I have long held (recent years) that there is a void in leadership.
As I continue to read articles from the major historical events of Vietnam, WW2, and Civil Rights (thank you to Library of America), a new thought occurred.
We have poor leaders—that is given. My new thought: the reason we have such poor leaders is there is nothing to do. There is no group to lead, no task to accomplish, and no need to unify.
To catchup unfaithful readers, and remind faithful readers, my most prescient observations on “movies about toys” include (1) re: Michael Bay’s Transformers, Bay understood how to make a movie based on the way boys play with the Transformer toys, and according to boys’ rules (ie “Crushed! Dead! But wait! He’s back alive!) and (2) re: Ridley Scott’s The Last Duel, Scott’s final duel is the most perfect rendering of what every boy pictures a duel to be.
That said, the opening of Mr. Knight’s Masters of the Universe continues, without plagiarism, the theme Bay hit upon (and resultantly has no concern with imitating Nolan’s TDK motif) and, what’s more, creates, in a way that doesn’t even hint as disrespect towards any child at heart for being a child at heart, the single greatest scene of what it feels like to hold a He-Man toy as a boy.
For that, Mr. Knight and all those involved in the movie are to be applauded, and rousingly so.
The rest of the movie (post Adam’s finding the sword) is perfectly fine. The comedy is real. And the action can be satisfying.
Lastly, and this is difficult to describe (so please do check it out) but the scene in Adam’s boss’s office is frightening in its ease. How can a He-Man movie be more trad than Taylor Sheridan and all other wannabe rebels in this time of Black Helen’s?
The variety of Christian denominations—even those which claim Biblical Authority—demands explanation.
Either (A) prayer helps interpret scripture, and the many denominations are mostly led by false teachers who didn’t pray the right prayer or to the right god, OR (B) prayer doesn’t help interpret scripture, and the many denominations are the result of the many methods of interpreting scripture.
My vote is (B). Besides the inherent loneliness within (A), it is illogical. Words (whether inspired or not) have meaning and the meanings are derived at by the same method, regardless of one’s prayer life.
To be clear: even if you are not a believer, a Christian, I believe you can come to understand the meaning of the most unintelligible visions and oracles the Bible writer’s provided. The “meaning” does not compel one to action.
The “compelling” is where the mystery lies.
Pay special attention to the final paragraph. This book was written in 1859, but Lord Brougham’s quote was 1839.
And they want to tear down statues. And we let them. I’m not saying the statues must stay as if by divine decree; I am merely stating that this Lord Brougham hit the nail on the head. Wisdom and virtue will not be found in a people who do not honor Washington. This was and is self-evident. So read up! And remind others when they drift!
Patriots: Pay special attention to the “no conception” assessment by the one and only GW.
What say you? Do the modern day Lefties/DNC/Commies have an accurate conception? How would we even determine the answer?
I have said it before and will say it again and again and again. Hobbes’ Leviathan is absolute must-read material. I am rarely more invigorated while reading than when reading Hobbes. I exhort you, brethren, find a copy and make time for it. You will not be disappointed.
A former professor from the seminary reminded me recently that as an alumni, I had access to an online theological library. So I tracked it down and joined, $10 a month. Around the same time as joining, the same professor told me his recommendation for a commentary set for a church—meaning lay people. I had asked his opinion because I wanted to start a library at the church I joined. His recommendation was the NIV Application Commentary, which uses three approaches to each passage and never or rarely mentions any original language issues in a manner that requires training to understand. The three approaches are, “Original Meaning”, “Bridging Contexts”, and “Contemporary Significance”. Anyhow, I do have training in the original languages and I hate reading anything about the Bible in which the author has made the decision for me, preferring instead to read authors who lay out the evidence from which to choose what to think for myself. That’s where the Anchor Bible Commentary set comes in to play. I am certain there are other solid academic commentaries, but Anchor is kind of the gold standard. By way of example, the NIVAC’s 1 Peter volume might include, “Peter wrote…” and the Anchor Bible might write, “The author of 1 Peter wrote…” I prefer to approach the Bible Indiana Jones-style. (Recall—there are no priests!)
Boring details of my life, I know, but while all this was happening, I had started to get anxious about the issue of accuracy in the digital realm. Specifically, I had seen a few examples of how streaming services are latently airing edited versions of beloved entertainment. Long story short, I determined that I did not want to ever be distracted by worry about whether the content I was reading on a screen was original or edited, so I started tracking down a used set of the Anchor Bible commentary volumes. And I found and bought one (not quite complete). Then, lo and behold, I got an email announcing that the online theological library was ending its availability to alumni—at least as accessed outside of a proper library. No real reasons were given, but I was very thankful and felt very wise in my decision to begin to purchase the actual books for my home library.
All that to say this: I have for many years struggled in my attempt to a good habit of daily Bible study. As I have mentioned, I always start with the Bible if I have time to read. But I never loved my plan of just reading it and I also have never enjoyed using a devotional which were always so clearly superficial and kitsch so as to distract me from the intent of Bible study. Around the time of all this purchasing and subscription-cancelling etc. I had been in Ezra and Nehemiah, so I, one day, decided to see what ol’ Anchor said about them. And, boy, was I ignorant. It’s actually fascinating to me how much I had never known. This was part of the reason I began to read them recently anyhow. (Yay me.) Anyhow, the main thing to share here is that 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are all contemporary to each other. And the date of writing may be as late 150BC (don’t quote me on the date). Also, Haggai and Zechariah are the prophets of that same time. So what’s that? Like 6 books, spread from after 2 Kings to the end of the OT, in the Christian canon’s arrangement. I had known the Jewish canon concluded with (1&) 2 Chronicles, but I hadn’t ever studied the other four books, or committed to memory anything about their dates at the least. I did know that Nehemiah is where the tradition of standing during scripture reading gets it start.
All that said, I am happy to report that I have my new way of daily Bible study. I just read a passage and its “comment”. I have even been able to interest my wife in listening to it as I try to rid believers, one at a time, of the notion that one can gain understanding of the Bible by praying. It just doesn’t work like that.
Onward.
Netflix made a Frankenstein movie. I couldn’t finish it. But then I watched Bride!, as you know. I mentioned this at work to a reader and she asked me if I had read the book. I had not. So here we are. I haven’t researched it entirely, but I get the sense that Shelley (married to the famous writer Percy Bysshe Shelley, and daughter herself to very famous writers) really did invent the “monster” story, which pervades all manner of entertainment to this day. Quickly, I do want to note here that Frankenstein is the name of the creator, not the monster. And, imho, the book itself isn’t that good. But the idea is—obviously. The idea being, what if the creature you bring to life is a devil, not an angel?
Farmer Boy was fun. My main criticism is that a city kid of today really and truly cannot use much of the information which is transmitted and which was conceivably useful to farmers back in the day.
GW continues to be great. He is now President, not exactly by choice. Also interestingly, the state of politics in America back then was so startlingly similar to today, that a new idea has formed in me. This idea being that while everyone who wishes America well can appreciate the “fighter” in Trump, the truth is that we really need a leader who knows how to gain respect of everyone. That is who George Washington was. People were as vehemently opposed in their desires, motivations, and methods as we are today. But when a decision was needed, they all agreed GW was the man for the job. How did he do it? Moral living and pure motivations. How can such a man be formed and found? Imho, by studying GW. And by providence’s intervention.
I can’t explain it, but any time I spend away from Shakespeare causes me to forget how great he is. Luckily, he is so abundantly great that merely reading a line or two is all that I need to fall back in love with him. What a writer. What stories.
Merchant of Venice is in the Great Books of the Western World’s Great Ideas Program guided reading on the topic of “Philosophy of Law and Jurisprudence.” This is because the character agrees to forfeit “a pound of flesh” if he can’t pay back his debt. To generalize this contract, the question Shakespeare raises is, “Can a person use the law to bind himself to commit an unlawful act?” The largest perspective being, “What is the name of the thing which prevents a person from freely entering into a lawful contract which has as one result unlawfulness? If the thing is ‘law’ itself, then where does it get its power, since a man freely made the contract? Doesn’t law come from man?”
In any case, Shakespeare toys with the language and big ideas as if they were nothing. And it is a whole lot of fun to read.
That’s all for today.
I have been listening to a few of the 13-min talks from this year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference and, as with the past two years’, they are tier one models of conservative perspectives. And yet I cannot deny that when the speakers use the language “America’s past is not perfect” or similar, I shake my head. I hadn’t been able to pinpoint exactly why this phrase, and the concept behind it, bothers me so until just yesterday.
For context, please call to mind that I am reading volume 5 of Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington. Specifically, I am up to his decision to run for reelection. Let’s just say that since his birth and the legendary tree incident, a lot has happened. And after everything I have read, I conclude, “And all of it was the best thing for the future occupants of planet Earth,” full stop.
I know, I know. I can hear you. What about slavery? What about women’s rights? What about civil rights? What about ‘Nam?
Allow me to break some news to you. I am a Christian. Inherent to Christianity is the belief that all men are sinners (“They have all turned aside, altogether they have become worthless; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
Psalm 14:3 LSB) and that no earthly government—though instituted by the Living Triune God himself—is perfect (“Then Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
1 Samuel 8:7 LSB and “Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good.” 1 Peter 2:13-14 LSB). For me, a Christian, then, to hedge the character or accomplishments of people or governments with some seeming politically correct admission of unpleasant facts, is to betray my beliefs, exchange them, as it were, for someone else’s beliefs—and for what? For likes? For views?
No. That is not right. We can all just speak truth for truth’s sake. Speaking isn’t violence. Everyone knows, by virtue of the content, what we believe anyway as we talk. And the import of the speaker’s content is directly related to the integrity of the message. In short, it is weak when a Christian hedges their claims about men and government. It is weak because the Bible has, amongst many mysteries, essential and clear statements about the nature of man and government. Man is sinful. Government is inadequate.
Conversely, it is the game of the Woke, the Left, and the Commies, among others (hard to leave out the DNC) to believe man is perfect (without evidence) and government is adequate (without evidence). Christian doctrine does not support either.
So, ARC presenters, next year, as you continue to bravely, and at some risk to yourselves and your families, model for us plebes how to live, please step up your integrity on this topic. America wasn’t doing “the best it could while having some original sin”, instead America “is and has always been the beacon of freedom for the entire world”. George Washington didn’t “have faults”, instead GW “played the almost superhuman role of founder of America, played it well, and deserves our continued gratitude and attention”.
The events of the present and future are not improved or sustained by “bending the knee” to those who seek destruction. Time is limited. So use it all to accomplish any speaker’s goal: nourish and flourish.
(Let us pray.)
Some first reviews are out. Hollywood Reporter has a smattering of headlines.
The professional class, our betters, are gushing.
They are gushing about set pieces and Nolan’s bravery in embracing horror, as well as many other non-book parts of the movie.
If you haven’t been following, the influencers have taught me a new word, “ratio’d”, during the ramp up to this movie. Apparently the young’ns are trying their own hand at reading entrails and the pairing they have noticed and named lately is when a trailer has less likes than either dislikes or comments. (No news is still good news, it seems. Meaning, comments are never in support of trailers.)
So The Odyssey trailer has been ratio’d. And it has terrible casting.
What does it have in the pro’s category?
IMAX film. Live Action/limited CGI—maybe none. (Not quite sure). Nolan’s reputation. The title matches an epic poem, the epic poem of Western Civilization, that no one has read recently.
That’s about it.
Will I go? No. I have been reading and the honest truth is that it is starting to take its toll on my movie watching. Books are just so much better than their movie adaptations, especially when the adaptations are woke. So no. I’m sure I’ll watch it at work. But no money will support these things.
Whatever similarity the following short story has to a real conversation last night, a conversation between a husband and wife, I assure the reader that the account is one sided and therefore pure fiction—at least according to all the women.
Our south facing bedroom was dark and remained so despite the sounds of a few belated fireworks which our extraordinarily wealthy and patriotic neighbors to the north were letting fly. I had just plugged my phone in and put it in its final resting place on the nightstand. I remained on my side, facing out, my back to my wife. I had a good amount of covers to work with and couldn’t help but release a final chuckle-turned-outright-laugh at The Office blooper short we had just watched.
Friday was good. Saturday was good. Today had been alright.
There was a pleasant mood for those two days as my wife, bless her heart, had not had a chance in hell to work and so was herself at ease and agreeable for once. She seemed to have truly come to peace with the fact that the great serpent of old, the one with the red, scaly appearance and bifurcated tongue, seemed to genuinely not be her husband. Can you understand what I am trying to say, reader? Married life felt kind of normal.
I decided to test the waters and say something true. I knew it was a risk, but I was feeling risky.
“J- seems to actually need a few days to warm up to me every week that I am home. It’s like he becomes softer as the days go by,” I said. Truth be told, halfway through my brief report, I started to wonder if she was even awake anymore.
“I don’t understand, Baliye,” she replied.
I suppose I ought to clarify here that Baliye is her heathen tongue’s ‘my husband’.
“I’m saying,” I started again, “that I can feel that J-, while happy to see me when I first come back home from my week away, seems to take a few days before he fully relaxes and becomes himself. It’s hard to pick exact behavior differences, but I feel it,” I continued. I didn’t share the one instance that was on my mind, the at church earlier when I had pulled him back from the center aisle into the pew. I sat him next to me again and looked down at him, placing my stern, glaring but sparkly-eyed face right over his. He looked up at me and purposely bonked his nose into mine. He does that sometimes. But not on day one, two, or three. Anyhow, I continued, “And the other week, when I was making a trip to load the car before leaving, he actually burst out crying, saying he thought he told me that he wanted a hug before I left.”
I paused for a few seconds. And then picked it up again, “It’s hard to believe he will actually be home for one more whole year before he goes off to kindergarten.”
I had done it. Or I had thought I had done it. I have long held the belief, informed by who knows what, that women, even depressed, selfish, greedy, complaining wives, want to hear what their husbands really think and notice about the family. Like I thought there was a universal truth: every wife, at any moment loves to hear her husband express something that sounds vulnerable and comes across as intimate.
I was proud. Dare I say I thought I deserved a reward? No, I dare not. I honestly just felt like giving. Like I said, Friday was good and Saturday was good.
She then says, “There is a school nearby, R-, I think-”
-there is no force as yet studied by students of natural science that can cause boiling faster than the words I was hearing-
“-which has a preschool, like three days a week.”
(Here the copy of this fictional tale which I found seems to be missing a paragraph of caps-lock ferociousness.)
She responds, “You said what you think. But I can’t say what I think?”
I think is she genuinely unaware of how conversations work? “No, mee-stee-yay, no. You don’t get to say what you think. Not when the person who spoke before you just expressed how happy they were at a set of circumstances and your thought is a brainstorm of how to destroy those circumstances.” (Mistiye is the heathen ‘my wife’.)
Friday was good. Saturday was good.
I’m telling myself that in the subscription world, of which I have zero training, you guys have to have 3 months security money up front in order to operate. I’m telling myself that because I cannot understand any of what you just told me on the phone when I called to cancel on the day the pull actually happened, prior to the three months delivery. I cannot “get there from here” over how I cannot stop payment on the day it comes out, nor get a refund, pro-rated at that, when I cancel.
None of it makes any sense to me. Normally I take something back, unused, and get my money back.
But on the whole, all of this nonsense is still easier to deal with than the Faith and Values section of yesterday’s Sunday paper having as its article a piece on some West African sh!t-hole country’s Voodoo resurgence. WTF, over?
I only ever read the funny papers. But this is ludicrous. Also, for interested readers, I just learned there is a website called “gocomics” which is far more affordable and user friendly. So in 90 days, I’ll be winning again.
Captain’s Log 