Thank goodness Christians aren't the majority in Iraq

Otherwise things could be even worse than this.  Like Tavis Smiley said, Christians are more violent than Muslims, going around murdering people, gunning people down, blowing them up every day.  So the fact that concrete walls have to be built around churches in Iraq because of the rash of killings and violence against Christians by Muslims just shows, according to Smileyland, how bad it would be if Christians were in charge.

There's cool

Then there's awesome cool.  A page of awesome photos of awesome things caught in the height of their awesomeness.  Enjoy.

US Navy upsets Iran

Now, someone please tell me why we are supposed to care. I mean really, is it down to this?  Apparently, the US Navy uses the term "Arabian Gulf", rather than the "Persian Gulf".  Why? I don't know.  But this has, according to The Lookout, caused a certain level of anger in some Iranian circles.  What I find amusing in the story is how it recounts other times the Arab world has snapped and we've blinked.  The Arab world.  We're not talking about Muslim Americans.  We're talking about the Arab world.  Where religious minorities are still persecuted, where Christians are still being executed, murdered, imprisoned, and given death sentences.  Where Westerners still travel in fear of their safety. Were tens of millions of Muslims support terrorism and the unchecked slaughter of Western Infidels.  Where thousands of hotheads from across the spectrum are emerging who seek to kill as many Americans as possible.   Yeah, that Arab world.  And it snaps its fingers, and we jump.  Anyone out there still thinking the West isn't plummeting like an anvil in a Road Runner cartoon?

Making the yuletide gay

An article reporting the bitter divisions within the gay rights movement, especially as it centers on the proper group worthy to step into the location of Harvey Milk's former headquarters.  Surreal to be sure.  One of those 'so that's where our civilization will be in another hundred years' moments.  Surreal indeed.

In defense of Robert McCarthy

Before we begin, a prize is being offered for the person who can tell if this piece from the Associated Press is an editorial, or a news story. 

Now, who the heck is Robert McCarthy?  According to the AP story, he's a 70 year old man who expressed reservations about a new cemetery in his town that is owned and run by Sufi Muslims.  Big, big mistake.  After weeks of mass killings by Muslims in the Islamic world, failed bomb plots by Muslims here at home, widespread persecution of religious minorities by Muslims in Muslim countries, the post-modern Left has been itching for a story to turn everything back to the Liberal mantra that white, European and American heterosexual Christian men are the only incarnation of evil and the singular cause of all human suffering in the world.

Mr. McCarthy, they thank you.  Here is our first introduction in the piece to ol'Robert:

The Sufis had followed proper procedures and received burial permits. But that didn't deter town Supervisor Robert McCarthy from calling the graves illegal and suggesting the bodies might have to be disinterred. "You can't just bury Grandma in the backyard under the picnic table," he said.

We are then told that he "became a poster child for Muslim-bashing everywhere. MSNBC host Keith Olbermann denounced him as "worst person in the world." Satirist Stephen Colbert direly warned viewers about Muslim vampire "sleeper-in-coffin-cells" infiltrating the Catskills."

Now, the first thing that leaps out at me is, as of now, I have no clue who this 'poster child for Muslim-bashing' is.  Second, I have no idea why he is objecting to the graves in the cemetery.  Only that he is.  Of course, being a good leftist propaganda piece, what I'm supposed to think of Robert is a foregone conclusion: Guilty as not charged.

Anyway, we move on.  We are informed that locals "watched in horror" as their town was labeled backward, Islamaphobic, and ignorant.  Of course that those who labeled the entire town this, or even McCarthy this, based on a single sentence could have been the problem isn't even considered by the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda the Associated Press. Anyway, on we go.

We are treated with a string of quotes from locals expressing how "sickened" they were by this brazen display of Islamaphobic bigotry and hate.  This brazen display:

You can't just bury Grandma in the backyard under the picnic table

Which, of course, should prove to anyone that the Islamaphobia we all hear about that is just percolating under the American landscape is alive and real and living in small town America.

Over the next few weeks, the piece tells us  that "a spirited, almost intoxicating sense of mission seemed to surge through Sidney, 150 miles north of New York City. Though the town Board of Supervisors hastily dropped the cemetery issue, it had set in motion something it couldn't contain. People reached out, not only to Sufis, but to each other. They set up websites, bonded on Facebook, launched petitions to impeach McCarthy and investigate town government."

Wow, that's exciting!  How inspiring!  How wonderful!  Especially that last part, about trying to get him impeached.  After all, let's not forget that he said:

You can't just bury Grandma in the backyard under the picnic table

And yet, I still don't know anything else.  I don't know why he said it.  I don't know the context.  Was he worried about something, had some ordinance been violated?  Was their a public safety concern?  No mention of the usual anti-Islamic rhetoric (unless Grandma is code for something I'm unaware of).  Nothing so far at least that suggests anything other than a desire to halt the burials in a new cemetery.

At the meeting to demand his resignation, and apology, or impeachment, or whatever, we are told that "they trekked to the Sufi center eight miles outside town, to sip tea with the sheik, to vow that Sidney, population 6,000, will be in the spotlight again, this time as a shining example of tolerance and understanding."

Get that?  A shining example of tolerance and understanding.  Again, bonus prize for the reader who can tell if this is an editorial or a news story.  But then there is a line break.  A small, black line tells us these things happened, and now we are in the here and now, the reason why this story found a reason to be told today, now (as opposed to my guess that the media was desperate to whip up the old 'evil American Racists' meme).

We are invited to breakfast at a local diner.  There, the scene is set.  On one side we are shown the McCarthy supporters:

"regulars, including a core group of McCarthy supporters, meet every morning for breakfast. These days, the main topic of conversation has been, as one man jokingly put it, "the turbans on top of the hill.""

We are then introduced to Hass Hass,  who according to the propaganda piece is "the chief spokesman for the Sufis and chief thorn in McCarthy's side."  We are told that Hass:

"seems to be everywhere — talking with national media, writing letters to town leaders and state officials, attending meetings of the newly formed "Concerned Citizens for Responsible Sidney Government," filing freedom of information requests. His unruffled manner and calm, authoritative voice have captivated the crowd as he persistently confronts McCarthy with the facts and the law."

Calm, unruffled, authoritative?  Wow, what a man.  Is the AP reporter wanting to marry him or something? You can't help but imagine Gergory Peck playing his life story.  But let's hold up for Mr. Peck, we'll see him later.  Right now, back to the glowing recommendation of Mr. Hass.  In addition to his personal charm, it is also revealed that he is a "captain of the local ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, and roofing contractor", and that because of this, "Hass was already a familiar face in town. Now, almost overnight, he has become a community leader with many urging him to run against McCarthy in the next election."

Rock star, local style.  The scene continues to unfold.  A waitress at the restaurant has invited Mr. Hass over because she has grown worried due to the Islamaphobic conversations she is hearing that include such oldies as "all Muslims are terrorists, that the Sufis have pictures of Osama Bin Laden at their center, that the town would be better off if they dug up their graves and left."  She is quoted as saying, " If ever there was a time to shatter caricatures and prejudices, it was right here, right now."  No, strike that.  She wasn't quoted.  It was not a quote, nor did she say it.  We are told without quotes that she 'thought' it.  How the AP writer knew this is beyond me.  If she said it, why not quote her?  If she didn't say it, what little magical crystal ball of ESP does this writer possess?

Well, the showdown comes when Mr. Hass sits down across from McCarthy supporter Bill Howes.   Mr. Howes wears boots and a ball cap.  He 'grunts' at Mr. Hass when he sits down.  Grunts don't ya know.  They banter about sports and tell racy jokes, but things go south as the conversation turns to McCarthy. Howe defends McCarthy on the grounds that it's about more than just the whole cemetery issue.  Hass fires back that McCarthy "told reporters all over the country that what we did was illegal, and it wasn't."  Since the piece doesn't say if McCarthy was right or not, apart from saying that the papers were filed in proper order, we have to assume Hass has the point here. 

At that, we see Howe get up, excuse himself, and move to another table.  Then the story says that  "later, he will boast about having breakfast with "those Muslim guys" and will tell people how nice they seemed. But he has no plans to take up Hass' invitation to visit with the sheik."   I assume the reporter witnessed all of this.  The reporter, Helen O'Neil, actually saw him going around and saying this, and was also informed by Howe that he has no intentions of visiting the sheik.

What happens next?  Well, the story unfolds with Hass gathering around himself a group of rustic admirers, and enlightening them on the reasons for his embracing the Sufi faith.  Then we get to see a day in the life of Mr. Hass, in which he travels back roads checking on roofing jobs, stopping to check out the health of elderly farmers and their cows, and just generally getting warm and happy greetings from everyone.  Except one place, and that is  the Jess F. Howes building supply store in Sidney Center.  The reason for the lukewarm reception appears to be that "[e]arlier in the year, Hass says, he asked the owners to remove offensive Muslim jokes scattered on the counter. They did, but he felt it was done reluctantly. Now Hass refuses to shop there."

Again, no real evidence they did so, just Hass's testimony that they had.  And his testimony that it was done reluctantly.   But what the heck, that's good enough.  Just the name Howes suggests a relation to that other grunting fellow we met earlier.  Plus, when asked for a comment, a man behind a glass counter gives 'a phony name' and 'snaps' a no comment response.  Snaps.  Grunts.  Boy, what an ineloquent place.  No wonder so many people called the town ignorant.

Then comes another page break with a line, showing us that the story is about to go a different direction.  Next, we'll lean about the Sufi community, where it came from, and what happened that caused the events that brought the good town of Sydney onto a map I've never heard of despite my fondness of following the media. This is just too much fun to ignore, and I want to milk it for everything it's worth, because believe it or not there's a big HUGE lesson to  be learned in all of this.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood continues on its quest

To help post-modern values become the one thing capable of making Nazi Germany look good.  Lowering the age of sexual consent in Peru?  Well done.  Of course it shouldn't be surprising.  For all the fusing and whining we do about the contempt for human life, the perversity and decadence, the raw exploitation of human beings as cattle for our own satisfaction we see in post-modern values, that's what comes of a society that throws off the yoke of Christian morality.  I know, folks will point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, witch burnings, and everything else to prove it happened in Christianity, too.

But it shows that getting rid of religion is no magic pill, don't it.  And we forget that while Christians, and sometimes even the Church, did such things, they were often against what the official teachings of the faith pronounced.  If some Christians chose to own slaves, there were many others who said that was wrong because of the faith.  If some bishops lived off the backs of the medieval peasant, there were others who pointed out that such living was contrary to the Gospel.

The problem with stories like this, lowering the age of sexual consent so those hot young 14 year olds can be fair game, it fits with the morals and principles of the movement.  If Christians would have done such things, it would have been against the teachings of the faith.  When post-moderns do such things, increasingly it appears to be in keeping with the teachings of the post-modern faith.  And that fits right in line with pining for a world that embraces a pre-Christian pagan ideal. 

This, of course, is what made the Nazis look so bad.  Nazism wasn't pure evil because it taught tolerance and love but produced a crop of madmen who did such horrible things.  Nazism became the incarnation of pure evil because the madmen were acting exactly as the Nazi philosophy dictated they act.  Something that is food for thought as we lurch ever closer to a society dominated by the post-modern, post-Christian age.

Why Jesus pointed to a child

3 year old Adam, d. 10/31/2010

When he told us how to be.  Grab a box of tissues, you'll need them.  The story references the death of little Adam, a boy murdered in the Baghdad massacre of Christians that happened about a month ago.  It is the grace of God in a child, in whose lips God most often perfects praise, against one of the purest incarnations of hellish evil this world has yet to produce.  The story attempts to extract a moral message from young Adam's senseless death at the hands of brutal killers.  As much as I'm all for finding ways in which we can properly confront the evil of terrorism, or even the misdirected decisions we can make in fighting evil, I've always been a little hesitant to use the death of a child to drive home the point.  Whatever conclusions about the culture of death, America's response to terrorism, the reality of Islamic terrorism, or anything else, I prefer to just sit back and marvel at that poor young flower of a child whose life was cut so short, who had to die in such a way amidst such violence and hatred, and how he exemplified, for a brief flicker of a moment, what God meant when he said,  "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." 

Adam, may you and your parents, who you saw murdered, rest in the peace of God and find the love and care that this world did not provide.

America's Novice in Chief smells the coffee

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. Henry IV, Part 2; Act 3

America's President, one President Barack Obama, is having troubles.  Poll numbers are down, general pessimism is up, and a growing number of Americans are starting to get the sneaky feeling that President Obama doesn't know what he is doing.  This comes hard on the heels of a much publicized round of international failures, followed by increasingly dour appraisals of his ability to control his own party.  In addition, his decision to bring in the Big Dog, the former finagler in chief himself, Bill Clinton, only compounded the notion that President Obama is losing control and losing it fast.  His rather off the cuff excuse for bolting and letting Clinton make love to the media - that he had kept his wife waiting - fell as flat as my savings account numbers. 

In all, this is what you get when you elect a person based on slick campaigning and media agendas.  We knew before he was inaugurated that the race card would be played with gusto in order to force the hands of his opponents. A tactic that embittered many independents.  We knew that if you had coached a season of little league baseball, you had more leadership experience than Barrack Obama had.  But he got in anyway, in no small part because of the continually dismal track record of Senator McCain when it comes to presidential runs. 

But it is what it is.  He's the president, and with each passing day it grows clearer that he is losing control.  He can still regain it, of course.  But leadership must be learned, and at the end of the day, some have it and some don't.  Reagan, Clinton, Roosevelt, Truman - like'em or hate'em, had leadership.  They got things done.  You may disagree with their agendas, but they got their agendas through.  Folks like to compare Obama's numbers with Reagan's numbers of the same time period.  But for all the angst of 1982, nobody doubted that Reagan could lead.  Just getting his budge through a hostile congress proved that. They simply doubted where his leadership was taking us.  1984 showed they decided it took us in the right direction.

Those who can't lead on the other hand - Ford, Carter, GHW Bush - eventually fall by the wayside and are forgotten by history.  For more than anything, the office of the President is really Leader in Chief.  Something I have a feeling President Obama is only now beginning to realize.

Where's the Islamaphobia?

GetReligion dares to ask the question, where exactly is the wave of Islamaphobic hate and violence in America?  Citing a Boston Globe piece that actually points out hate crimes against Jews tops the scale, with hate crimes against Catholics and Protestants only half of that reported against Muslims, Mollie Ziegler suggests we might have it all wrong.  Instead of focusing on all the anti-Muslim violence and hate, perhaps the story should be that a country at war with mass murderers who have killed thousands of innocent American in the name of Islam, has actually shown restraint.  Despite over 300 million citizens, the amount of violence has been almost non existent.  The best part is the stats from the Globe piece:

Year after year, American Jews are far more likely to be the victims of religious hate crime than members of any other group. That was true even in 2001, by far the worst year for anti-Muslim incidents, when 481 were reported — less than half of the 1,042 anti-Jewish crimes tabulated by the FBI the same year.
Does all this mean that America is in reality a hotbed of anti-Semitism? Would Time’s cover have been closer to the mark if it had asked: “Is America Judeophobic?”
Of course not. Even one hate crime is one too many, but in a nation of 300 million, all of the religious-based hate crimes added together amount to less than a drop in the bucket. This is not to minimize the 964 hate crimes perpetrated against Jews last year, or those carried out against Muslims (128), Catholics (55), or Protestants (40). Some of those attacks were especially shocking or destructive; all of them should be punished. But surely the most obvious takeaway from the FBI’s statistics is not that anti-religious hate crimes are so frequent in America. It is that they are so rare.

And provided by a commenter to the article:

As Jacoby noted, by far the all-time high for anti-Muslim “incidents” (the government’s term) was 2001. That year, there were 481 such incidents reported to the feds by law-enforcement agencies, encompassing 546 separate offenses. But even in the wake of 9/11, the number of those that were murders was zero. The number of aggravated assaults (i.e., actual violence): 27.
By far the most common offense (296) fell into the nebulous category of “intimidation.” Mostly that means “talk” — words exchanged that someone decides to report, name-calling in the course of a dispute, that sort of thing. Another 123 offenses were vandalism — often, graffiti. Nasty? Sure. A crime wave? Hardly.
That, in a nation of (then) around 280 million, in a year with 11.8 million crimes. Do the math.

This is especially important when set in juxtaposition to the continual stream of stories from countries across the Islamic world demonstrating oppression, persecution, violence, and mass killings against religious minorities - particularly Christians.  As well as the studies and surveys that have done nothing other than show that Muslims by the tens of millions still support terrorism and the unrestrained killing of Westerners and Christians.

I know it's from our 'America Sucks' mentality we have developed over the last few generations.  But perhaps it's time to turn the lens around and see the cup half full.  That despite it all, despite the constant condemnations from our media, academia, pop culture vendors, and international community, you'd be hard pressed to find a more tolerant, accepting nation than ours.

Bill Clinton's full time lovers

That would be the media.  This AP piece covering Bill Clinton's 'improptu' press briefing in support of President Obama's tax deal, reads like the diary of a groupie.  At any moment you expect the article to break out in hymns of praise and thanksgiving.  This, of course, has been the biggest aid to Clinton's legacy. 

IMHO, one of the biggest problems America has is the legacy of two ineffective presidents back to back who were both reelected for two terms.  To paraphrase the late William F. Buckley, George W. Bush got it, he just didn't know what to do about it.  And Bill Clinton got it, but only cared as long as it didn't blow up in our face while he was president.  Most of the problems that GW Bush failed to resolve were sewn and nurtured during the Clinton years.  Thanks to a partisan media and the lack of alternate news sources the picture of Clinton's awesomeness was pressed on the American mind.  In addition, the increasing advocacy of American academia gives a sense of depth to the Clinton worship.  Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding.  Contrary to Pop Narratives, things weren't great until 2001.  Things were already beginning to unravel by the end of the 1990s, with warnings of the impending crisis being sounded as early as 1998.  By September 11, 2001, it should have been clear that serious lapses in priorities and oversight had taken place in the years leading up to that fateful day.

But don't expect the press to ever, ever point that out.

You might want to prepare yourself

But it looks like The Hasselhoffs was canceled after just two episodes.  How such quality programming fails to garner an audience is beyond me.  Especially when we're dealing with a fellow who helped bring about an end to the Cold War.  Well I won't let the fickle shallowness of the viewing public keep a good man down.  For all that the world owes him, here is a fitting tribute to the man whose latest creative endeavor was prematurely taken from us, and a glimpse of what could have been:

Understanding Quantitative Easing

And other strange economic developments. So I said blogging would be light this weekend unless something newsworthy came up?  Well, something did.  Over at Mark Shea's blog, he posted this little video explaining Quantitative Easing.  It's both hilarious and terrifying at the same time.  If you're like me, and your eyes glaze over when politicians and financial analysts explain what is happening in our economy, then this will help.  Mind you, because I am not a financial analyst I can't vouch for the accuracy of the video.  But there is little in its explanations that don't seem to line up with my rather meat and potatoes understanding of events over the past decade or so.   That at least gives it a little credibility.   (FYI there is a little language in it if you know what I mean)

Optical illusions for your viewing pleasure

Don't plan on being around much over the weekend.  So I thought I'd link to this most splendid page of illusions guaranteed to blow your mind.  I'm working up a first post for a series I'm kicking around.  It will look on just why I became Catholic.  It certainly wasn't for the big pay checks.  And this time of year I'm keenly aware of the sacrifice my family has made as we came back to the Catholic Faith.  So I'll be posting a little here and there over the coming months, starting with a few posts on Sola Scriptura and how it impacted me as a Protestant.  Others will follow.  If something earth shattering should happen, like our political leaders do something to help the average American and stopping focusing 99% of their attention on what happens to 1% of the population, I might jump on and throw out a thought.  Or if we get more snow than what we've had so far, which is just enough to make things messy, but not enough to make them pretty. 

In the meantime, spread the word kiddies.  Let five people know about my blog between now and when I'm back (probably around Monday).  I'm starting to get to know some of you, and the stats show a growing number of regular guests - which is wonderful!  Great comments and insights that get me to thinking.  I'm probably the one coming out on top in terms of what I'm getting back from you.  Thanks for coming by, and there will be more eclectic I think it was? musings of mine before you know it!

Also, I might have the opportunity of a really swell position at a local publisher.  That would be a royally awesome development, so prayers are requested. Otherwise, blessings and joy and comfort and tidings to you this Advent season, and see you all soon. TTFN

Trashing Christian monuments in England

It shouldn't be surprising that a country whose celebrities and icons spend so much time trashing Christianity would produce this little act.  It's nothing on one hand.  A tree venerated for centuries by Christians.  That sort of symbolic pilgrim stuff that our modern elites and super smart types typically snort at in derision.  But why chop it down?  Why destroy it?  Maybe it wasn't done just because it was Christian.  But at best, it was done despite it being a Christian monument.  And that's disturbing enough.  Certainly it's no surprise, England being what it's become.

More news from the Religion of Peace

In Iran, a Christian pastor has been given the death sentence for renouncing Islam.  Meanwhile, bishops from Iraq are speaking out about the violence against Christians in that country.  And in Turkey, while some are trying to reach out in light of past atrocities committed against neighboring Christians, others are keeping to the time honored practice of foot on neck.  Yep.  That's why I'm so glad we spend so much time focused on the real problem in our world, American and European Islamaphobic bigotry.  Solve that, and everything else should be hunky-dory.

A new planet where it shouldn't be

Fun story about astronomers discovering yet another planet around a distant sun.  I remember hearing the news a couple years ago that they finally had images of planets orbiting another sun.  Cool stuff.  The planets were huge, and there were a couple theories that popped up explaining how those planets could form.  Now a fourth planet has peeped out, and unfortunately neither theory can explain its existence.  That's why I am fascinated by science, but always cognisant of the fact that 500 years from now, they'll be laughing at most of what we thought was true.

On the other hand, maybe Voyage of the Dawn Treader is all of that and a bag of chips

According to Randy Sly over at Catholic Online, whatever changes were made were small potatoes next to the finished product.  I dunno.  We'll have to see.  I was somewhat impressed by the first one, less so by the second.  He, like many, emphasizes the sweeping scenic opportunities for the CGI team.  Count me as one who is about 1/3 impressed by movies that have sweeping CGI effects.  When done will, with restraint and integrated into a real, material film, they can shine - Titanic, Jurassic Park.  But if there is just CGI after CGI, eventually it tells. 

After about a 10 year hiatus, I picked up Raiders of the Lost Ark and watched it with one of my boys a few weeks ago.  I was absolutely gobsmacked by how great it was.  At the time of its release in 1981, it was a fabulous adventure romp.  But something about watching it this time made me feel it rose head and shoulders above anything else today.  How?  That was thirty years ago, limited special effects, limits on stunts and action scenes.  How could that feel so much better than Return of the King or Spiderman 2?  Wasn't the fight between Dr. Octopus and Spiderman beyond anything Indiana Jones could do? 

Then it hit me.  Because it was real.  It was a movie, sure.  But it was real.  Those were real actors fighting, or at least pretending to.  It hit me that the movie felt so much richer and deeper because of what it compares to now.  When Indiana fights the brawny soldier among the whirling propeller blades of the flying wing, those are real guys doing the fighting.  When Spidey and Doc Oc are fighting, sometimes it's real actors in front of blue screens, and sometimes its CGI effects.  Suddenly, what was once just pretend and make believe actually became more real.  And Raiders was the better for it.

So if the biggest complement for Voyage becomes 'look at the cool CGI scenery', I'm afraid that won't move me.  After all, Avatar was, for all the hyperhype, just a giant video game with occasional human interaction.  I could get the same feeling watching my boys play a PlayStation game. We'll have to see.

Because Indonesia proves how tolerant the Muslim world is

It's been said the worst thing Hitler did was raise the bar on evil.  If you aren't building death camps and exterminating people by the millions, you're not really evil.  Likewise, it appears that 9/11 had the same effect on our perceptions of Islam.  If Muslims aren't hijacking jets and flying them into skyscrapers filled with thousands of innocent people, they must be moderates.  So I've heard time and again how the bulk of the Muslim world is just packed with moderates wanting to embrace our values.  Indonesia is frequently cited as a stellar example of enlightened Islamic civilization.  And yet this is not the first time stories of persecution, violence, and attacks against Christians have surfaced. 

To their credit, the authorities are trying to stop these attacks, or at least go after the perpetrators.  But note our willingness to shrug it off and say it doesn't mean anything about the nation as a whole.  Especially when set in juxtaposition to the global condemnation of America as a hotbed of Islamaphobic bigotry awash in hatred and zealotry.  Anyone remember the last bomb attack against a Mosque in the US?  Anyone remember the last mass killing of Muslims in the US?  Anyone?  My how merciless we are about judging America.  If only we gave ourselves a portion of the leeway we give everyone else in the world, our national pride would be off the scale.

More Hobbit news

I'm on record as saying that Peter Jackson's take on Lord of the Rings was only so-so.  I know any movie will have to make changes from the book, but I insist they improve the movie, not make it worse.  Jackson, whose overall track record is one of rather superficial, shallow schlock, seemed in over his head when it came to LoTR.  Not that it was all bad.  He certainly had a knack for catching the overall vision.  But then again, he hired individuals who had spent their lives bringing Tolkien's work to life through art.  He merely had the model makers take their paintings and make them into CGI images or miniatures. 

Jackson's biggest blunder was taking the reigns of the screenplay.  While the pre-LoTR hype had Jackson insisting that making Rings was his life long dream, his pre-King Kong hype changed the story a little.  Turns out, according to pre-KK publicity, Jackson really wanted to make King Kong his whole life.  While waiting for his dream to materialize, he decided to make a fantasy film in the 90s.  After trying to make up a fantasy world and finding he lacked the time (and talent), he decided to grab Lord of the Rings since there was a world already in place.  And the way he approached the screenplay suggested there was more truth to that than not.  The biggest flaws and flubs of his cinematic trilogy usually involved Jackson stepping in and pushing Tolkien's story off the stage.  Rewriting parts, changing characters, adding entire subplots nowhere to be found in the books, stepping out of the cultural setting, and creating loopholes and inconsistencies - these were what made the movies more difficult to watch as the years roll on. 

So I am less shocked than others are when I read that Jackson is casting actors for parts that had nothing to do with The Hobbit.  That's about par for the course.  Too much of me felt that Jackson just wanted to throw his arms up in front of Tokien and say 'I appreciated your efforts old fellow, but let me show you how it should have been done.'  And the final product was the worse for it. Don't get me wrong, the films are OK, and there are parts that are very, very good - usually when Jackson steps out of the way and lets the original source material do the talking.  But count me as one who feels there were just as many problems and shortcomings as the previous animated attempts to bring Middle Earth to the big screen.  I have a feeling The Hobbit will be the same old, same old, and likely no better than the animated version (if not worse).

Or if you want a more educational movie experience I wholeheartedly suggest this:

Tora, Tora, Tora.  It was a box office flop in 1970, since it's main purpose was to accurately retell the events of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Roger Ebert hated it, which is always a feather in the cap of any film as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, the first half can drag as the film pieces together the events, but the star power and acting guns they brought into the project do help. 
It is noteworthy for allowing both United States historians as well as Japanese historians to tell their sides of the story.  They then took those accounts and merged them. 

Many of the action scenes, particularly around the attack, are based on anecdotes or attempts to recreate famous photos or film clips.  While mostly historical, there are a couple of departures from the historical context.  Yes, on rare occasion, some of the ships shown in long shots are actually later carrier and destroyer classes, and not the types that took part.  Likewise, you can always find a little discrepancy here or there.  On the whole, however, the ships and planes used were portrayed authentically.

Also, while the attack is mostly by the numbers, for dramatic purposes, a couple things are moved around.  The primary example being the death of the USS Arizona.  It was one of the first ships attacked, and within only minutes of the raid suffered the infamous fatal bomb blast that destroyed it and its crew.  In the film, in order to build up to a crescendo, it's doom is postponed until a proper climax in the action.

It's also noteworthy for showing how different America is from so many other countries and cultures.  The filmmakers have no problem showing America's bumbling, fumbling, and general incompetence.  The Japanese, on the other hand, are very conscientious of downplaying its strategy of a surprise attack.  The attempt to take Japan's official account, that it meant to declare war before the attack, leaves the view wondering: If they meant to give us warning, then why did the success of the attack depend on surprise?  That's because Japan, unlike America, but like most societies, does not fess up to mistakes and culpability that easily. 

One more note. This is based on traditional, and generally accepted, historical renditions.  Not included are the ridiculous conspiracy theories that FDR planned it all, or knew about it and sat on the information in order to bring the US into the war.  Like most conspiracy theories, they have plenty of evidence to support it, as long as you are particularly hostile to the parties the theories are accusing.  There is always that key piece of information missing, that actual evidence that the conspiracy happened.  But the joy of conspiracy theories is they manage to dismiss any missing evidence as proof of the conspiracy.  But that's for another post.  For now, watch Tron if you must.  But I suggest adding a little history to the mix and plopping down with this, possibly one of the most historically accurate Hollywood movies ever made (which is not much of a complement, when you get right down to it).