part of WASP.  As the P gave way to C, so the AS eventually merged with Europeans in general and finally - as today - simply White.  So now it's the deplorable WC that is a blight on our nation, and on the Western tradition as a whole. If it's White it's evil.  And you can bet your grandma's uncle that any form of evil thinking today, any bigotry or opposition to the pure faith of modernity, is rooted in Christianity somewhere.  Christianity quickly became the only purely evil religion in a world of fake and fictional, but often honorable, religious beliefs.

That this anti-white racism and anti-Christian bigotry is driven by whites and Christians as much as anyone is beside the point.  Others are beginning to warm up to the trend. Plenty of minorities and activists from around the world are starting to notice what the article points out: That "whites" make up a decidedly small part of the global population, with serious Christian believers only slightly more numerous.  

Again, our grandchildren will get what we deserve.  From this the Faith will no doubt survive, and a remnant will keep the Gospel message alive, even after the world has forgotten  gothic cathedrals and Shakespeare and Mozart and Mt. Rushmore.  I have no doubt the Faith will grow in other parts of the world, and it will go as the Holy Spirit will lead.  Just as it has for 2000 years.  

But it took our generation of believers, including Catholics, to conclude that the Holy Spirit must have taken a thousand year vacation from which we are only now beginning to return.  The great blunder of God was allowing the Church to grow and develop in this one civilization that, due to its ethnic and religious heritage, never should have existed in the first place. 

I know that sounds over the top.  But please find me examples of modern rhetoric about America and the West and Christianity and Caucasians to show we're I'm wrong.  

I know enough about Eastern European affairs

To know I know little about Eastern European affairs.  And that includes the tangled mess that is Russian History.  One could spend a lifetime studying that monster and you'd still only scratch the surface. 

My chief problem is the divisiveness that tends to dumb down discourse.  You get a million experts running around and calling down hellfire on this or that topic.   Naturally I defer to those who are in Russia, or Ukraine.  But even then, only with caution.  It's not like going east will suddenly make you honest or always right.  Still, I've had the chance to befriend several over the years who call east of the Danube their home, and it's been a revelation to be sure. 

When I was in graduate school, one of our best friends was a fellow named Alexander and his wife, Luba.  He was from Russia, she was from Ukraine.  It was then I learned the most important of all lessons: never say a Ukrainian is Russian.  Their perspectives on life in the USSR, even in its waning days, was an education to be sure. 

Likewise, in my years with the Orthodox Church I had the chance to meet and talk to many from those regions: Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.  Again, it was an eye opener.  My favorite was a Romanian professor who often spoke about his life in the Soviet and post-Soviet system.  He eventually immigrated to the US in the late 1990s.  He also had perspectives about the increase of Muslim immigration and the designs of the Russian government in these post-Cold War years. 

In any event, like those from the Middle East we became friends with during those years, I learned the stories we are told in America are seriously deficient when it comes to what people in other parts of the world see.  That may always be the case.  It's likely they don't get being American.  But it's enough to know most of the punditry and talking points is likely missing big pieces of the puzzle. 

Hence this:

Well, if you have any knowledge at all of the Russian Orthodox Church, you wouldn't be shocked in the least.  Much less disappointed.  It would make perfect sense, as many Orthodox Christians outside the dominant circle of Russian Orthodoxy often lament. Even those Russian Orthodox struggle with the church's allegiance with the State in light of the need to protect the Church against those modernist forces that would happily see the Church put back in the chains  it wore during the Soviet era.  It isn't simple, and likely shouldn't be commented on as quickly as I believe the stories were wanting us to. 

In fact, I can't help but think part of what Deacon Greydanus sees is based on that modern progressive narrative that assumes the very best in anyone except those in my own circle of neighbors.  That is, 'the East' isn't us, therefore he sees it through those modern, progressive rose color lenses.  Which is why it's shocking that things may be as complex anywhere else in the world as we should admit they really are here.  But that's for another post.  For now, I'm shocked that he's so disappointed if he knows enough about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church to think he should be disappointed.

Therefore, during this time I'll keep trying to focus on the prayers for peace, and those who are clearly trying to find ways to mitigate the suffering and seek paths toward realistic ends to the conflict.  I will ignore those who talk like experts when their talking makes it clear they're anything but experts.

I can play this too

 

Well, those liberals and leftists sure picked a bad week to act like the greatest threat to freedom in the world was those fascist Freedom Truckers.  See how easy it is?  If you're going to exploit the suffering of other to score cheap points, please do so in a way that's not so easily turned back on you.  Basic partisan punditry 101.