The descent into Hell: 1984

Eddie Albert comes face to face with Big Brother in 1984 (1953).

In Christian theology, the "descent into Hell," as enumerated in the Apostle's Creed, refers to the time between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, when Christ descends to the realm of the dead, bringing salvation to the righteous who had died since the begining of the world. The Church believes this to be a triumphant occasion, the victory over death and liberation of those souls destined to reside in Heaven.

There are many kinds of Hell, other than the theological kind. There's Hell on earth, a Hell often of our own making, and when you descend into this kind of Hell, it's not so easy to see it as triumphant. There's one thing that all these versions of Hell have in common, though, and that's the loss of freedom, the enslavement of the soul, the stench of death. We are, I think, engaged in such a descent now; I say "engaged," because I don't think we've hit bottom yet, not even close—if, in fact, there even is a bottom. It is the Hell of totalitarianism, a Hell that has, over the years, played itself out many times on television. The relationship between television and totalitarian dystopia is, I think, an interesting and ironic one; it could be said that television both sheds light on and perpetuates totalitarianism, at least in its modern incarnation. 

And so it seems particularly appropriate today that we begin an extended look at this particular descent into Hell by returning to Apocalypse Theater for one of literature's most famous stories, one that spawned two television adaptations within five years of its publication: 1984.

George Orwell wrote 1984 (or Nineteen Eighty-Four, if you prefer) in 1948, and for those of you into numerology, it might be interesting to ponder that it was 36 years between 1948 and 1984, and 36 years between 1984 and 2020. Then again, it might not be; I suppose it depends on your outlook.

Orwell's world is one that's become familiar in both literary and political history, a world built on  censorship, government surveillance, mutual suspicion, and the suppression of any forms of dissent, populated by agencies with names like the Ministry of Truth, which controls the distribution of information and makes appropriate "adjustments" to the historical record so that they conform to the latest pronouncements of the government; and the Ministry of Love, home of the infamous Thought Police, charged with the arrest and "rehabilitation" of those who practice dissent against the government. Orwell's concepts entered the lexicon almost from the very beginning, concepts such as Big Brother, the Two Minute Hate, Thought-Crimes, Doublethink, and—perhaps the most famous and most sinister of them all—Newspeak. You know the highlights; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, 2+2=5. To paraphrase that great philosopher Chico Marx, "Who ya gonna believe: Big Brother or your own eyes?" 

The first visual adaptation* of 1984 came just four years after its 1949 publication, and perhaps tellingly, it was made not for the movie theater, but for television. It aired on September 21, 1953 (the height of the McCarthy era), as part of CBS's Studio One, in a production written by WilliamTempleton, directed by series mainstay Paul Nickell and with a cast that included Eddie Albert (above) as the protagonist, civil servant Winston Smith; Norma Crane as Julia, his colleage and forbidden lover; and Lorne Greene as O'Brien, the underground member who turns out to be an agent of the Thought Police. The Studio One production dramatically condensed Orwell's story to about 50 minutes, typical of most hour-long shows of the day. Although today's reviewers are mostly critical of the show (especially in comparison to subsequent productions), contemporary reviews were more favorable. The New York Times praised Albert's performance and called the overall production "a masterly adaptation that depicted with power, poignancy and terrifying beauty the end result of thought control—the disintegration of the human mind and soul." 

*The very first adaptation was on radio in 1949 (they didn't waste any time, did they?), broadcast on NBC University Theater, starring David Niven as Smith.

It took only one year for another television version of 1984 to appear, this time on the BBC, and this adaptation won far more critical praise, both then and now. It was written by Nigel Kneale, who the year before had created the much-loved sci-fi classic, The Quatermass Experiment and was produced and directed by Rudolph Cartier, one of the BBC's best. Winston Smith was played in this version by a very young Peter Cushing, with Yvonne Mitchell as Julia, André Morell as O'Brien, and Donald Pleasance as Syme, the creator of Newspeak, who eventually becomes an Unperson.

At nearly two hours, or twice the length of the American version, this 1984 was a much more detailed adaptation of Orwell's work. It also created no little stir, with many viewers calling to complain about the show's "subversive nature and horrific content," and a number of protests in Parliament. Other MPs, however, rushed to the show's defense, pointing out that "many of the inhuman practices depicted in the play" were "already in common use under totalitarian régimes." The Queen and Prince Philip weighed in, letting it be known that they had watched the broadcast, and had "enjoyed" it. Thus emboldened, the BBC staged a second live broadcast four days later, and it is this rebroadcast that has been preserved on video.

The fact is, any adaptation of 1984 should feel subversive and horrific, because it is. As brutal as the world of 1984 is, though, there's an even darker thought behind it, for as essayist Scott Bradfield has pointed out, "For Orwell, the horror of totalitarianism was not that someone would impose it on you, but rather that you might be all-too-prepared to submit." Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it, those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security. We can quibble about what Franklin really meant (the quote actually comes from a debate over taxation), but one of the great attributes about being a genius is the ability to synthesize a thought, even if it isn't the thought you were thinking of at the time. 

I find it interesting that there hasn't been an adaptation of 1984 since 1965 ("The World of George Orwell: 1984", a second production of the 1954 BBC adaptation, which aired as part of a season of Orwell adaptations on the BBC program Theatre 625), when the Cold War was hot and the West was about to explode in an unrest that, in significant ways, continues to this day. Radio, yes; a big screen version (in 1984, of course), and movies that could be said to be in the spirit of Orwell. In fact, the last time television broached the subject was in the famous Super Bowl commercial by Apple, which might have been prescient in linking modern technology and a future 1984 society (though perhaps not in the way Apple intended). But then, as I said, the relationship between television and totalitarianism is a complex one. I don't know; maybe television has a reason for not revisiting it.

Orwell's attack on totalitarianism wasn't aimed solely at communism; 1984 takes many of its ideas from post-World War II Great Britain. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the book's eternal popularity is that both left and right can point to its contents as representing an existential threat to freedom and liberty. But since we're on the subject of chilling statements, try this one on for size. It comes from Orwell, in correspondence with, of all people, Sidney Sheldon, who had purchased the stage rights to 1984 from Orwell. In one letter, Orwell wrote that the book "was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism, but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office."

That, my friends, is what we face today. It takes no great stretch to make the connections between Orwell's creation and our world today; if you glance at the headlines on any day of the week—Communist crackdown in China is "Beyond George Orwell’s Imaginings"—the parallels become clearer. And if you think that it can't happen here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you haven't been paying attention. 

So the next time someone—perhaps in the government or the media—tells you that Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength, remember the words of the prophet: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20) And ask yourself what you will answer when someone asks what two plus two equals.

Things to Come?

It's's been said that art which disturbs forces the partaker into a realm of solitude that is not entirely welcome, for it forces one to confront his innermost thoughts, to enter "a world of aloneness, ineluctably insisting on one’s attuning oneself to one’s self.”

And it's in that sense that I use the word "disturbing" to describe Assassinio nella Cattedrale, Ildebrando Pizzetti's 1958 operatic version of T.S. Eliot's (equally disturbing) verse play Murder in the Cathedral, the story of the martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket in 1170.  

Most of us know, or should know, the basic story of Thomas Becket: his early life as friend and close associate of King Henry II, becoming Lord Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury, and—finally and tragically—how a fatal rift developed between them over the authority of the State over the Church. Eventually, Henry is (supposedly) heard to utter the famous words "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?", whereupon four of his knights travel to Canterbury and there murder the Archbishop in his cathedral.

The question of man's relationship to authority, and the legitimacy of said authority, is timeless. Eliot's play, which premiered in 1935, was taken by many as a commentary on Nazi Germany and its growing oppression of religious freedom. However, it is difficult to view Assassinio today and not think of the growing religious oppression on the horizon in America, the disease of nihilism and threat of totalitarianism that envelopes the nation and the world.

As the opera opens, it is December 2, 1170. Becket has returned from exile in France. There is a truce between Becket and King Henry, but nobody expects it to last. Becket's congregation fears that the Archbishop's return can end only in tragedy, not only for him but them as well. Becket is unfazed by the prospect of martyrdom, but is it a measure of the man's spirituality—or ego? The answer is soon to come.

Becket (Ruggero Raimondi) faces the four Tempters

In a stunning first act confrontation, Becket meets four Tempters; manifestations of Becket's own intellect, they converse with him in a reflection of the inner dialogue tearing through the Archbishop. The first three offer the usual—safety (by running away); power (by compromising with the king); and rebellion (joining the barons against the king). Thomas is able to deal with those temptations easily; it is the fourth that gives him pause, for the fourth temptation is martyrdom itself, the chance for eternal fame and influence through giving up his life.

This one proves the most dangerous, for it is easy to convince yourself that you're dying to draw attention to a cause, when in reality it is you to which you draw attention. Is this why Becket returned to England? Does he look for the ultimate "I told you so" moment? As the tempter says, it would put everyone under Becket's heel: king, emperor, bishop, baron.

It is here that Becket must provide the ultimate measure of who he is and what he believes—and he does, defiantly casting aside the temper, saying "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason." With this act, Becket finds a kind of peace; he comes to the knowledge that he is not looking for martyrdom, but is prepared to accept it as part of sharing Christ's Cross.

In his Christmas Day sermon, Becket gives us a profound meditation on the meaning of Christmas. Yes, it is a day to rejoice in the birth of the Savior, but also to realize the price that salvation will ultimately exact from Him*. It is in this spirit of unity—and love—that one embraces martyrdom, Thomas says, warning the congregation that "It is possible that in a short time you may have yet another martyr."

*I've always thought that the ideal Nativity set should somehow cast a shadow of a Cross over the crib where Christ lays. The Creed celebrates both His birth and death, and at no time is this more clear than at Christmas.

The denouement of Act Two is, at once, tragic, inevitable, and joyous. Four of Henry's knights, played by the same four singers of Act One's tempters, confront Becket, accusing him of disloyalty, and calling on him to surrender or face death at their hands. Becket refuses all attempts by his priests to protect him, either by locking the doors of the Cathedral or by fleeing; in so doing, Becket echoes the words of Pilate that "what has been written is written." He accepts the savage act of martyrdom with peace, and meets his death on December 29, 1170, vested for the liturgy, sprawled on the steps of the altar. 

So what does it all mean to us, and why should we care about Assassinio nella Cattedrale as anything other than a work of art? It has to do, I think, with a question we will have to ask ourselves, sooner or later: of what kind of stuff are we made? We may dare to hope that it doesn't come in as public a venue as it did for Becket, but in truth we don't know. And while we like to hope we'll know how we'll respond to such a moment of truth, as Joyce Carol Oates once wrote, "You won't know until it beckons. To you. So long as it temps others you can judge—can sneer—can express shock, disgust, outrage, and prim distain—the usual emotions of punitive people. But you won't know."

The Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket,
by Michael D. O’Brien

It may be pessimistic to see in these days the twilight of America, if not the world, but then there are reasons to be pessimistic; we may be far closer to the times of Becket than we think. The late Francis Cardinal George, former Archbishop of Chicago, once said, "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." While his incompetent succesor (no Becket he!) is more likely to wind up in prison due to corruption, Cardinal George's words should serve as a warning to us all.

The time is coming, I think, when we will find out what we're made of. It will beckon, as Oates says, and then we will find out. The battle is not merely fought among the high-ranking, the statesmen and prelates; its battlefields not confined to the ancient histories of centuries past. No, history is here and now, and each of us will be called upon to take up our own roles in this drama. And then we will find out, we will know.

Here is an superb performance of Assassinio nella Cattedrale from December 22, 2006, staged at the Basilica di San Nicola in Bari, Italy, with Piergiorgio Morandi conducting the Orchestra Sinfonica della Provincia di Bari. The grandeur and solemnity of the Basilica provides a unique but stunning location for the production (with the orchestra situated between the audience in the nave and the singers at the altar), compelling us to consider the story in an atmosphere that for once justifies the correct use of the word "awesome." 

Bass Ruggero Raimondi delivers a dignified, powerfully moving performance as Becket, a man walking at the same time with both truth and death. The New York Times once described Eliot's play as "an opera libretto waiting to be set to music," and Pizzetti, working from an Italian translation of Eliot's play, is faithful to both the story and the underlying meaning. Events are condensed, as they often must be in opera, but at all times Eliot's message comes through without distortion. The music is clearly modern but never lacking in melody, and it creates an atmosphere that will stay with the viewer long after the opera ends. Let's all hope that it remains an entertainment, a history lesson—and not a preview of things to come.

De Vincenzo 1968, Atlanta Motor Speedway 1978, Trump 2020?

As we see the issue with President Trump and the fraud over the Presidential Election, I am seeing parallels with two incidents, coincidentally in the State of Georgia, that this election has become.

In 1968, Roberto de Vincenzo lost the Masters on one of the strangest infractions ever seen in the game.  In the late stages of the tournament, the Argentine had par 4 on the 17th and playing partner Tommy Aaron wrote a bogey 5 on the scorecard.  The infraction would cost the reigning Champion Golfer of the Year (Royal Portrush) a playoff with Bob Goalby the next morning.

Ten years later, at the Dixie 500 NASCAR Cup Series event in Hampton (the current Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500), Richard Petty seemingly crossed the finish line first at the late-season race. But upon a review of the scorecards in an era before transponder scoring (used in the early 1990's), Donnie Allison had won after the scorer had missed a few laps Allison made when the car crossed the scoring station but his scorer and backup failed to register it on the pen and paper system where the scorer wrote numbers on the clock every time the car crossed the scoring line.  That infraction was caught by a 16-year old Brian France, the third-generation member of NASCAR's founding family and uncle of current NASCAR official Ben Kennedy.  The France family also successfully mediated a dispute between amateur and professional racers that gave us the national governing body of motorsport, the Automobile

Competition Committee of the United States, after the AAA Contest Board disbanded in the wake of the 24 Heures du Mans disaster in 1955.

They relate to the dispute that our President, Donald John Trump, is fighting over fraudulent votes.  The President is challenging the scorecard, unlike de Vincenzo in 1968,  as if television evidence shows he had made birdie (4) on the 15th and it was scored by his marker as a triple bogey (8), and a par on the 17th (4) was written as a bogey (5), and another par (4) on the 18th was written as a bogey (5).  It would be the equivalent of the 1978 NASCAR case if Biden had been given lap "dumps" where a scorer had pre-filled an entire 10-lap scorecard to make it seem Biden had made ten extra laps when he did not, and the chief scorer did not catch it.

The two hypothetical cases are similar to what actually happened in those years.  But the President, like he does in business, sees fraud at the business, he has to go into the fraud prevention bureau to report the case, then investigate what happened.  And in this case, we have massive fraud being conducted by the Left's choice cities in order to rig elections.  A shrink buster is being attacked by those who are doing the shrinking.  What coincidence do we have with normal business investigations?  We saw it drive down Enron and later take down Ahold (later swallowed by Delhaize).  The President has a country to save from urban elites that want a utopia from a third term of socialist leadership.  And he is doing a better job than de Vincenzo in 1968 to catch the fraud.

PC Police Again, and An Old Movie Reference for a Vintage-Themed Show

T
he PC Police Strikes Again.  Our modern Zinn/Hannah-Jones worldview of history strikes again, and the real Curse of the Bambino roars its ugly head again.

In the early years of the NFL, team nicknames often were influenced by the local baseball team that often shared the ground with the NFL team.  We saw that with the Giants at the Polo Grounds, the Bears at Wrigley Field, the Lions at Briggs Stadium, and the Braves at Braves Field, which became the Redskins when they moved to Fenway.

The real Curse of the Bambino has been the number of men's and women's football and futbol teams, lacrosse teams, and other teams that have called Braves Field, or later after its configuration changed, Nickerson Field, home, were short-lived.  Nickerson was also the original stadium of the Patriots.

The 50-year old Blackfeet Nation-designed logo is being retired at the behest of the PC police, disregarding its post-merger titles won during the Jack Kent Cooke era after the Blackfeet designed their logo.  How have we become a nation that claims history is offensive?  It seems today's leftist crybabies have the floor, and cannot be thrown off it.  We saw it with CrossFit, and now we see it with the entire anti-police movement, the anti-history movement, and even sports teams with names these activists dislike.

If we keep up with this, only the liberal activists will always be right.

Vintage Movies Strike Again.  Radio Television Luxembourg's Press Your Luck 2019 on ABC has done it again.  In the first season, a winner from the 1983-86 revival of Bill Carruthers' flop Second Chance that lasted much longer (only being done in by the antics of Mark Goodson) appeared.  In January (when the shows were filmed), one episode features the one demographic that few would expect to be pushed on television (over 60 years old) playing.  All three contestants on the July 19 episode were champions on the 1983-86 version.

But the episode's name harkens back to Spielberg characters from Poltergeist II: The Other Side, where Carol Anne utters the signature phrase:  "They're back!"  And the reference for the champion of champions episode carries that exact title, celebrating the fact former champions return 35 years later for a "champion of champions" match.  It had me thinking vintage television reigns supreme again when doing revivals of classic game shows for a new generation to play.

Cancel Culture gone awry: Mr. Glassman's retirement and how Mao's Cultural Revolution caused it

The words from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a well-known 20th century novel warning of the dangerous times ahead, are appearing truthful by the day.

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

This is showing its ugly culture with the Left's ideal of total conformance to their worldview or they will face severe penalties, has appeared. In 2014, businesses were mandated to support the erotic liberty worldview under an executive order signed by the Obama Administration as payback for Exxon Mobil shareholders rejecting the New York City city-state's plan to impose special rights for perversions, which was solidified by Obergefell and now the “Equality Act” bill. Now, businesses are being told to conform to the Left's other viewpoints, such as the anti-police “Black Lives Matter” organisation, and no dissent of the Party's view is permitted, as the Orwell novel would have noted.

According to Black Lives Matter, they are now demanding a total annihilation of police and replacement by “social workers”. A friend from elementary school served in the local sheriff's department and was hit with a career-ending injury by an assailant, who did not serve additional prison time after his conviction for the career-ending injury. Now we are seeing the activists push towards the entire playbook of the Left. Their Instagram photo glorified activist Malcolm Little, who was part of the massive push of indoctrinating Islam in the 1960's. The mission statement is pushing for sexual liberty activism and the murder of babies – regardless of race. Black Lives Matter has made it clear sexual liberty means people should have the right to kill children all the way up to the day of delivery, special protections for pedophiles, and special rights for sexual perversions, including the right for same-sex couples to adopt and teach their form of child abuse on the child. The Radiance Foundation, led by Ryan Bomberger, who spoke at the 2019 state March for Life, has posted a reason why the entire movement is inappropriate. He specifically calls out their support of erotic liberty, abortion, ignorance of fathers, the mandate certain groups pay taxes that go to selected other groups based on race, creating in effect free money for life and buying votes ("repatriations"), abolition of police and prison, and Communism. His article is mandatory reading.

The cancel culture mandating total support of the Left's causes has gone rampant. Just this week, CrossFit founder and CEO Greg Glassman, a Rand Paul-esque libertarian whose events I have competed for years, warned activists that want to deify George Floyd (which he is being proven correct) the way the Left has deified various “martyrs” to their cause – in fact, there is a push by the Left to make a sexual perversion martyr's birthday a federal holiday, replacing Memorial Day or Washington's Birthday as the Left wants to follow with the aforementioned article.

Mr. Glassman was well-aware of the SARS CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID-19) and numerous research that was proven faulty, most notably the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) reports on SARS CoV-2. On June 6, the IHME posted onTwitter, “Racism and discrimination are critical public health issues that demand an urgent response.”

Mr. Glassman responded back, “It's Floyd-19”. Various other supporters of Mr. Glassman called the IHME frauds based on what they said about the COVID-19 pandemic with an explanation of the IHME fraud, stating, “Your failed model quarantined us and now you’re going to model a solution to racism? George Floyd's brutal murder sparked riots nationally. Quarantine alone is ‘accompanied in every age and under all political regimes by an undercurrent of suspicion, distrust, and riots.’ Thanks!”

When you research Mr. Glassman's history of attacking health research sponsored by the three major soda companies of The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico, and Keurig Dr. Pepper for spewing spin in support of the companies, it should be known those three companies' beverages are known for high amounts of refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and other dangerous chemicals (including caramel colour, aspartame, saccharin, and other chemicals that we know), he has seen enough of bogus science in health research. My dance friend has done many seminars on dangerous beverages where she takes packets of sugar you see at restaurants and tapes packets to show how dangerous a can of soda is in relation to chemicals in it Mr. Glassman saw a correlation of the IHME's inflated COVID-19 numbers that were disproven were a fraud and their push to declare racism a public health crisis to warrant massive government funding, and knowing how fraudulent the research would be to support leftist causes, forced him to respond in anger. How many times has bogus research results led to serious problems?

Almost immediately, the cancel culture struck CrossFit, with disaffiliation and cessation of sponsorship by bigger name firms because of Mr. Glassman's honest truth about bogus research. The fact people have deified Mr. Floyd the way Mr. Martin and others were deified for being crooks is disturbing. This cancel culture infuriated me when the local box, like many others including athletes, sent a statement denouncing Mr. Glassman. I responded by warning that we have become inundated with a resurgence of Mao Tse-Tung's Cultural Revolution of 1966 where any views opposite of the Left's worldviews were being eradicated based on the ideals of Chairman Mao. Our familly escaped cross-straits in the late 1940's. Why are we now glorifying the People's Republic when they created this major crisis we are currently enduring?

Mao's Cultural Revolution here has erased religious liberty and threatened churches while special rights are given to sexual deviancy movements. There are cases now where female athletes have complained over perversion activists allowing males to compete in their events, and costing them scholarships and prizes for unfair competitions. The Maoists are gloating with the Cooper River Bridge Run and Boston Marathon wins by default. They are turning the West into slaves of their wants. Yet, thanks to our leftist crybabies, these activists are following hook, line, and sinker the way of the Chinese Communist Party. Mr. Glassman's retirement is a byproduct of the Maoist Cultural Revolution the Left has imposed on us for anyone who opposes their worldview. No wonder my legislators ignore us because we do not fit their clique.

The real danger was exposed by Mr. Glassman, and it is the Maoist Cultural Revolution where, in the spirit of Nineteen Eighty-Four, only the Party has rights and they control everything. Mr. Glassman, in his description of junk science, offended “the party” as referenced by the novel of Mr. Orwell, leading to activists jumping lock, stock, and barrel into attacking him over speaking the truth that offends “the party”.

Works Cited:

The Radiance Foundation: http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/blm/

Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1565

Dale Saran's statement: https://www.theabjectlesson.com/2020/06/09/in-defense-of-greg-glassman/

Whatever happened to common sense?

In the seventh chapter of Joshua, the defeat of Joshua's troops at Ai led to the discovery of Achan's looting, where he admits he stole 200 shekels of silver, 50 shekels of gold, and others, hiding them in his jacket.  When discovered, Joshua asked why he had done such.  The consequence of the loss in battle, and Achan's looting, was death by stoning.  That warning was given over 2,500 years ago, and we are seeing the same consequence again after one incident in Minneapolis.

In the Minneapolis incident, we have a gentleman who comes to a convenience store, purchasing with a fraudulent $20 bill various sundries.  That's the first violation here.  As we learned in the indictment reports, he complied with police reports at first, but when officials uncovered the fraudulent scheme and had him handcuffed, the trouble began.  He acted in a manner that he did not want to be arrested.  As was exposed, we have a case of a habitual offender, and he started to act in his old manner when he refused to enter the police cruiser as warranted.  He had deliberately resisted arrest.  Why he did so is the question we must ask.  Meanwhile, Lt. Bob Kroll of the Minneapolis police department had an e-mail to fellow police with this position in the union that manages police.  He called the riots a "terrorist movement," and specifically called out leaders for reducing the size of police departments, and taking police funds to support anti-police community activists.  Lt. Kroll's letter also noted the repeat offender status of Mr. Floyd.  The only reason I am referencing this is that we must understand what happened according to official reports.  One little nudge that grew the officer suspicious was what happened.  But the ensuing riots and the activism of such "BLM" types is more disturbing, and that is what we are discussing.

But before we go further, I am reminded of what happened a generation ago in my hometown.  Two Alabama prisoners escaped and stole vehicles, crossing two state lines into South Carolina.  After that, they kidnapped a man, driving him just a few miles north of my home, shooting him to death, then throwing his body on the side of the road while they abandon the car, stealing a second car, this time with blank cheques ready for their next bit of criminal activity.  They follow their way to the local mall, using the fraudulent cheques to purchase köln and other toiletries.  The clerk at Belk was very suspicious, calling police as happened in Minnesota recently for the bogus currency.  Initially, officers centered the action on the accomplice of the two, freeing the two fugitives.  Sgt. Thomas C. Harrison Jnr questioned Thomas Ivey, who was one of the fugitives.  As that happened, Mr. Ivey's gun fired, hit the ground, and bounced into the policeman.  After that, Mr. Ivey shot Mr. Harrison five more times to death.  In 2009, Thomas Ivey sent executed with lethal injection for his antics in killing a policeman.  We remember total unity were we wore black and white ribbons for him (there was also a shooting a few months back involving a teacher who was a close friend of mine;  thankfully, she recovered and now runs a homeschooling Web site, and her oldest graduated from Upstate last year).  Sadly, activists would not allow such unity of community as was the case back in the day, and the modern-day BLM crowd would probably claimed they wanted justice for Mr. Ivey, disregarding his criminal behaviour and blaming it on race (as I remember one international amnesty organisation pushed).

The anti-police mentality, especially by the social justice warriors, is too reminiscent of rapper NWA's "Foxtrot the Police," the centrepiece of the 2015 movie Straight Outta Compton, a hit song where police are called "white bread, chicken sierra, mike foxtrot".  This type of bashing the police and attacking them for the faux currency ruse attacking police sadly forgets what happens when people steal and want to steal.  We see these riots as post-modern relativism, self-centredness, and the idea certain groups are "empowered" to have special rights most people do not have, such as the right to make our laws, policies, and rules that most people are not entitled to have.  This is why the Roy Cooper-Donald Trump battle over the Republican National Convention at the Spectrum in Charlotte is crucial.  Mr. Cooper's accomplishments were to use the courts in a "pocket veto" by refusing to defend a marriage definition passed by a clear supermajority in the Tar Heel State as the state's Attorney General and overturning the amendment himself, then activists followed by posting newspaper headlines showing Mr. Cooper's stance on Jesse Helms' grave to celebrate eliminating the Moral Majority and letting the immoral minority rule, showing regular America has no rights, on the Left's chosen social justice warriors who base the world on race, sex, and behaviour have rights nobody else has.

These "social justice warriors" are pushing for the abolition of bail where habitual offenders are booked, then are released to do more dirty deeds.  They also want certain groups to be empowered with rights others are not entitled to have.  We see that in every hearing in the United States Senate over a judicial or cabinet-level (or sub-cabinet level)  nominee, where Senators such as Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and others have questioned judges for being Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or the like because they would end the party of the far-left that has coddled criminals, rewarded sexual perversion, promoted baby murder, and the ilk have had in being superior to others in policy making.  How is it the perverted can adopt children and promote their child abuse on the children by denying them a father or other, and how is it we can elevate lewd behaviour to a protected class when Americans oppose it 4:1?  If you have a Biblical worldview, you are disqualified from office, according to the Left's social justice warriors, where only those who believe in their worldview are allowed.  This also goes along with a push by some extremist activists that I heard locally say they want to :tax the white farmers out of existence," then impose a new tax on businesses so bad that they ejected television media trying to cover the meeting where the new tax passed.  We did not have talk radio to fight back, which we now have.

Now we have these same social justice warriors working to push full Deconfederatisation, removing of Confederate history (including Fort Sumter and those who fought on the Gray side) and war history where Memorial Day would be replaced with the birthday of sexual perversion activist Harvey Milk, and following the ideal of 1984 where only the Party (left-wing activists) can dictate law, policy, and what is taught while nobody else is allowed a voice.

The looters that break into a Specialized bicycle store in Miami during this outbreak to steal $12,000 UCI Grand Tour or ITU-level bicycles, let alone those who break into any store to steal $1,000 televisions, clothes, and the incident just a few hundred metres from my friend Kimberly's restaurant where someone drove a stolen vehicle into a pawn shop that sells jewelry and guns to steal them all in the name of "social justice" are pushing relativism into a deeper state of mind.   The view of these Achans is that of moral relativism, and specialised justice where certain "oppressed" groups have rights that the majority are not entitled to anything.  These Aachans believe they have right to ransack a merchant's store and will not apologise, unlike Aachan.

The double standards are not just in stealing with these social justice warriors.  A very popular Asian descent ("sansei") motor racer nicknamed "Young Money," which is also used by a rapper, had his FIA competition licence suspended by ACCUS (selected national series among the member clubs require a driver carry an FIA competition licence) and fired by his team when, in an online incident with a friend, he dropped an N-bomb (nota bene:  World of Outlaws is not a member of ACCUS, and he has been winning recently on the Outlaws).  Meanwhile, rappers, R&B artists, and other such blast the same offensive word in their songs and on-air with MTV networks (MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, BET, et al), and they do nothing.  No wonder motorsport fans in the US have been angry at the double standard where a rapper uses the word and is praised, but a superstar driver uses the same word and has a virtual prison sentence.  What does it say when these groups have rights to write our laws, policies, education regulations to push "diversity and inclusion" (meaning to replace American history and Constitution with feelings of these activists) that have led to 58% of college graduates into saying there is a legitimate reason to legalise mob mentality with riots that block streets where social justice warriors can overrule everyone else.

And this type of mentality is now hurting our boys.  While city-owned ball fields are staying closed because of the pandemic, you can see thousands of girls doing dance classes outside and they are able to participate in activities, while boys with no rights to play ball because their fields are closed are left to the sidelines.  Our county just spend millions in tax hikes to build six new ball fields behind Walmart and Prep -- and they are configured for girls fastpitch.  While girls cannot do football or fastpitch, the girls doing dance are happily able to participate in summer activities, while boys are left behind with no activities available -- the perfect storm for social justice warriors that are working to demand the women's national football team be paid more than the men, without regards for the fact men's players play in Europe in 34-38 game seasons in the world's most prestigious leagues, while women play on streaming services and very few games on television.  Some area are dictating new schools can only offer girls' sport, and the future is to use social justice warriors to eliminate boys events where Friday Night Lights is futbol for girls and boys are sent to nothing, just as envisioned by Christina Hoff Sommers' The War Against Boys, where she notes girls have a football team as role models and boys only have criminals.

What is next in this social justice?  Are we going to see school chorus, now prohibited from singing Bach, Händel, and Haydn, because of religious overtones, singing the latest Beyoncé Knowles, Melissa Jefferson, or Janelle Monae hit song from the charts?  What type of lesson does that teach except it follows the "diversity and inclusion" agenda of the Left, while we ignore reading Shakespeare and singing Mozart.

We have to beware.  Social justice warriors are erasing common sense.  There are consequences for violating the law.  The consequences are even worse for resisting arrest, especially when you're gloating over your heinous crime.

“It’s About Saving Lives”…Or Is It?

N
one of us have ever experienced anything like how the Coronavirus pandemic has altered our daily lives.

Some are working from home for the first time. Some – far too many - are not working at all.

Concerts and plays are gone. Sports are gone – even on television. Movie theaters are closed. Most stores are closed. Going to church? As long as you stay in your car – and even then you risk legal trouble in some cities.

No more going out to a nice dinner in a restaurant. No getting together with friends in your home.

Doesn’t leave much, does it?

But we have been told repeatedly that these Draconian measures are absolutely the right thing to do, and we’ve been shown death rate numbers based on models that would scare a staunch libertarian into sheltering in place.

So we went along. And since we’ve never been in this situation before we all complied without asking a lot of questions.

As this is being written the U.S. is either at the peak or near the peak, and now the numbers are expected to start dropping – fewer deaths, fewer hospitalizations, fewer cases of any kind, even the 97% or so that are asymptomatic. The original estimates of loss were highly exaggerated.

And yet…the response to all this seems to be not a loosening of restrictions, but further constriction. Masks that were optional in some cities are now mandatory. Grocery stores that were open to everyone are now limiting the number of shoppers at any one time. And the governor of Michigan apparently won’t be happy until the streets of Detroit are completely deserted.

And now a lot of those questions that should have been asked a few weeks ago are becoming more pervasive.

But when they are asked, the response is usually the same: “It’s about public health.” “It’s about saving lives.” And then the discussion stops. Because if you disagree, you are against saving lives. What kind of monster are you, anyway?

I fear that going forward, “It’s about saving lives” may become the new “It’s racist” – a way to shut down a legitimate debate and brand one’s opponent as a terrible person by claiming a moral high ground. But few issues are so clear-cut, and few decisions are so binary.

We’re approaching a tipping point, when federal and state officials will contemplate stretching a “temporary” curb on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, which apparently no longer apply when there is a virus.

One more month? Two more? The rest of this year? One Harvard study now claims social distancing should be maintained until 2022.

It does seem ghoulish to talk about acceptable risk and acceptable loss. But there are other types of risks and losses as well, that will multiply at a frightening rate the longer we remain under these restrictions. Companies lost. Livelihoods lost. Hope lost.

Keep this in mind as well - if it was this easy to shutter businesses and throw millions of people out of work, lock up houses of worship and institute near martial law over much of the country, it's only going to be easier next time when a politician deems it necessary. That could be a Democrat shutting down gun stores for 'public health reasons,' or a Republican forcing abortion clinics to close.

We are still a nation of laws. And we need to start remembering that. Especially now.

Keep Your Faith To Yourself – Unless I Say Otherwise

In 2015, a county clerk for the state of Kentucky named Kim Davis decided to deny marriage licenses to gay couples, in open defiance of federal law. She did this, she said, because she believed the teachings of her church were more eminent than those of her country.

For doing so, she was roundly condemned and eventually relieved from this responsibility. The loudest voices of opposition came from the political left who howled about “separation of church and state!” She’s free to believe what she wants on her own time, they generously consented, but as long as she lives in this country she better abide by its laws, by jingo.

They probably didn’t say “by jingo,” but it seemed to fit.

These crusaders against Christianity having any say in politics probably don’t know where the concept of “separation of church and state” originated, and why it was created in the first place (it’s certainly not for the reason they think). But that is not relevant here.

What is relevant is that last week, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) just became the country's first 'sanctuary church body.’ They have proclaimed their intention to shelter and protect those who are in this country illegally, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that are attempting to enforce a law that has existed for decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

And the same people who mocked and condemned Kim Davis are now at risk of spraining their wrists from applauding so hard, in celebration of Christians openly defying federal law.

Has something changed? Did we become a theocracy when I wasn’t paying attention? Come on, you guys, someone should have told me.

This announcement was particularly troubling to me because I was baptized and confirmed in a church that now identifies as evangelical Lutheran. It was just plain old Lutheran back then, but I guess someone decided 32 Christian denominations weren’t enough, so it was time to add a few more.

I went to the ELCA’s Facebook page to get a sense of what the rank and file were saying about what I assumed would be a controversial decision. I expected opposing views, intelligently expressed; what I did not expect was insults, arrogance, and a level of discussion as puerile as what you’d find in the comments section of a fringe political blog. With few exceptions there was no attempt at respectful dialogue and debate. It was like a Trinity Broadcast Network version of Crossfire.

But if the question were to be decided by popular vote, the consensus on that Facebook page suggests this decision has majority support.

I think it’s terribly misguided, and the fact that I would even have to explain why is a sad reflection on how the world has changed. Right and wrong, legal and illegal, have all become amorphous terms in a society that is now allergic to emphatically expressed truths.

A legitimate government is enforcing a just law. Every country can and should regulate immigration as a right related to its national sovereignty. Period.

What message is the ELCA sending to the million or so immigrants who come to America legally every year? That they’re like fools who circle a parking lot for ten minutes waiting for someone to leave, when all they had to do was pull into that handicapped spot without a placard? Who cares about doing things the right way?

What message does it send to other churches who may wish to defy a law it believes is unfair? If the ELCA can shield an illegal immigrant from lawful deportation, why can’t a Catholic church detain a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy, to protect the innocent life of her child, because that too would be in accordance with a higher law?

This is a big door swinging open, and my guess is that all the Trump-haters who love seeing him get a middle finger from a house of worship have not considered all of the ramifications. This time it’s great because they agree with it. But they reserve the right to tell the church to hit the road on issues where they don’t. I’ll take “Cafeteria Christians” for 600, Alex.

Yes, there is a Gospel imperative to “welcome the stranger.” But any legitimate church’s doctrine also supports the right of sovereign countries to have borders, and the reality that immigration must be subject to some regulation.

The ELCA has elected to separate from that doctrine. That will get them some good press from a left-leaning media for a while. But I wonder if anyone will ask its members (or those cheering from the secular sidelines cause Jesus finally got one right) if they ever gave a thought to the strangers laying all over the sidewalks of San Francisco and Seattle and Portland.

I’m guessing they haven’t – thankfully the Catholics and the Protestants are doing their best to provide food and shelter and counseling. Maybe if some of those pitiful souls decided to have a gay wedding, they’d get a little more attention.

July 23 Notebook

Now That's a Watching Party.  The husband of a contestant on RTL's Press Your Luck 2019 (airing on ABC, produced by the German television network Radio Television Luxembourg) made some crazy tee-shirts for the viewing party when the episode she taped in May debuted.  Contestants of the ten-episode summer third revival of the 1977 Second Chance (ABC daytime) and 1983-86 Press Your Luck (CBS daytime) William A. Carruthers Company and 2002 Whammy! The All New Press Your Luck (GSN) production were told of their air dates afterwards, and a watch party was organised by the contestant's husband.

Ironically, the contestant's opponents ended up with red fur as both of her opponents were disqualified from the game for reaching the Chinese adage why elevators do not carry the number of a certain NASCAR Monster Energy Series champion that won his first race Sunday.  (It's used in Asian-themed cooking shows also why they assign certain number of servings they avoid that number of servings too!)

Is This the Future?  The controversy over the Women's World Cup National Football Team that won it all continues.  But meanwhile, as we see masculine failure around us, the question will arise as more "equal pay" and "equal use of venues" becomes the issue thanks to Title IX, and even research by groups.  In college, a student who was my classmate did his Senior Thesis paper on how Title IX abuse ran him out of his previous college, as he was a wrestler on scholarship and lost his scholarship and his admission to the school as a result of abusing the Patsy Mink Education Act of 1972.  I made a reference in 2012 to the consequences, but after women scored $3,000,000 in the last World Cup and men were BUST (as they say in RTL's Card Sharks bonus round, another classic game show revived for 2019, but I am not a fan of how slow the game is because Joel McHale doesn't do it the way Bob Eubanks and the late Bill Rafferty or Jim Perry did the game), the debate opens.

The controversy over the national football team will be a warning for parents of boys.  The feminine superiority and masculine failure wil lead to the advancement of ideals in high schools, as we see participation of sports by boys drop and girls rise in many states.  Friday Night Lights will soon be girls' high school futbol, with dance teams dancing at halftime.  Boys will soon be losing their entire extracurricular activities as Title IX activists will ensure only girls are allowed to have events, and boys will not.  Dance teams are replacing cheerleading at many schools because it is girls only while cheerleading is becoming coed in order to give boys who are proficient at gymnastics (which for men is a strength sport, as seen in high bars and rings) and want to be in CrossFit (gymnastics activities are required in those events) a chance to participate in strength activities.  In New York, we learned when new schools opened, only girls could have sport activities in the schools to meet Mink Act rules.  Will boys be subject to these heinous rules in new schools first as schools try to appease the wishes of these authorities working to eliminate masculinity?

You wonder what's next.

What Are You Teaching?  Visiting a church in the area after a long day out of town, there is a discipleship training class (which is an evening Bible study before church services).  As we went through Elijah's story of discouragement, somehow Mendelssohn's Elijah came back to my head after reading about "O Rest In the Lord" and "If With All Your Hearts".  Those songs were written from the oratorio based on the Bible.  Compare that to today's modern worship songs based on feelings of the writer, and not a single part from the Bible.  Go figure.  Why are we teaching feelings instead of objective Word?  That's part of the problem in our culture today.

Regietheater Run Rampant.  So MGM/UA and EON have decided James Bond is retiring and will be in Jamaica for the next film, while regietheater freaks have replaced him with . . . someone in the PC world.  This person fits all the checkmarks of the modern progressive movement.  What?

A Tribute.  The Take-No-Prisoners editor of The Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, died Wednesday at 83, hours after just another hard day of work for the legendary editor.  The man who was that newspaper from its 1982 founding all the way to the end of his life just hours after finishing up another day at the office leaves a legacy of a newspaper he edited and knew how to do things.  Sadly, Amazon, which indirectly owns the rival The Washington [BLEEP], left insults at Mr. Pruden's stepchildren that Media Research Network noted.

An appreciation of Wesley Pruden can be found here.

And here is Pruden's last column.

Throwback Thursday: what's in a word?

While I was working out tonight, I noticed one of the gym television was tuned in to CNN (you don't think I'd have my own TV tuned to that, do you?), and their political shout show had the headline "Trump Can't Stop Tweeting."

Now, since I wasn't listening to the show or reading the captioning, I don't know if they meant he can't stop tweeting, or won't stop tweeting. One implies a psychological condition which, I'm sure, the network's political correspondents are eminently qualified to diagnose; the other, a determination (or at least stubbortnness) on the part of Trump to do whatever he wants to do, regardless of the consequences. I lean toward the second interpretation myself, but the phrasing certainly implies the first one. But CNN wouldn't intentionally want to imply that now, would they?

That would be kind of like - oh, I don't know - saying that CNN was obsessed with Donald Trump. Does it mean they have a clinical fixation on him, or that they're merely operating with a political agenda against him?

They report, we decide.

Originally published August 7, 2017

Psst - are you running for president?

Pardon me, but by any chance are you running for president of the United States? The reason I ask is because it seems as if just about everyone is, so I didn’t want to offend you.

At least count, 581 people have filed with the Federal Election Commission that they are candidates for president, or at least contemplating it. John Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado, became the latest to jump in the pool this morning. There’s the incumbent, of course, along with growing number of (past and present) congressmen, senators, governors, mayors, authors, businessmen, self-help gurus, and maybe Mabel who lives just down the street. They aren’t all credible candidates, of course; some of them are what would politely be considered longshots, candidates for whom everything would have to break the right way for them to have a chance. Some of them are vanity candidates, people who want to see their names in print and don’t really care if they get any votes or not. Some of them are delusional, like those you read about who get six or seven of their friends together and suddenly they pronounce themselves the new pope. And some of them are Marianne Williamson. Or Cory Booker.

For each of those 581 candidates that have thrown their hats in the ring, you can bet there are two or three others who’ve thought about it, or would like to. Why so many people pine for the nation’s top job is something of a mystery to me. I wanted it once myself, and planned for it, but that was when I was young and impressionable and heavily involved in politics. As Saint John (and Ingmar Bergman) might have said, I was looking through a glass darkly. Thankfully, I’ve since given up those childish dreams, but it appears a lot of people haven’t. It seems to me as if the job itself is nothing more than four (or eight) years of grief, with your opponents calling you all sorts of horrible and grotesque names, and your allies spending half their time stabbing you in the back while they work on their plot to succeed you. Honestly, it’s as if House of Cards was some kind of how-to show on the DIY Network.

It’s true that one has to have a healthy ego to succeed in politics; it’s equally true, it seems to me, that one doesn’t become interested in politics, doesn’t take the step into seeking elective office, without harboring, in the dark recesses of the mind, the dream of hearing “Hail to the Chief” as they stride across the stage with the crowd’s cheers ringing in their ears. And then the light turns green and the car behind honks, and real life intercedes.

We complain about the problems facing the country, we elect someone to deal with them, and then we spend four years complaining about the job that person is doing. Actually, we spend about four days complaining about it, and then candidates start lining up to take the job away. When John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon announced their candidacies for the presidency, they did it in the same year as the election. That’s the way it was done back then. Sometimes a candidate didn’t even make the announcement official until the time of the convention. When Jimmy Carter became a candidate two years before the 1976 election, people laughed at him. (We know who had the last laugh, don’t we?) Now we have candidates who drop out before even one primary vote or caucus ballot has been taken. Debates are held a year before the primaries. There’s even talk of first-in-the-nation New Hampshire moving their primary to December.

The results of this new-style politicking are obvious. By the time the election actually rolls around, voters have become detached from the process; everyone’s sick and tired of both the campaigns and the candidates, and sometimes I think people who vote early do so just to get the damn thing over with. You know what they say about familiarity breeding contempt; perhaps it’s something candidates should think about. We already know that, no matter who wins, people will be angry about the result. There will be allegations of voter fraud, murmurings about abolishing the Electoral College, even suggestions that we go to a parliamentary form of government. It’s a great way to kick off four years of presidential leadership, isn’t it?

There’s only one logical answer for this, and it’s so obvious it’s staring us right in the eyes.

It’s that we need more candidates for president. About 152 million, to be precise. That’s one estimate as to how many people are eligible to run for president of the United States, and from that it’s clear we’re nowhere near the number we really need. Seriously, it’s evident that nobody is happy with the choices before us, that everyone knows best, and that anyone we disagree with becomes manifestly unsuitable for anything, let alone the presidency. The answer, therefore, is for everyone to become a candidate. Even those who aren’t yet qualified—hell, why stand on ceremony? There’s probably a 50/50 chance the Supreme Court would agree, so why not try it?

If everyone was a candidate, and everyone voted for him or herself, then the election would end in a deadlock, with each candidate having one vote. At that rate, you’d only need to convince one person—a friend, family member, spouse or lover—to switch their vote, and you’d have the election in the bag. You’d be in good company; 24 times the winning candidate has failed to achieve 50% of the popular vote, from James K. Polk and Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. You’d also guarantee that as president, you’d have at least a 50% approval rating from your supporters. (Unless you have some kind of self-hatred complex.)

So c’mon, get with it! Time’s a-wasting; only 610 days until the 2020 election, and there’s a lot of work still to be done. At this rate, maybe I’ll even give it another shot.

Green with envy

I figure I've seen two movies in theaters over the last three years*, and both of those were documentaries, so it's not surprising that I haven't watched the Academy Awards for many years. There's just no connection there for me anymore; it would be like watching India's version of the Emmys (they're called the ITA Awards, in case you were wondering) to find out what the most popular show in Delhi is. That doesn't mean that I've completely stopped paying attention to the Oscars, though; when you write about television, even vintage television, the entertainment pages have a way of making themselves known to you.

*Excluding RiffTrax and the Metropolitan Opera, of course.

I'll admit, though, feeling a certain sense of satisfaction Monday morning when I found out that Green Book had won the Oscar for Best Picture. It's not that I'm a big fan of Green Book, or a fan at all; nor do I have anything against the other contenders, such as Roma, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Black Panther. Since I haven't seen any of them, it's not as if I had a dog in the fight.

So why did Green Book's win please me? Primarily because it irritated so many other people. I'd read for months about the hate for the movie that existed in certain quarters: that it was a feel-good movie that ignored real problems in the country; that it was a warmed-over Driving Miss Daisy; that it presented a saccharine view of race relations in America; that it wasn't particularly factual. It was the kind of vituperation that usually indicates fear—fear that this pariah of a movie might actually come out on top. If I'd thought more about it, I'd have taken it as a sign to phone a bookie and place a few bucks on Green Book to win, and then I wouldn't have to worry about finding a new job.

For instance, critic A.O. Scott, writing in The New York Times, referred to Green Book as "a Road Trip Through a Land of Racial Clichés," and went on to describe it as "a sentimental tale of prejudices overcome and common humanity affirmed; that its politics will be as gently middle-of-the-road as its humor; that it will invite a measure of self-congratulation about how far we, as a nation, have come."

But—what's wrong with that? Aren't these supposed to be the kinds of things we want? I thought it was a good thing to overcome prejudice and affirm common humanity, and even if it hasn't happened universally, shouldn't we celebrate that it might at least have happened between a couple of people? One step at a time, right? And what's wrong with middle-of-the-road politics—we're always being encouraged to reject extremism, aren't we? As for being self-congratulatory, I think such critics could use a healthy dose of perspective; while we as a nation may still have a ways to go before becoming the country we hope to be, only someone in total denial would suggest that we haven't come a long way from the '60s, or the '40s, or the '20s. Honestly, it makes you think these people don't want things to get better, because then they wouldn't have anything to scold about.

Scott's arrogant review points out precisely why I was glad Green Book won, why so many non-critics saw the movie as a likable story with occasionally pointed humor. The more perspective columnists point to a backlash against the anti-Green Book campaign, not unlike that which swept Donald Trump into office in 2016. Perhaps it's not a like-for-like comparison, but the left seems hopelessly, myopically, unable to comprehend that most people don't like to be told what to think, and they certainly don't like to have someone condescend to them. We're not fools—we know Green Book isn't a documentary; we understand that America isn't a perfect nation. Does that mean we can't go into a darkened theater, or sit in front of our televisions for a couple of hours, and just enjoy ourselves with a movie, without being lectured to, or hectored, or scolded for chuckling at a joke we think is funny?

The idea that movies have to have a politically progressive viewpoint, that they have to confront social issues by espousing a comfortably leftist ideology, that you cannot be entertained without having to sit through some kind of political indoctrination—well, it's a cliché to say that it would be humorous if it weren't so sad, but it's true. There is no enjoyment for this kind of person unless it comes with a devil's bargain: buy your fun, get a free helping of social justice. It's a BOGO from hell.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be demanding in our standards for better forms of entertainment. Maybe Green Book really isn't a very good movie; more than one critic suggested that it was a mediocre year for movies and that none of the nominated films are without significant flaws. But even if that is the case, surely there has to be a middle ground between the kind of movies on the Hallmark Channel and the Goebbels propaganda machine.

Or maybe not. Maybe that's the kind of "middle-of-the-road" entertainment that people like A.O. Scott so scornfully ridicule. For them, there is only one kind of movie, only one form of entertainment, only one candidate to vote for, only one way to believe.

And as long as they think that way, there will always be Best Picture winners like Green Book for them to hate.

Jussie's twirl

Not long ago many of my liberal friends were describing the Jussie Smollett attack as emblematic of what is happening in the country at large.

Turns out they were right ­– just not in the way they thought.

You know both stories by now. First there was the phony one immediately embraced by a media foaming at the mouth over another chance to write “Just another day in Trump’s racist America.” The one circulated at light speed across social media, equating a red MAGA hat with a Klansman’s white hood. The one tweeted about by Democrat presidential candidates and pinhead celebrities who never miss an opportunity to display another virtue signaling flourish.

And now we have the actual story. Smollett staged the attack, paid the attackers, and then lied about it to police officers and his Empire costars and ABC’s Robin Roberts.

His actions were, indeed, emblematic of 2019 America. We live in a time when the aspirations of many are not wealth or knowledge or compassion, or the attainment of morals and values that contribute to a purpose-driven life. Instead, the objective is victimhood.

How does one explain why a talented actor on a successful prime-time series, earning $65,000 an episode, would choose to cast himself as the innocent prey of two racist, homophobic Trump supporters?

The short version is he was unhappy with his salary. How many of you would be driven to desperation by a weekly $65,000 paycheck?

The longer and more troubling motivation is that victimhood has become a coveted status. It is sought after by the successful with the same zeal real victims exert to escape their plight.

Politicians have long been the worst offenders. Perhaps they still are. We are supposed to admire whichever candidate had to walk the most miles in the deepest snow to get to school every day.

Then we have the Elizabeth Warrens and Rachel Dolezals of the world, who seek to establish their bona fides by claiming association with a historically oppressed group, with no basis for doing so. They want the sympathy (along with any professional benefits) without the suffering.

If it seems worse now it’s because, for the past two years, the partisan hacks that dominate mainstream media have made it their mission to remind women, African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, and pretty much anyone who is not white, male and Christian that they are oppressed citizens under a lunatic racist president.

That provides a convenient excuse for anyone who didn’t get the job or was not admitted to their dream college, or who has any number of grievances that likely could be overcome by patience, concentrated focus and harder work: It’s not me, it’s you. You’re the reason, Mr. President, society, racist/sexist America, that my life isn’t going the way I planned. My fate is out of my hands. I’m just another victim.

Jussie Smollett shouldn’t fit that category. As a gay African-American he holds legitimate membership in two historically oppressed groups. But instead of celebrating how he overcame the remnants of those societal barriers, and becoming a role model for others hoping to do the same, he decided he wanted more. And the best way to get there was to become a victim. Career advancement via what both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris called a “modern day lynching.”

Now that Smollett has become an actual victim – of his own greed and stupidity –he’ll finally get to leverage his black, gay status. The Don Lemons of the world are already rallying to his defense despite his actions. “In his heart he’s a truly good person,” said actress Sheryl Lee Ralph. And after being indicted for filing a false police report, and diverting law enforcement resources in a city where real assaults occur every minute, Smollett was allowed to post bail and head back to work.

Roseanne Barr wrote a racist tweet, and was immediately fired. Is that worse than committing a Class 4 Felony? Might she also be a good person at heart? Didn’t much matter in this case.

“(The) moral authority that comes from being victimized has replaced the desire for admiration or respect for some act of heroism,” wrote Matt Lewis on The Daily Beast website. “I’m not sure what exactly that says about a society, but it can’t be good.”

Thoughts as we mourn those lost to baby murder

Over sixty million have died at the "convenience" called "abortion".  Yet elites forced down a Congress where all finances are lead by the same activists that want to force us to fund killing children.  It made me ponder the attendance in our own state at the Women's Marches when it seemed they outdrew our March for Life every year in all three years.  What gives?  (Of course, I have one of the most liberal legislators pushing for baby murder representing me.)  In fact, this year, our politicians were not at our rally as they were at a celebration that has cost me $10,000, my car, my college ring, my dignity, and even forcing me to wear symbols of the enemy, even signing my checks in enemy colours.

Hirono and The Bay Area Giant.  Our annual March for Life has the Knights of Columbus helping us lead the event, as I've noticed for all 22 years I've been associated with the movement.  But two Senators representing elite enclaves (Honolulu and San Francisco) decided to attack President Trump's nominees for judicial positions over being members of the Knights.  And yet there's also a "Personhood" legislator in our state that denounced the March for Life because the majority of marchers for being Catholic.  They know that they could not have won Roe, Doe, Windsor, Obergefell, Lawrence, or other major leftist victories without their judges.  They fear their arrogance is overturned by common sense of the people.

25 Years of Holly.  Former journalist Holly Gatling has led our state's National Right to Life Committee chapter for the past 25 years.  This year, in fact, the National Right to Life Convention is being held near the Charleston airport in celebration of her 25 years.  Attorney General Alan Wilson held a mock trial to celebrate her 25 years at our annual banquet.

The New York City-State.  Sen. Dirksen's warning of the city-state holds true.  New York City is its own city-state (actually three states in the Senate) but they singlehandedly passed a law that makes baby murder legal through all nine months, decriminalises baby murder, and more.  Gov. Cuomo then lit up the Freedom Tower in pink to celebrate -- but why are we celebrating this?  I've seen this month every ugly celebration being done on every New York building with the celebration that cost me everything above.  The Founding Fathers would be angry at seeing one city dominance.  One NFL  player in anger responded, "It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance."

Covington.  The attacks on parochial school are sad but a byproduct of today's humanist education.  In some ways I wish my parents never pulled me out of The City based on stereotypes.  I learned the hard way parochial school was the best because everyone was respected based on the standards of God's Word, not as the old Don Koch and Mark Harris song said, "the newest rage is to reason it out" and "man is a god and God is no longer alive".  Those that attack the Catholic school students have no respect of those who are in parochial education.  Of course, considering Stephani Germanotta's attack on Vice-President Pence as she has worked to advance propaganda, what do you expect from those that attack Biblical worldviews?  Now we hear one of the parties that tried to attack the Catholics tried to crash a mass.

Having been the victim of too many aggressors who lied about me and wanted me dead in classic Saul Alinsky style, I sympathise with the students.  National Review has an article about the lying "MSM" attacking.
 
You Attack Them Because Many are Catholics?  Notorious Libertarian Party candidate Steve Lefemine, who has pushed for a Personhood Bill in our state legislature, has blatantly attacked the local March for Life because Catholics are involved, even though Protestants are just as involved in the rally as Catholics.  This is a petty shame because he has fallen to a trap reminiscent of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland wars.

Please DO NOT Push Heresy!  A college "praise team" sang at our March for Life, and it was set to karaoke.  As the event ended and we walked back to our cars, that group of vocalists sang some doctrinal malpractice that was heavily offensive -- but sadly, too many churches have failed to see the discerning ear.  The man-centred worldview of the song in question from an Australian Pentecostal NAR-affiliated denomination is troubling.  Maybe I've gone over the top but when you've sung Händel's "Israel in Egypt" and find more in sacred classics of 300 years ago while seeing nothing from modern pop music, and you've paid musicians at recitals in a karaoke world, it is jarring.  But to sing a tunes of a denomination that refuses to answer Biblical truths and ministers that refuse to speak Biblical truth, as Hillsong leaders refuse to condemn sexual perversion or baby murder is a warning to all of us that Albert Mohler stated Beethoven's songs are not suitable for worship because of his pantheism.   Likewise, the affirmation and not calling sin what is sin by this denomination whose songs that college group sang is a serious disturbance.

WORKS CITED
Mark R. Harris and Donald A. Koch, "The Basics of Life," Universal Music Publishing Group, 1992.

Cameron Buettel and Jeremiah Johnson, "Hillsong & Worship," Grace to You, November 28, 2016. 

The View, October 30, 2017.  American Broadcasting Company.