Avengers Infinity Wars: Exciting, but Plot Sucks.

The Avengers are running away from terrible scriptwriters, but were unsucessful.  

Spoiler Alert!   Avengers Infinity Wars is not a movie, it is a trailer for the sequel, much like Star Wars 2 (Empire Strikes Back) left the bad guys pretty much in control, awaiting something great to happen in Star Wars 3.  

This movie also assumes that a complex plot is a good plot.  Doc Strange establishes that there are millions of parallel universes, plus the possibility of time travel, so whatever complicated terrible thing happens in Avengers 4, it can be undone in Avengers 5.  So I don't give a rat who they kill off in Avengers 4, and neither should you.

The action scenes are great however.  I watched this one in 3D and it is very exciting, even if I don't always know who is fighting or what side they are on.  Even here we have problems that bothered me however:

1.  When attacked by a horde of super powered aliens, it doesn't make sense to counter them by having Black Widow and Captain America wading in practicing kung fu. A machine gun is a better idea, although here it's surprising that ordinary bullets can work against these creatures. Conversely, a squadron of A-10s would definitely rid the earth of these pesky aliens. 

2.  Since the 3 Musketeers, good guys love to make wisecracks and exhibit a subtle sense of humor during battle.   However, you can't have the superheros make jokes while civilians are dying in the background. 

Honestly, my advice is to not see this movie.  Just wait for Avengers 5, and at that time read an online summary of Avengers 4 (which you will have to do anyway, given the plot is extremely complicated and difficult to follow).  

Why We Raise Our Hands in Divine Praise

  Why do we raise our hands in worship (or even better, isn't it okay for me to just sit stoically and intellectually absorb the worship service?  Do I have to "get down" like a Baptist?  Oh puh-lease.....

I was stunned by a recent experience at a Chris Tomlin concert, in which Rev Darren Whitehead presented a very clear biblically-based explanation for why we praise the way we do.  Whitehead comes from a non-demonstrative tradition but was persuaded that that is not the best way to worship.  

My mistake is in thinking that worshipers are trying to cast a spell of sorts.  I figured, that by raising their hands, they think God is going to be specially impressed and give special blessings to the good little worshipers who do this.  "Bad" worshiper who just sit there are not going to get as much of a blessing.

Well, that's not it at all.  Whitehead goes back into the scriptures to learn how the ancient Israelites worshiped.  Psalm   Not that you should do everything that ancient Israelites did, but let's start there.   The Psalms tell us several times, that worship is to be musical. 

Psalm 98.5:    "Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music; make music to the Lord with the harp,

with the harp and the sound of singing, with trumpets and the blast of the ram’s horn—shout for joy before the Lord, the King."

It doesn't say to sit there stoically and intellectualize.  

Psalm 145:  

"Praise God with drum and dance!  Praise God with strings and pipe!  Praise God with loud cymbals! Praise God with clashing cymbals!  Let every living thing praise the Lord!"

More to the point, there are another bazillion passages that clearly indicate that the Israelites worships by raising their arms:

Psalm 134.2:  "Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and praise the Lord."  

Psalm 63:4

"So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name."

Psalm 119:48

"And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, Which I love."

Psalm 28:2

"Hear the voice of my supplications when I cry to You for help, When I lift up my hands toward Your holy sanctuary."

Psalm 141:2

"May my prayer be counted as incense before You; The lifting up of my hands as the evening offering."

You see, it's not just the Baptists.  The ancients had been doing this for thousands of years.  It's not about appeasing some whim of God's.  But it is about making a decision to follow in a tradition of worship that is thousands of years old.  And, if you are at a concert like I was, it's the time to remind your self, as well as your spouse and children that you have chosen to follow in the footsteps of this religious community.  For me it was an affirmation that this was not only the path of the ancients, but also my path, and that I am a member of the community represented in the concert arena.  

.  

All this comes straight from Darren's message.  When it sunk into my thick skull, I looked around, a little tearfully.  And I raised both of my arms and sang as loud as I could.  

AMEN.

Do Democrats Love President Trump?

   Do Democrats love President Trump?

    Yes.  This thought has occurred to me more than once, but it was brought home the other day when I was talking to my Dad, who at age 92 is a staunch Democrat who loves to watch left-leaning MSNBC which day after day expresses outrage at President Trump and the various impending cataclysms that he will likely cause.  The TV is blaring all the time about the latest Trump scandal, and my Dad is all psyched to find  the latest foible that might propel the President out of office. Conflict of interest!  Lying!  Collusion! Disgrace!  Sex crimes! Racism!
    So, I mentioned to my Dad that I was seriously thinking about volunteering for Governor Kasich's 2020 Presidential campaign, and what do you suppose he said?  He was peeved with me.  "Well, you know he's rather conservative." 

    What?  You mean you're pretty much okay with sex crimes, lying, collusion, disgrace, racism and conflict of interest, so that the opportunity to replace him with a "rather conservative" person doesn't appeal to you? 
     It's not just my Dad.   I don't know how many times I've suggested to my liberal friends, "Well, you know if 19 Republican Senators are willing to vote him out, he can be impeached and replaced with Mike Pence."  Pence of course, is very far right, but one who respects the Constitutional process, and one who has been willing to take on the Republican establishment. The answer is almost always, "Oh my God!  Pence would be worse!" 
    How can he be worse?  You mean being a staunch conservative is so bad, you can tolerate President Trump's antics rather than have him be replaced by someone politically further right?  At least until now, I had never heard Mike Pence's patriotism called into account, nor his desirable to do what he believes is morally correct and honorable.  Now however, many of my friends just spew cuss words when asked to compare Pence and Trump.  Wow.  

    In fact, as an experiment I googled some verbatim phrases.  This perhaps is not very scientific, but nevertheless I think it is an indicator of what people are saying on the internet.  Here are the phrases I tried:

   "Pence would be worse than Trump." 11300 hits
   "Pence would be better than Trump." 1650 hits

   "Pence would not be worse than Trump" 741 hits
 

     Using  Google as a crude yardstick it appears that Donald Trump is preferred over Mike Pence by something like 7 to 1 or higher.   How can this be?

     Perhaps just as Conservatives were addicted to blaming all problems on President Obama, President Trump is beloved by the left, but in a dysfunctional way.  In fact at least one fellow blogger points out that the Trump defense takes a similar form to that used by violent spouses:  excusing one's own actual dysfunctional behavior by comparing it to some other worse but hypothetical  behavior.

  http://lauraplusthevoices.blogspot.com/2017/01/no-pence-would-not-be-worse-than-trump.html

One of the best predictors of future elections may be the Las Vegas oddsmakers because of the great incentives for getting it right.  They currently show Donald Trump way out in front, with 1 chance out of 3.  That sounds low, but the next highest candidate, Elizabeth Warren, is rated at about 1 in 8, and it gets worse from there. 

    One of my reasons for predicting that Trump would win the election (which I first committed to writing in early 2016, but which I had believed since earlier than that), was that he was so effective on TV with his hit show The Apprentice.  Trump understands better than anyone else how to cultivate a brand.  FDR once berated his staff on his desire for news.  I don't remember the exact quote but it was on the order of "I want headlines!  I don't care if they are good or bad headlines, just get me headlines."  Like FDR, Trump realizes the importance of media exposure, and moreover generates huge revenues for American news media companies. The news media needs Trump in order to maintain their standard of living 
     The President has realized the importance of being "Entertainer in Chief."  Like everyone else, the Democrats are thoroughly entertained and excited by the President.  I believe they are addicted to the emotional rush they get by criticizing him.  My guess is that the addiction will win out, and somehow the Democrats will work out a formula to ensure that they will keep the President in office, and also blow the 2020 election. 

 

Black Panther is All That

Black Panther is a stunning visual spectacle.  

  Black Panther is thrilling, beautiful, fascinating....everything that the critics have been saying.  The only question is why it took so long to make this movie.  Hollywood has been in a rut lately, seemingly fearful of Afrocentric films.  Though some progress has been made, face it, this move has turned Hollywood upside down by brilliantly shattering stereotypes. 

   If this movie had only been about the natural beauty of Africa, it would be a good movie.  The nature scenes are gorgeously shot, the colors and composition are beautiful.  In fact if you could invest in a travel agency that specializes in tours in African countries, it might be a good investment now.
    If this movie had only been about fictional tribes in Africa, it would be a good movie.  For at least two hours (far too short), you can get a feeling about what it's like being a member of King T'Challa's tribe, and how it differs from nine other tribes in the area. It's not intended to be authentic, but nevertheless you get a feeling about what it might be like in an African society.  And we are allowed to see the tribe members not as a faceless monolith, but as individuals with different personalities and individual points of views.  Hey, if you can identify with green skinned aliens in sci-fi movies, then the Wakandan society should be equally sympathetic. Rituals are cool.
    If this movie had only been about ethnically inspired fashion it would be a success. The hairstyles and costumes are fantastically colorful, beautiful and so obviously inspired by African designs.  Now please don't get carried away by the Dora Milajae, who are the all-women royal guards, with shaved heads.  They are not real, okay?   But they are strong and gorgeous and, well, we're just not in Kansas anymore.  But perhaps the most important thing is that they are far from one dimensional.  You can understand their emotions and motivations and a little about what makes them tick. General Okoye is a particularly interesting character.  In fact there could very well be a movie simply about her.  Initially it was kind of jarring, but by the end of the movie I had totally accepted the style choices for the Dora Milajae. If you liked the Amazons in Wonder Woman, you'll be just fine with the Droa Milajae.  

King T'Challa's elite all-female guards, the Dora Milajae led by General Okoye are worth getting to know. Honest.  But don't mess with them.    

  The superhero scenes are very exciting, totally up to spec with Marvel's best.  That alone could have carried the movie.      There is a diverse cast of bad guys, good guys and in-between guys.  They are all very interesting characters.   The only thing you can count on is unpredictability.
    Marvel did a fantastic job handling the ethnic diversity issue, and in fact clobbering it, at least in this reviewer's humble opinion.  Maybe someday there will be a superhero who is Korean-American.  Do you suppose? 😊
   The best thing I can say about any movie is that I've never seen anything like it before.  As for the Black Panther, I've never seen anything like it before.  

The Darkest Hour: Great Acting, Story Line Pathetic

   The Darkest Hour is not a documentary.  It is a historical drama, meaning that the writer and director are allowed to imagine events that might have happened, though there might not be evidence that it in fact did happen. I enjoyed it very much because of the cast, which is a five star case.  Gary Oldman is very convincing as  Winston Churchill despite being hampered by a weak script. Oldman channels the Prime Minister's powerful personality, although the script portrays him as a bumbling fool.  Like Donald Trump, Churchill lives in an alternative reality, disbelieving that the Germans have actually invaded France.  
     In reality Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of the war and had held several cabinet positions.  He had consistently warned of the warlike intentions of Hitler, and the need to bolster the nation's defenses.  It is inconceivable that Churchill would have been in denial of the reality of the German invasion as portrayed in the movie.  But Gary Oldman's portrayal is so outstanding that it overcomes the pathetic attempts of the scriptwriters and directors to make Churchill into an unsympathetic character.    I think Oldman might contend for an Oscar.

         Kristin Scott Thomas is outstanding as Clementine Churchill.  She is behind the scenes, but there is no doubt that she is vastly more intelligent, wise and emotionally balanced than her husband.  It is she who provides her bumbling husband with guidance while receiving no credit for having done so.  

Clementine Churchill is much more sophisticated, intelligent and wise that her blustering husband.  Crusty old Winston, on the other hand, has the IQ of a grapefruit.  He definitely married over his head.  

      In addition, Ben Mendelsohn is very convincing as King George VI. You can easily believe that you've been transported via time machine to meet the real King, and you can share his concerns and motivations.  Both Ronald Pickup, a doppelganger for Neville Chamberlain, and Stephen Dillane  are much more sympathetic and rational characters than Churchill. It is easy to believe the Appeasement policy was the more rational policy compared to Churchill's hard headedness and emotional decisions.  

    Darkest Hour attempts to portray Winston Churchill in the most unflattering light possible.  Though good at writing speeches and giving them, at his core he is an untalented, unintelligent man who becomes Prime Minister more or less by accident.  He makes snap decisions that affect the future of the world based on emotions.  Were it not for the counsel of his wife, and does not appear to be capable of much independent thought.  I asked my 15 year old daughter, who is not terribly familiar with the Prime Minister, what her opinion of him was, based on the movie.  She said, "His primary characteristic is that he is insane."  
    Well, okay, the purpose of the film's creators is to tear down the legend.  French diplomats rolling their eyes and shake their heads at how disconnected he is from reality.  The problem is that when Churchill reads the actual speeches from 1940, Gary Oldman's portrayal is so strong that it overcomes the intention of the scriptwriter to tear him down.  These speeches simply can not have been given by the tempermental madman that Oldman seems to have been tasked to portray. 

     Similarly, in the movie, Franklin Dr. Roosevelt snickers at Churchill's plea for help, citing the Neutrality Act as the reason for inaction. Roosevelt muses that it might be legal to delivering plane to the Canadian border and having them pulled over the border by horses.  Churchill doesn't take him seriously. The implication was that the US was not going to deliver aircraft purchased by the United Kingdom  (again, I asked my daughter whether she felt that the President intended to assist Churchill at all, and she thought the answer was clearly "no").  But in fact they really did use overland transport of aircraft to Canda, as a way to get around legislative restrictions. Such sales had actually begun in February 1940, or BEFORE the German invasion.  In reality the Neutrality Act was significantly modified in November 1939 as a consequence of the Polish invasion. The invasion woke up--at least partially--the global community to the menace of Nazism.   

     The US had been feverishly supplying the Western powers with weapons, and in fact were starting to ship a new high octane aviation fuel (courtesy of the Houdry Catalytic Cracking process) that helped British Spitfires outfly the German Messerschmidts in the Battle of Britain two months later.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  

      Again, it's a historical drama, not a documentary.  So if in this movie the characters behave differently than the historical record shows, that's probably within the purview of the writers and directors.
     By the way, the costumes and sets are absolutely wonderful and make the movie worth seeing just for that.  You can believe that you are actually in 1940 and you are seeing the real Winston Churchill (drunken buffoon or not, Oldman's portrayal is captivating). 
    My conclusion is: yes, see this movie. If you are into the craft of movie making and you enjoy great acting performances, it is excellent. But if you are hoping for historical accuracy, you may be disappointed, as many of the events are fictional.   

May I Please Be an Unhyphenated American?

It's great that all these categories of Americans are set up on our census forms.  However, it's time to recognize "American" as a separate ethnic group.   

  I would like to be known as an American.  Period.  I don't need to set myself above or below anyone else.  There is no box on  the census to be "American." 

   Look, if I have to be hyphenated, by blood, my family is Korean-Amish-Indian-Chinese. (I'm the Korean Amishman, and my wife is from Malaysia, but she is not Malay. Got it?)  By nationality, my Mom was technically born in Japan since Korea was part of the Japanese Empire.  So we're Swiss-Japanese-Malaysian-German-French-Dutch-American.   

    Now I don't mind if YOU wish to be hyphenated.  And I'm cool with government programs that are directed towards some ethnic groups but not others. I"m not saying that there's anything wrong with categorizing people if that's what they want to be known as.  That's not what this is about.  

      It's just that, for myself, I just want to be American.  With no reservations, no qualifiers, no ifs ands or buts.  

     America is odd because it is arguably the predominant culture in the world, but it doesn't realize that it exists as its own culture. It dawned on me when I was watching a tennis match from France at a time when there was an international crisis, and a female African tennis player was booed for being an American.  Not for being from African descent but just because she was an American and symbolized President Bush to the French people.  The rest of the world may not always like us, but at least they recognize us.  

     So you can be European-American, Asian-American, African American, or Native American.  But on the census form, there is no listing for "American."  Also, I am still looking for the box marked "Korean-Amish-Indian-Chinese-Swiss-Japanese-Malaysian-German-French-Dutch-American."   

    At some point, you have to realize that this is getting ridiculous, and no longer descibes many Americans in a useful way.  Perhaps, for at least some of us, it's time to drop all these silly hyphens and to try to do the best we can to just be American.  Plus, I am concerned that insistence on subcategorizing Americans is likely to yield to some form of cultural elitism.  The word "discriminate" actually means to categorize or subdivide.  Only now it means to view one subgroup disfavorably and usually to persecute them.  In the same way, I am concerned that creating categories of people may make us easier to administer and also enable us to persecute other groups.   But I also realize that there are other ways that the government seeks to help correct biases in the system, and they like to keep stats  to see how well it's working.       

     Anyway, as a personal decision, I'm going to write in "American" or better yet leave it blank  when I am asked in the future. 

Jumanji is Entertaining, Exciting and Fun, but about that ethnic stereotyping problem.....

Jumanji provides an unexpected challenge for unsuspecting high school kids transformed into video game characters. 

The new Jumanji is a very good movie, with a little bit of scariness, a lot of humor and excitement, as a young group of high school students become magically trapped in a video game, finding themselves transformed into the video game characters.  I can relate, having been trapped in a few myself.  

The plot has great pace.  If you like action movies and you want to laugh too, it's a perfect film. There are a few scary moments and some adult verbal humor that bring it to the PG-13 level, but nothing blatant.   Dwayne Johnson is very good, a super-powered version of his normal self. Jack Black is hilarious.  It's actually a tough acting job to portray someone who does not match his exterior appearance. Karen Gillian is very believable as a shy high school girl suddenly forced to work with other people.  Kevin Hart is very good, and very funny, although I did not particularly like the way his part was written.  Kevin's character (Moose) is a sterotypic African American male, not very bright, dishonest and smart mouthed, but good at sports. I wonder, is that all that African Americans are allowed to be in Hollywood these days?  Not cool.  But that's not on Kevin Hart, that's on the writers and the producers. 

Hollywood has gotten into a rut the past few years, and Jumanji takes the lazy way out in not challenging the expectations of racial stereotyping.  But it's fun and worth seeing if not an all-time classic.