We skipped this last year. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. But this past year.
Eee gads, what a doosy.
So, the thread is back.
The Inappropriate Actors, Bad Actors and Really Bad Actors
First off.
Harvey, put your pants on. We mean it.
Okay, now that we have that out of the way. . . okay we really didn't.
The Me Too folks made the cover of Time for Person(s) of the Year this year, and they richly deserved it. The news just keeps on keeping on. It's been incredible. So we have to touch that a bit.
So, all you bad behaving men, act right. You know what that means and don't need re-education to do it.
But, and I can feel the cringes starting, all you female assistants and aspiring female entertainers, you can in fact say no, and that "he was powerful" is bulls**t. If you said yes, well, stop complaining. Go to Confession, or whatever you do to reconcile your bad behavior. His bad behavior doesn't excuse yours.
And in general, men who can take advantage of that office girl, or who are cheating on spouses, or whatever, just stop. Women who are easy marks, or trying to sleep their way to the top, you stop too.
Now that we have that out of the way. . . Harvey! Put your pants on!
Oh, and Hugh, you pathetic slim ball, you left just a little too early for you to see society reap the harvest of your "revolution". Figures, slug.
Hollywood
And while we're talking about "actors" (bad segue, I'll admit), Hollywood, given the cartoon movies a break, will ya?
I've been meaning to post on this for some time, and probably doing it in a year in which there were actually at least three really good adult movies is bad timing, but the outbreak of infantilism in movies is really weird. Marvel comic characters weren't interesting in the comic book form for people over ten years old to start with. Movies based on them for adults? Infamnia!
All in all, I think this trend says something, but I'm not really sure what. Movies always drew in a fairly youthful audience, in spite of all the angst that got rolling in the 1970s about movies suddenly being made to appeal only to kids. Indeed, that might have been first bit of opening angst of the Baby Boom Generation as they were getting worried, I suspect, that movies might not be getting made for them, although they still were. Be that as it may, something about that time really caused the Peter Pan movement, I.e., I don't ever want to grow up, to really get rolling. So new we see adult audiences going to movies based on cartoons.
Movies based on cartoons have existed for a really long time. Superman movies appeared as early as 1948 and Superman shorts appeared in 1941, very early. But they were geared for kids, showing that kids at the movies have always been a considered Hollywood demographic. But now huge budget films are being shot in this category.
When we look back at the classics of earlier eras, like Casablanca or the Maltese Falcon, or Lawrence of Arabia, it's easy for us to now forget that a lot of that movie audience was only in their 20s. They were just more mature.
So, Hollywood, just stop it. And movie growers going to these. . . grow up.
And while you are at that, television can grow up as well. If we must have endless sit coms, how about some about people in at least some semi realistic situations?
And regarding realistic situations, how about you just dump all the "reality" television for 2018. And, as part of that, sending the Vanderpumps back to the UK would be fantastic.
Donald Trump
Hands off that phone Donald.
Quit tweeting. Right now. In fact, don't use a computer for the rest of your Presidency, particularly if you want that Presidency to have any length at all. Every tweet just makes things worse for you.
And I don't care if this appeals to your demographic or not. This has really jumped the shark.
Also, think before you speak a little.
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders
The head of the Democratic Party in the House, which fancies itself as holding the youth vote, 77 year old Nancy Pelosi.
Retire and let the kids have a crack at things. You know. . .those whippersnappers in their 50s. It's okay. . . they almost have enough experience to go it on their own now.
The kids will be all right.
You likely have about eleven months left to prove you can govern or the House is going to change hands. Get your act together.
If that means ignoring your President, do that. But it certainly means acting like adults and actually acting on your expressed convictions. So far, you've mostly bumbled around since the last election. That's going to catch up with you really quickly in 2018, if in fact it hasn't already.
Apparently when Bob Dylan sang about never trusting anyone over thirty, you took it to mean to never trust anyone who isn't under thirty right now, and never trust anyone who isn't in that Woodstock Generation ever.
Man, you guys are old. Old, old, old. You need some new blood. You have it, but you don't trust it.
So, here's a thought. Look around and find out who in your power structure is over 40 (which I am, I'll note). Fire all of them.
Yes, can them all.
All.
100%.
Retire, fire, exile, whatever. But they have to go.
You can't get anywhere when you have a situation in which the youth vote in your party has to go up to an even older generation to find somebody they think is hip and cool.
Sheesh.
Carpetbagging Candidates In Wyoming
Stay home. There are enough locals here who want to run without you people coming in and thinking that we're going to elect you. Don't take Liz Cheney as a model. Her pop retained popularity in some pretty strong corners and the GOP was divided in that election. That's not going to apply to you unless your name is Theodore Ronald Regan Roosevelt. And it isn't.
Pope Francis (and a few others)
Pope Francis?
Yes, and I'll admit that I have to be careful here.
I'm a practicing Catholic that probably can claim to be devout. I certainly try to be fully observant. And for folks like me, Pope Francis has been one unending blurry headache in some ways.
I respect the maxim that we need to respect the Pope, and unlike one of my very conservative Catholic friends I haven't reduced myself to referring to him by an abbreviated first name. He is the Pope. But he suffers, dare I say it, from the same problem Donald Trump does. He talks a lot, and he's really unclear when he speaks. He ought to take a break for awhile.
This is actually a two part problem with the Pope, and some of it has to do with him just liking to talk and being extremely imprecise when he speaks. Additionally, he seems to not grasp that the media, and all media, not just the American media, by necessity latches on to snippets. Most media is not of the caliber of The Economist or First Things by a long shot. So a rambling paragraph that contains a shocking sentence or two is going to be taken out of context every time.
That leads to various figures scrambling to correct and define what was said. And that creates a mess.
This same problem, I'll note, extends to some figures who are close to the Pope. They'll make a pronouncement about what the Pope is thinking and then it turns out to be inaccurate and has to be called back.
So, no, it isn't the case that the Pope has suddenly approved Medjugorje. No, he isn't going to require a change in the text of The Lord's Prayer (even if that would be a translation correction). No, he didn't suddenly approve gay lifestyles. You folks just weren't listening.
Okay, so much for that.
Now, on to a more serious problem.
We've had a series of reforming Popes going back to Pope John XXIII, who brought Vatican II about. But they haven't all been the same type of reformers. Pope John convened Vatican II, but he died during it and Pope Paul VI had to complete it. People are on both sides of what occurred, but it's pretty clear that Vatican II, no matter what it actually did, had the impact of releasing some forces within the Church that would like to go well outside of Catholic doctrine if they could. And for practicing Catholics who have lived long enough to appreciate it, it unleashed the "Spirit of Vatican II" folks who have been a menace or at least irritating at the Parish level since the 1970s.
Starting with Pope John Paul II (now St. John Paul the Great), the Vatican started to take back the ground that the Spirit of Vatican II released, but it's been a chore. Following the death of St. John Paul the Great, Pope Benedict Benedict XVI came in and it's clear that the very orthodox Pope Benedict worked to carry on the work advanced by St. John Paul the Great. But he then did the unprecedented step of resigning, the reasons for which are still very unclear. That lead to Pope Francis.
What's fairly clear about Pope Francis is that he had the strong support of the "liberal" Cardinals. What that means beyond that is unclear, however. And Catholics believe that the Papacy is preserved from error no matter what the personal views of the Church are. That's an interesting point for Catholics, as Pope Francis would seem, now that he's been in long enough to appreciate his views, to give good evidence of that.
It now seems fairly clear that his convening of the Synod on t he Family was likely an effort to really go in and modify doctrine in a way that liberal Cardinals, like Cardinal Kasper, would have it. It didn't work. He next released Amoris laetitia, which is was a post synod Apostolic Exhortation. It's a long document, but a footnote, and that's what it is, suggesting that divorced Catholcis living in second marriages without annulments can receive Communion in some unusual circumstances.
That's not actually a change in doctrine, and Canon Lawyers will point out that it in now way changes Canon 915, which provides: "Those who have been excommunicated or
interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others
obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy
communion." The common interpretation of Canon 915 provides that as the Church does not recognize divorce (there's actually an odd exception in the Catholic Church under the Pauline Rule, so that's not completely absolute), and as remarrying without a declaration of nullity means that a person is now living in an adulterous union (presuming sex is going on, which is usually a safe assumption), and as that's a grave sin, such people cannot receive communion.
That's been understood that way for a long time, but there's always been some exceptions that can apply here and there, so the suggestion that there's exceptions isn't a change in anything. However, putting this in a footnote in an era in which 1) divorces are more common than they have been at any time in the past five hundred years at least (but not as common as commonly supposed); and 2) Western Society (but pretty much only Western Society) has had its sexual culture polluted by the "Sexual Revolution" and vile disgusting slugs like Helen G. Brown and Hugh Hefner to the point where lots of people don't take any restrictions on sexual libertineism to be really serious, even if they profess sincere religious faith, is a bad idea.
Indeed, perhaps ironically, it might be some of point number two as well as point number one that has been leading Pope Francis to try to address this. I.e, in our current age when some people have become so dense as to actually define themselves by their sexual desires (which is flat out weird) and in which society is bombarding everyone all the time with sexual messages to the extent that a lot of people seriously don't grasp that sex out of marriage has alwasy, and I do mean always, been regarded as a mortal sin, let alone the existence of an age in which the Protestant faiths have completely abandoned any concept that a person cannot divorce and remarry, there could be some confusion. But confusion that cannot be cleared up, would be extraordinarily rare.
Which leads us to his recent letter to the Argentine Bishops.
Every since the Apostolic Exhortation various Diocese have been struggling to figure out how to apply the exception, with that varying from just giving up on restricting Communion to simply not applying any exceptions that weren't already being applied. The Bishops of Argentina issued instructions, however, on how to apply it that the Pope wrote a letter to them about, approving them.
Now that's pretty significant in that the Pope never answered the Dubia that was issued by Cardinals asking him to clarify things, and things haven't really gone particularly well for those associated with the Dubia. The letter therefore almost stands as the answer, and in his highly confusing way, the Pope came around to, apparently (although we're really not sure, as it came about due to somebody close to him, rather than him) indicating that he wants the letter to be regarded as an Apostolic Letter.
Now we don't know what that means. Apostolic Letters, when on matters of faith and morals, have infallibility attach to them. But if they're on the practice of doctrine, the (apparently) don't. So now theologians are trying to figure out what's what. But whatever is what, the remarkable thing is that he practice of the Argentine Bishops is extremely restrictive and so basically we're left with the confirmation that nothing has changed. For faithful Catholics, things have the appearance of Pope Frnacis creeping up on doctrinal changes, and then being arrested from doing them. And it seems pretty clear that the arresting of his actions comes from outside of him.
But in any event, his actions, confusing though they are, and going on for a long time, are creating genuine turmoil and he should accordingly give it a rest. His actions, while they've not changed anything, are becoming truly harmful. Indeed, within the past few months one of the liberal Cardinals indicated that most of them now regret voting for him and there's a movement afoot to urge him to resign as they're fearful that if this keeps up, it'll cause a schism.
And here's another way that Pope Francis is like Donald Trump. Trump's in the GOP but the GOP fears he's ripping it apart. Now even the liberal backers of Francis fear he's having that effect. He needs to stop and focus his efforts elsewhere.
And as I'm on the topic of religion. . . reunification
When a maniac is at the door, feuding brothers reconcile. Peter Kreeft
It's time to apply this logic.
And yes, this usually snarky and satirical entry is rather serious this year.
Kreeft's maxim couldn't be more applicable to our current time, for Christians, and perhaps his personal journey is a well. Originally a Calvinist his exploration of the early Church had the same impact on him that it has on a host of dedicated Protestants. It lead him to become Catholic (on rarer occasion it leads some to become Orthodox). That's not directly what this section of resolutions is about, but it's sort of what its about.
The Protestant churches in most of the world (but not all) are really dying. The US is a general exception. The Anglican Church in Africa is a specific exception, where it finds itself in near schism with Canterbury. The Pentecostals (whom some regard as non Christian actually) in the UK are an exception as well. But elsewhere, while things are nowhere near as dire as claimed, things also aren't what they used to be. Most Scandinavians remain Christian Lutherans, for example, but they don't pack in the Lutheran churches regularly like they once did.
So here's the point. Christianity suffered its early heresies and whatnot nearly from the onset of the Faith, but a real split set in for a variety of reasons approximately in the 1050s, although it'd take another 500 years (truly) for htat to really set in, in the way we have it now. That was, of course, the seperation between the Catholics (not the Roman Catholics, the Catholics) and the Orthodox.
Over time, whether the Orthodox care to admit it or not, various formerly Orthodox groups have come back in. It's been really slow, but it had definitely happened, which is why we have groups like the Ruthenians today. On rare occasion, there's been a little flow in the reverse direction, for one reason or another.
Most of the ongoing split has been healed and what preserves it, in spite of what people like to imagine, mostly has to do with human obstinacy. There are some doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Catholics, but they are really slight. The Orthodox like to point to the filioque in the Nicene Creed, without usually noting that Eastern Catholics use the same version of the Nicene Creed as the Orthodox do, and that in theological terms it looks like everyone is on the same page.
A bigger stumbling block is the role of the Pope, which frankly I worry that the current controversies over the current Pope make worse. By and large the Orthodox are truly "orthodox", and there aren't liberal branches of Orthodoxy. So the arguing going on in the Catholic Church that split liberal and conservative likely push the Orthodox even further away. This is a really good reason, I'd note, for the Pope to take a break on these sorts of things and maybe focus on the Orthodox for awhile. It looked like we were making quite a bit of progress on reunion under Benedict. It's also, fwiw, a really good reason for the Orthodox to come back in, and that is what it would be, to the Catholic framework as that would no doubt boost the number of conservative cardinals and conservatism in general, and no matter what anyone like to thinks, everyone knows that the Catholic Church is the bulwark of Christianity everywhere. Indeed, whole groups of "missionaries" only go to places made more or less safe for Christianity by the Catholic Church, while the Catholic Church continues to send Priests to places where they're likely to end up dead if discovered.
Anyhow, regarding the role of the Pope, the Orthodox already agree that he's the "first amongst equals" and they already know that the various churches within the Catholic church are self governing. So there's relatively little that a reunion with the Catholic Church would impact them as to, for the most part, although again I'd think that Pope Francis is likely scaring them in these regards. They would have to agree to having the Pope as the head of the Church. But by the same token, the Metropolitan of Moscow, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Metropolitan of Constantinople, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, would have a say in the much larger Catholic Church, and that's a big deal.
It's particularly a bid deal in an age in which everyone is countering a sea of secularization and, frankly, an Islamic invasion. I mean, come on.
Almost every other issue that seems to keep this split alive can easily be reconciled. And some are purely human. The Orthodox will repeatedly cite, for example, to the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders, never noting that it was a reprisal for the Massacre of the Latins by the Orthodox. And does that matter now? It was 1,000 years ago and most Catholics in the world aren't actually related to German Crusaders in any fashion.
It's time to patch this one up, for everyone's sake.
And the same is true of the "close to Catholic" Protestant faiths, of which there are notable group. Conservative Anglicans already largely claim that they are Catholic, or that they are genuinely Apostolic like the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. If they claim to believe everything the Catholic or Orthodox churches do, for safety's sake, it would be better for all if they joined one or the other. The same is true of the conservative branches of the Lutheran churches.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think in 2018 there's going to be a big meeting and people say, "you know, I think we've fixed this." But the time has really arrived to do that very thing. Keeping divisions going serves to divide and aid in yourselves being conquered. Disputes aided by distance, misunderstanding, and personal animosity five hundred to 1,000 years ago shouldn't be kept going when all of those things have been overcome, or easily can, or should, be.
The United States Supreme Court
Everyone there needs to take a few CLEs this year on Constitutional interpretation. Your job is to interpret the law, not make it up.
I'm not saying that you're doing a horrible job, but my goodness you have really gone off the rails from time to time over the last few years. It doesn't matter if you thinks something is right or wrong. Thorogood Marshall was wholly incorrect when he said the role of the judge is to do what you think is right and let society catch up. That's the role of the benevolent dictator, and all dictators think they're benevolent. The role of the judge is to interpret the law as it actually is.
And, frankly, some of you really need to step down and retire. If your occupying that chair and your 70 years old, what are you thinking? Do something else.
The land grabbers
Just stop. You know who you are. Knock it off.
Included in knocking it off is that you quit the self delusion that the idea of transferring t he public lands is massively popular in any quarter other than a little tiny one you are in. The Wyoming ranchers don't want it. The sportsmen don't want it. The national and international oil companies don't want it. Just stop it.
The Nature Contravenors
Nature is what its, and you are what you are, in a natural sense. You can't ignore nature, and you can't create your own nature. Nor can you self identify yourself into a new nature.
And pretending otherwise is dangerous, as nature will get you in the end if you ignore her.
Newspapers and newspaper writers
Catherine Rampell: Quit writing until you actually worked a real job.
Rampell is a syndicated writer who is a Princeton legacy graduate and works as a full time writing snot. Lots of people have opinions on how everything should work, and lots of people are snots. Combining the two does not disqualify a person from being an opinion writer, but a life devoid of actual experience should. Get some. If you did, I suspect it would reduce the snark level at least a bit.
The Casper Star Tribune: For the price charged, we ought to get a real newspaper. But it's down to a pamphlet. I know times are tough from newspapers, but given the size it's down to, the price needs to come down or the size needs to go up.
Technology Developers
Take the entire year, heck, the rest of the decade off.
At this point, your work is becoming a threat to everyone. We ought to sit down and figure where all this technological development goes and what its point is. Until we figure that out, the random nature of it has a certain cancerous aspect to it. You're becoming a plague.
Kim Jong-un
Hey, Kim. Be a big hero this year.
Everyone knows that North Korea is not long in the tooth, at least not as the Stalinist theme park it currently is. It's going down the tubes. Whatever your strategy for keeping it a Siberian backwater is going to fail.
So accept that. You could be a big hero overnight simply by announcing that you were folding things in. Take the troops back from the DMZ. Open the border. Announce that you are reuniting the country with the South and you've been a closet capitalist all along and retire to Switzerland. You could live out the rest of your life comfortably and be warmly remembered rather than go down in a fatty bloody pulp and remembered as a nasty dictator, which is where your headed to right now. Seriously, it's only a matter of time. Make that course correction for yourself and your country before its too late. . .this year.
Me
Stop blogging so much.
Yes, I know that this is new years resolutions for other people, but here's one that I"m making for myself. I blog too much and its time to back way down.
