Category: Lessons Learned

It Makes Me Want to Teach

[SPOILER] Good sermons make me want to preach, and good movies make me want to teach.

Gladiator II is good. As I said yesterday, it isn’t that good, but it is good. Here are some areas it missed the mark and which hold it back from ever becoming a “classic”. The areas are remarkable because they are so easy to identify. (High notes will be listed at the end.)

  1. You must know what your movie is about. Gladiator was not about Rome or Maximus’ wishes for Rome. Gladiator was about the penultimate gladiator—Maximus. (Insert infamous “husband to a…” quote.)
  2. Never, never, never, never believe you can fool an audience. We’re just too smart. No red-blooded American believes you should give up. Ever. Never give up. The idea that it is noble to peacefully and without resistance enter the after-life is un-American. Do not try to show how it contains value of some sort. “Rage, rage!”
  3. I saw a clip where Ridley Scott answered a question with, “I just know.” The question was about the leading man. This was way too arrogant. Hollywood and entertainment is far more complex than that. Sure, the leading man—unremarkable as he was and will prove to be—was definitely not a let down. But the whole movie wasn’t as good as it could have been and this is obviously because it rested on “I can’t make a bad movie” reasoning, instead of a good story and good storytelling. We’re not paying to see Ridley Scott. We’re paying to see a good story told well.
  4. While the movie wasn’t “woke”, it could’ve entered the always available ranks of “timeless” by avoiding some obviously “woke” ideology. Again, this did not have to be the case. Specifically the movie had way too many irrelevant BIPOC characters (and close-ups) that contributed nothing but shades of brown to the screen. To repeat: in great movies everything in the movie must have a purpose and that purpose is to tell the story. In Gladiator, the Black and German slaves were there to make us like Maximus even more. It wasn’t about DEI. It was about Maximus—the gladiator. This leads to the next point.
  5. We never cared about Lucius. This is because we were forbidden to by the first Gladiator. He had been introduced to us as little more than a spoiled rich kid. I think it would have been possible to care about him if we were shown how. I’m thinking that the story would have had to include some highly skilled and discerning followers or servants of young Lucius accompany him to wherever he goes to hide and resent him for their having to give up court life etc. Then over time they come to respect him and are willing to die for him etc. But there are a lot of difficulties with that concept too, so I’d have to give it more thought. The point is we absolutely cared about Maximus every single second of the film. Seriously, what wasn’t or isn’t there to like?
  6. The villain was too diffuse. Great movies have one villain and he or she or it is identifiable immediately. Surprises work for thrillers, but Gladiator II did not aim to be a thriller. “Temet Nosce” (know thyself).
  7. Just like life-making love-making, there can only be one climax in a movie. What is weird about this movie is that it has events which in and of themselves didn’t have to be “climaxes”, but were shot/told/scored as if they were the climax. So you feel spent only to now be disappointed that there was more action coming. Again, it’s a simple mistake that hurt the project.
  8. The final area I want to mention is something which probably has an industry term—I just don’t know it. It’s best exemplified by Expendables 3. There were all these individual scenes dedicated to each action hero on the squad. But the scenes had no “tie that binds.” Gladiator II similarly introduced many characters with scenes that were well-acted and almost interesting, but their presence diminished the movie, instead of augmenting it. Bluntly, by contrast, I cannot think of a character or scene in Gladiator that didn’t make me like Maximus more than I previously did. Characters offered contrast to Maximus, and scenes fulfilled the role that time does in increasing our desire to see new love, in this case Maximus, again. Gladiator II’s non-Lucius scenes merely confused me while creating an atmosphere wherein I did not want to give myself completely to what I thought the story was. And all this because, say it with me, the director didn’t know what the story was.

To conclude, and to balance, here are the obvious positives.

The opening scenes and battle are evidence of Scott’s greatness. Does anyone do epic better? No. He is without peer. They are masterful. He is the master.

No scene taken by itself is low quality—more evidence of greatness.

The acting is top tier.

And despite it being CGI, the CGI is almost transparent. Pointedly—it is probably the best CGI to date. Good job.

No Helmet, A Review of Gladiator II

The refrain, “This is good,” repeatedly sounded in my head for about the first third. And the movie is good. But it isn’t great and it misses for some questionable reasons.

Most importantly, there was no helmet.

Secondly, as in the first film, there is a use of “paper” that is totally a-historical. No one had disposable paper in 200AD.

Thirdly, CGI.

Fourthly, let’s just give Russell Crowe his due. Even his hand in wheat seems divine to this day.

Lastly, there was a moment—you’ll know it when it comes—that I felt disappointed that there was more movie to go.

A View Into One Blended, Mixed-Culture, Older Parents Family

My wife (Ethiopian) and I (USA all the way, Baby!) are both over 40 now. We have the two teens and a four and two year old.

A constant—constant—source of contention that I did not feel arise when I was younger in my first marriage stems from the fact that we both made it to 40.

I mean that has to mean that we each know what we’re doing and what is important in life, right? Death prevents every failed culture from surviving past 40, doesn’t it. So once you make it to 40-and-a-day, rest assured you should pass your values on, right?

Wrong.

Slaves lived to 40. The most ignorant people on the planet easily make it to 40 literally without thinking. It’s depressing.

And yet when compared to 30, all parties put their foot down pretty deep and firm on each and every issue to do with raising kids.

Fun.

New Conversational Vocabulary for Resisting the Next Vaccine (Approved and Inspired by Claude Bernard)

While the RFK Jr. news is provocative, I am not persuaded that the lessons the Left learned from COVID and power available during pandemics will ever be forgotten.

I got vaccinated, but not for medical reasons. Like many, I had it at least once.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer”.

Yet, it should not surprise anyone that my sympathies will always lie with people who resist acts of compulsion—notably by the government. Additionally, my own instinct instructs me to recognize that my fellow humans’ instinct which tells them to resist vaccines should be allowed to prevail. In short, “you do you”. But I can’t help but notice the resistance lacked rhetorical skill.

Given my status as exceedingly well-read and becoming more-so daily, I want to lend a hand. I wouldn’t spend so much time in the books if I didn’t believe there is practical value inherent.

In this post, then, I want to give any “instinctive” anti-vaxxer the language, the vocabulary as it were, to successfully repel any future mandates, and their inherent conversational societal pressures. In other words, I encourage you to adopt the following as your script when your own family members make outrageous claims to “trust the science”.

****

Smug Relative: “Just trust the science! It’s harmless.”

You: “First, ‘No, thank you.’ First Part B, what you mean by science, and what we both agree is its prime definition, is ‘same conditions, same result—every time’. In short, science is certainty. Anything less than certainty is not science. If I may, you don’t trust the science, because one cannot trust the science, because the vaccine—unless you claim it is certain—is not science.

“To conclude, say what you mean. You’re trusting something—but it ain’t the science.”

“Second, harmless? What is the difference between harmless and failed? Because when you say harmless, you seem to be implying that no one put any effort or investment into the attempt to develop a compound that will teach my body to defend itself from the virus. But I believe people most definitely put effort and investment into developing a material that will teach my body to defend itself from the virus. (And I believe you, here again, actually agree with me.)

“Therefore until they are certain, harmless must mean “they failed.” And I am not interested in putting failure into my body from the outside; I have enough trouble keeping it from being generated in the inside.”

Smug Relative: “There is never going to be certainty in medicine.”

You: “Again, we find ourselves in agreement.”

Smug Relative: “I see. So what? You need me to explain the statistics?”

You: “Nope. I don’t require anything more of you. Thanks for hearing me out. I’m glad we chatted.”

We Are Trump’s Loving Wife

The classic American marriage contains the beautiful scene of a husband unexpectedly finding that his wife has granted permission to “go big”.

My favorite illustration of this was captured by a commercial, some years ago, where after the husband puts the new big screen TV into the TV stand, he stands back, admiring his TV. The wife walks in and is not immediately impressed.

Baffled, and fearing the worst, he asks her, with trepidation, “What?”

She answers, “It’s just that there is a lot of…space.”

The scene continues with the husband microscopically examining the fit of the new bigger screen TV. He is squinting and running his hand along border between the TV and the TV stand. His wife comes in this time, and is visibly strained.

She says, “It is fine.”

He responds and concludes the anecdote with, “I can still see light!”

****

As you no doubt have seen, there are red/blue county maps of America making their way around the web and one headline I saw claimed, “There are no blue states.”

Translation: there are blue counties in otherwise red states, and there are states composed entirely of red counties.

Implication: All of the United States of America, not merely the 75,000,000 voters and electoral college, just told Trump, like a loving wife, “Treat yourself!”

****

Yes, that’s the best analogy of the passing scene, I should think.

Education Should Distinguish Us AND Your Degree Cannot Defend Your Vote For Trump or Harris

There are ~258,000,000 voting age citizens in America. ~150,000,000 votes were cast. As you saw and read, I voted. But I didn’t vote for either of the main two candidates.

My sister-in-law graduated from the Ivy League. She voted for one of the two.

My longest standing friend is working on his dissertation and steps away from a PhD—he voted for one of the two.

I don’t have a degree beyond bachelors, but that’s not for lack of ability or low book count or inability to write.

In short, a year or two after I exhausted my GI Bill at the seminary (three years of courses), I finally discovered what institutional education is all about. The goal of all institutional education is to write the 101 or entry level text in your field. For Seminarians, that means being on the NIV committee, or a competitor. For all others, it literally means Literature 101, History 101, Biology 101 etc. My point is that I do not care to write that book. I do not see education proper, the education of a man or woman, as being some big ego contest. “Look at me! I wrote the book that teaches the world!!”

Education is about simple acquisition of knowledge. It is about truth in the biggest sense. People who are truly more educated should tell the truth more. They should also naturally be able to teach and defend the truth successfully, without much effort. And this acquisition, and possible dissemination, of knowledge should feel good enroute.

Notice that this “truth” result of education I propose only incidentally relates to decision making, or behavior, or moneymaking etc. There are, I believe, sharply distinguished compartments in life that rarely overlap. A PhD can have added something profound to add to human knowledge, while also gambling away his family fortune. In short, knowledge can be distinct from morality. But when the knowledgable, when the educated man or woman speaks in earnest, then they should speak more truth than those less educated. This concept is not much different than parent to child.

“I want cookies for breakfast,” says the child. The parent responds, “You can’t have cookies for breakfast (implied “cookies are too powerful a force for your mind and body, and obesity and early disease/death aren’t worth the fleeting joy).”

“EV’s are efficient,” say the uneducated. The educated respond, “That assessment is based on the assumption that the efficiency we care about starts once the electricity is in the EV. Is that the only starting point?”

Trackin’?

Why this post? Because my sister-in-law believes she cast her vote for her candidate because she is smarter than me. And my buddy now defends his vote with his “history PhD” knowledge/status. “Your vote makes you an appeaser, like Chamberlain,” he says.

I join the “I voted how I voted because of my education level” fray, but on this different plane. Ivy League education means nothing if you join hands with 70,000,000 less educated citizens. PhD means nothing if you join hands with 75,000,000 less educated citizens. And if you believe these are educated citizens, then what was/is the point of institutional education? Because it certainly ain’t supposed to be merely trade skills. IE: “I’m an expert welder and therefore I can say I am educated. I am a biology textbook author and therefore I can say I am educated.” No. No one believes that. To be educated means something more, even if it is difficult to say precisely what it means.

I already shared that politics is personal. But education does overlap into life, especially when it occurs at the intensity I am discussing.

In short, I am still bothered, four days later, by the fact that these two non-party members couldn’t figure a way to do their noble duty without getting emotional and casting a vote for candidates that they could easily admit they would never support under any other circumstances.

One totally different angle on the concept is this: I have recorded here many times that Ethiopia is a country whose cultures do not value education. Where “education” occurs, they “teach” each other from used “Western” textbooks in broken English. It is an astonishing behavior. And yet my wife’s brother angrily asked her why I didn’t vote for Trump. And despite my having explained myself both at length and in short, my wife said she really didn’t understand herself and so just told him, “You’d have to ask Pete yourself.”

If some of the least educated people on the earth (no offense) come to a conclusion, then by my thinking the most educated people cannot come to the same conclusion.

You’re different. So be different.

****

Oh, and if any faithful reader is interested, the chalk essay I mentioned the other day is truly an incredible description of how once you analyze the “chalk”, you learn it is part inorganic, part organic. After this, you realize it is also part remnants of sea creatures and land creatures. And what is more, there are layers. So apparently the chalk parts of the earth have sometimes been dry land and other times the bottom of the sea.

I do not know enough about all these facts. But I have to say they came across as reasonable, though I still am inclined to find weakness in the theories regarding super old and unguided formation of the universe. I will keep reading but am not certain I will care enough to further explore all there is on these twin topics outside of my present reading plan.

Time To Turn Off the TV

I know you don’t agree. I know you don’t. That is the point of this post. There is no topic more detestable to humanity of all stripes than the notion of turning off the TV—and any meaningfully similar source of information.

Yes, I’m happy Trump won. But not for anything to do with politics. I’m happy because while all the republicans and conservatives were wringing their hands, I said over and over that he had it in the bag. And so when I was proved correct, I was happy.

But every moment since then, I have been questioned by friends and family and had my good name challenged because I am not happy that Trump won for the same reason as they are.

I do not believe he is some sort of savior. I do not believe we’ll see a reversion to some past life when groceries were cheap and rule of law was respected and understood. I just don’t see national politics from that kind of perspective.

But the point of this post, again, is to explore that when I share my perspective, which boils down to, “You’re all Henny Penny and if you would just turn off the TV, you’d have profound improvement in your ‘flourishing’,” folks lose their shyat on me. It’s like I’m asking them to give up—not just food but—breathing.

I actually resorted to telling my Ethiopian/African wife (you’ll-understand-this-if-viewed-from-well-known-they’re-more-spiritual-vantage-point), “You love to talk about demons as if it’s still Biblical times—well when it comes to our attachment to TV, I agree. This situation seems at the level that an exorcism may be necessary.” Perhaps unbelievably, this did get through—in its moment.

So I think I’m done. I already do not have a TV at the house. I have cut movie watching drastically back (difficult to cut completely because night work leaves a lot of zombie time during the day). But I’ve been checking news like a junkie of late. It’s time to stop that now. And why? Because, as an human without TV, I can happily report, “The sky is not a-falling.”

My Not-Unanticipated Gloat Text To My Family

I haven’t shared too much directly personal content of late, but for the bigger point, here is the text I fired off to my immediate family (my folks and my siblings and their spouses, only one couple being Harris supporters). I do not believe anyone but my mom or dad will have read it. And I generally only experience glee when picturing my brother-in-law smiling as he reads what he would never say.

After the text I have addd here some much needed commentary—as no one but me seems to enjoy taking writing at face value and thinking about what it means and doesn’t mean.

****

I’ll keep this absolutely predictable text short:

S-. H-.

Gotcha!!

Like you, I feel like the biggest “soul interrogation” just ended and you two failed. Racism (BIPOC are not better), sexism (women are not better), and communism (theft is not better) are evil. And you both have to live with the fact that you voted according to them (and, in spite of at least superficially agreeing with me and being surrounded by people who also agree).

Fear not! It’s beautiful, in a way. That is, it is truly a powerful (think sunrise 🌅 , not democrat machine’s gun-to-head) moment, if you approach this “lived experience” from the twin Biblical perspectives of divine patience and grace, as offered by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The maker and sustainer of the universe has given you more time to repent. Be happy. Consider it.

I, for my part, thank the LORD and will think of you before all others whenever I see a rainbow or cloth representation of a rainbow’s colors going forward and am inescapably reminded of patience.

****

Notice I didn’t say anything about Trump. Do you see? Not one thing was about Trump. This is for many reasons, all equally as noble as the true thrust of the text.

Firstly, I didn’t vote for him, so “my guy” didn’t win. My problem with dems has never been that they didn’t support “my guy” or “Trump.” My problem with dems is their support of evil.

Secondly, and more importantly, nobody voted for Trump because he is a man, or because he is white, or because he is old. Naturally this is hyperbole—I cannot know for certain that those DEI features were ignored by all his voters. But I can say that anyone who did cast such a shamefully-reasoned vote would never admit it. This is also hyperbole. But not hyperbole is the following: any racist, sexist, and ageist voters for Trump had no influence on the contest. And more specifically, I know my Trump-voting family members voted for him for his policies or humor or record or simple hope that his MAGA slogan is his earnest hope and plan.

Lastly, Kamala Harris is so empty, so devoid of reason, so obviously puppeteered that it is impossible for me to be wrong that her voters were voting with evil intent. Besides the manifest logical truth of this claim (you can’t reasonably vote for someone who isn’t for at least one thing), the Harris voters’ own silence on any non-DEI (evil) reasons for their vote is impossible to ignore. 66,000,000+ citizens voted with race, sex, age, theft, and lies as their motivation. 71,000,000+ voted with, at their core, hope as their motivation.

They hoped he wants America to be great again. They hoped he knew he was fibbing all the time he lies. They hoped he wouldn’t put himself before America.

Now we wait.