Aquaman Not All Wet, but Plot Doesn't Hold Water

The 13 year old and I went to see Aquaman this afternoon.  It is visually wonderful with its scenes of underwater worlds and Atlantis.  It is a must-see for that reason.  I regret that we went to the standard version, we should have opted for 3D.  However as a movie it really is a soggy thing. 

SPOILER ALERT:  Aquaman gets killed in this movie.  In fact he gets killed about 50 times in the movie.  He takes more abuse than Harry and Marv in Home Alone 2.We're talking grenades, bombs, burning flesh, sword stabbings, bullets going through body parts. This makes zero sense, but Aquaman takes it and not only does it not kill him, he doesn't seem too upset by it. 


The bad guys get killed even more often than Aquaman. Orm is the German half brother of Aquaman.  That is the royal people look like very Euroepean, but those who are non-royal look like salamanders.  That makes sense in a DC movie.  Anyway, Orm and Black Manta take turns killing Aquaman, and then they wind up getting blasted even worse.  You could argue that since Orm is from Atlantis, maybe he has some way to survive,  but Black Manta is human, and yet he takes enough punishment to kill 100 Coyotes on the Road Runner Cartoon.  He falls off cliffs, crashes through cement walls, gets his head blown off, and gets bent, mutilated and spindled by Aquaman.   He likes it.

There is no plot in the movie so I can't spoil it for you.  Or rather there are so many plots that we can't keep track of them all.  It's kind of like Green Lantern in that it tried to encompass too many story lines. There are several Arthurian plot gimmicks involving the rightful heir to the throne, magic swords (or tridents since we are underwater), royal intrigue and treason, a scavenger hunt like the Da Vinci Code, lost relics from Indiana Jones, super powered twits trying to take over the world, and liberal borrowing from Star Wars cliches from the past. There is a also a hollow earth, like from Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth.

Like Green Lantern there are gratuitous training scenes in which as an adolescent he gets trained as an Atlantean Warrior.  It's not clear whether he has special superpowers, or whether all Atlanteans are just as strong, for example.  In some parts of the movie, he knows almost nothing about Atlantis, and in other parts he is well versed ("oh yeah, I remember it all now.").  These scenes just make the convoluted plot more convoluted.  Like does Aquaman know his way around the Atlantean world or not?

The non-Royal Atlanteans (the ones who look like Salamanders) wear scary armor like Star Troopers in Star Wars.   They buy their weapons from the same Wal Mart as well, and are completely ineffective as a fighting force.  Their scary weapons are not able to shoot anyone of any consequence to the movie.  They need to breath water in order to survive, so it's kind of funny when their water filled armor springs a leak. I wanted them to die because they are all so incompetent.

Jason Momoa is a fantastic heroic actor and is totally convincing as Aquaman.  He's kind of like Marvel's Wolverine in that he likes to drink beer and win barfights.  But where do they get the rest of the actors?  As a group they are all very weak, and the lack of a detailed plot makes them even weaker.  The  characters come off as very one dimensional.  For example, we know very little about why the Queen of Atlantis should wind up in a New England lighthouse, and the scriptwriters are just not interested in telling us about it.  The bad guys are totally bad and totally angry all the time, the good guys are totally good yet very shallow and two dimensional.

Another confusing aspect is that Aquaman has the power to telepathically communicate with sea creatures, but no one knows why he can do that.  It is a really cool super power.  For example if you could summon 10,000 sharks you could probably shut down an army by yourself.  But Aquaman seems to forget that he has this superpower for long stretches of time.

See Aquaman for the visual spectacle of Atlantis and the undersea world.  Forget about the plot, it's not worth understanding.  I love Atlantis and hope that there will be a sequel.  But I hope that they can send the entire Royal Family of Atlantis to a retirement community.  The power struggle is not interesting and we just can't identify with one group over the other.  

Errol Flynn as Robin Hood: The FIRST Superhero

"Welcome to Sherwood Forest!" 

       Every few years, a new Robin Hood movie comes out (this year's Robin Hood stars  Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx, and Ben Mendelsohn. However, no one will ever surpass the standard set by Errol Flynn as Robin Hood in 1938. It's hard to imagine what a spectacle it was.  There had never been anything like it at the time.  Errol Flynn brought to life the legendary archer with the supernatural proficiency with the bow and arrow.  Not only that, the movie was made with the new Technicolor process, and surpassed existing color movies. 

   There could not be a better Robin Hood than Errol Flynn. Incredibly handsome and athletic, he was totally believable as the swashbuckling, glib Robin Hood. It may be that Flynn's witty repartee inspired Stan Lee's pantheon of Marvel Super Heroes.   For example, Robin and Sir Guy of Gisborn exchange insults and wry comments while engaging in battle. Sir Guy sneers,  "Do you know any prayers, my friend?"  Robin replies smartly,"I'll say one for you!"
     In 1938, Superman had just been born in an obscure publication called Action Comics, and Batman would not appear until the next year.  Perhaps the major competition of Robin Hood might have been the books of Edgar Rice Burroughs (that is, Tarzan and John Carter of Mars) and serial films about space heroes like Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers.  However, none of these heroes approached the magnitude of the splendorous Robin Hood.  Robin Hood was a blockbuster at the box office.  It cost about $2 million to produce, with 1938 revenues of $4 million and additional revenue from re-releases and television over the years. 
      Other Robin Hoods include Kevin Costner had his chance to play Robin in Prince of Thieves in 1991.  Sean Connery played a more mature Robin alongside Katherine Hepburn in Robin and Marion in 1976. Carey Elwes wad fun in the Mel Brooks parody film, Robin Hood:  Men in Tights.  There were innumerable other Robin Hoods who have appeared in different productions, with most of them flopping.   
      Errol Flynn remains the most compelling Robin Hood and the standard by which all others will be forever judged.  

      In real life, Flynn was a notorious womanizer, lush and brawler. His movie career continued until his death in 1959, usually playing heroic action figures.   If you were to have access to a time machine and have a chance to go out to dinner with Kevin Costner or Errol Flynn, you should definitely choose Costner.  But as Robin Hood, Flynn wins hands down.   Future Robin Hoods should beware, for the bar is set very high.  

Crazy Rich Asians is a Must See, Especially for Asian Americans

    Crazy Rich Asians is a delightful romantic comedy that involves the particular struggles of culture clash between westernized (Asian-Americans) and traditional Chinese cultures.  It is about the new Westernized generation trying to live up to family expectations while also being able to fall in love (can't be done!).

    This is not exactly a new plot.  In fact, a guy named Shakespeare actually wrote the pilot in Romeo and Juliet. However, to my knowledge he never wrote a play that involved Asian peoples.

     In this case, Rachel Chu is a successful young university, and the boy is a rich kid. Nick Young is the oldest son of a Chinese family in Singapore, and thus he is expected to operate the family business which in this case is a Trumpian sized business empire.  They decide to attend a wedding in Singapore, where Rachel must now contend with jealous socialites, goofy Chinese relatives and especially Nick's mother.  Let me tell you something about Asian mothers. When it comes time for their sons to get married, there is NO ONE good enough to marry them.  This is especially true if they are rich.

   My family is mixed Asian-American and so we definitely had to see this movie, all four of us. We're not crazy rich Asians, but two out of three ain't bad.  By blood, we're Korean-Chinese-Swiss-Indian, by nationality we can throw in Malaysian, Japanese, German and French.  So boy, do we know culture clash around here.  Anyway the movie made us laugh and identify with the characters, and probably it would work for non-Asians as well.  It did get a little tedious for me in the middle because the couple has to go to a wedding, they spend a lot of time worrying about protocols and shopping for dresses and that sort of thing.  I'm not big into shopping so that wasn't really interesting to me.  

     In addition, I was expecting the movie to be more slapstick.  It's funny, but treads a bit more carefully around the sensitive issues of culture, rather than going for the overtly funny belly laugh.  I'm not going to offer a spoiler from the movie, but I will share a real incident from my own family that can give you an idea of what can really happen in a cross-cultural family.  
    
     When my daughter was about 8 she wanted to get her ears pierced. By American standards that is quite normal.  But, I KNEW, absolutely KNEW that my Mom was going to lecture me that the Japanese Royal Family does not permit prospective princesses to be have their ears pierced. Sure enough, my daughter mentioned to Grandma that she wanted her ears pierced, and so I have to hear all about the rules of the Japanese Royal Family.  My answer was typically American, flawlessly logical (at least to me):  One, our family is from Korea, not the Japanese mainland, so no Japanese prince is ever going to come courting my daughter.  Two, America won World War 2, so the Japanese Royals are not our bosses, and we don't care what they think.   My compelling logic no doubt horrified my Mother, who feared that our dead ancestors would get excited by my lack of respect for Japanese Royalty.  I rather think those generations of Koreans would have stood up and applauded me, but that is a side issue.  

     My daughter's response was much more enlightened. Even though she was only eight, being a computer-savvy Asian kid, she got on the internet and found a picture of Princess Masako with pierced ears!  End of discussion, daughter wins, ears become pierced and peace returns to the Kennel family.  

      So, anyway, the Kennel family knows very well the crazy skirmishes between East and West. Similar battles need to be fought in Crazy Rich Asians.  Asian people might find the situations tense, like my mother did, but we Americans will just laugh. 
    If you're not Asian, there might be a few inside jokes that you won't get, but virtually all cultures will understand and identify  with the problems of the young generation trying to buck the traditional system.  

     

Trump's World View Explained in Comic Book Format

So What About Tariffs?

   Listening to both Democrats and Republicans, it sounds very obvious that they believe that Americans do not need to pay taxes, and do not need tarriffs.  It seems to be the other party's fault that we have these unnecessary burdens.  The major parties seem to not believe that the budget deficit means anything at all.  Congresspeople are grinning from ear to ear as they have signed up for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, despite that all of this "new money" is actually borrowed.  
      Economic voodoo worshipers talk hopefully about how the tax cut is going to spur the economy so much that economic growth is assured, so much so that it will pay for the tax cut.  "Deficits don't matter." 
    Well, they do matter. Did any of you people go to college? The last time we did this foolish experiment, we almost destroyed the global economy in 2008, and had to bail out the banks with hundreds of billions of dollars lost.  Are we going to do that again?  Apparently so.  And most of the money we have borrowed in order to give tax breaks to wealthy Americans will wind up in Swiss bank accounts when the next crash occurs. 
      Despite the obvious proof that economic idiocy has the upper hand right now, I believe there is a nagging doubt in some parts of the government whether this is really a good idea.  The  Congressional Budget Office predicts a deficit of over one trillion dollars per year by 2020.  The deficit was $587 Million, in 2016 and projected to $833 this year and over a trillion dollars by 2020.  At some point, the global economy will lose confidence in the value of T-bills, and the economy will implode as it did in 2008.  Sane economists (a minority to be sure) realize this is terrible.  
        To decrease the deficit, there are only two real options:  either cut spending or increase revenues, both of which are painful. Congress is politically unable to cut spending.  What do you expect from a group that spends 6 trillion dollars on chaos and death in the Middle East and refers to it as "our investment?"   Nobody cares about an economic collapse, as long as it can be successfully blamed on the other side.
     Increasing revenues can take only two forms:  higher taxes  or tarriffs.  If any politician proposes to raise either one, the other side will scream about the disadvantages and ignore the basic function of restoring some balance to the deficit.  
     Raise taxes on the poor?  Can't do that, say the liberals, the poor will suffer.
     Raise them on the rich?  Can't do that, say the conservatives, the rich are job creators.  
     How about raising the Federal Excise Tax on gasoline?  Can't do that, it will hurt the transportation sector.
     Well how about tariffs?  This likewise brings a chorus of boos from both sides.  Nobody is concerned about an economic collapse yet, only the immediate effects on industry.  I have a friend that wa rather high up in the aluminum industry before retiring, and he doubts whether the tariff will spur much investment in new smelters, though the existing one might work at full capacity 
     The point of a tariff is not to punish foreign industries, it's to raise money to pay for the very real goods and services that the Federal Government provides (plus the stupid things like Middle Eastern wars, that are nevertheless considered essential). Really it isn't going to affect the demand for steel and aluminum very much, because industry will not build new plants based on the expectation of government support for prices.  I don't think it is a trade war, it's mainly  a way to cut our deficit by 5%.  Yes it's painful, but not nearly as painful as an economic depression.  The 2008 financial crisis is the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression of 1929. It occurred despite Federal Reserve and Treasury Department efforts to prevent it.  In 2008,  housing prices fell 31.8 percent and unemployment rose to above 9 percent.  This is partly because the US chose to hand out tax credits to a growing economy, and went from a balanced budget in 2000-2001 to the bloated and escalating deficit that we have today.   In 2009 and 2010 the government navigated out of the economic crisis, partly the the help of "stimulus" spending.  This is in accordance with Keynesian theory, that in a recession the government needs to spend more to get the economy moving.  This may not be possible if the deficit crisis worsens to the point that foreign lenders are no longer willing to lend America money.  
    The effect of the tariffs is to decrease the US ability to buy and consume cheap imported goods.  It also means that US industry is incentivized to pick up the slack, which might result in additional employment. That is not disastrous.  If you have to pay for the government somehow, it's not the worst thing you could do. 
      Make no mistake, tariffs are not a tool for job creation or punishing foreign countries.  It's simply a way to pay for our government spending.  This is a time when we should be paying down the debt, rather than borrowing more money to give to wealthy Americans. 
         I think it was a sorry mistake to give tax cuts to rich people who don't need them. This is just a down payment on a future economic disaster.  Likewise it is a sorry mistake to continue pouring money down the Middle Eastern rathole, based on the mistaken belief that America is winning great friends by doing so.  
       If we are headed to a trillion dollar per year annual deficit, I don't see how to argue against an effort to try to stem the deluge with 50 billion dollars of new revenue. I would like to see something that gets phased in gradually rather than creating an abrupt change in the global economy.  But the tariffs do not go far enough in my opinion--too little too late--and moreover our lawmakers lack the wisdom to make even the most obvious of funding cuts. That is just not going to happen.  
  I think the critics should cool their jets about tariffs and instead focus on the trillion dollar deficit. 

 

The Master Plan of American politicians is to get re-elected before the economic deluge hits, and then try to blame it on the other party.  

 

   

Hello, Pump air into the Thailand Cave and the Water May Recede

I don't know who to tell, but it seems to me that if you bring an air hose into the Thailand Cave, you've got a great chance to pressurize the cave, and by so doing you will force the water to recede. 

Because the people are short on oxygen, it implies that the supply of air is limited.  A person consumes about 100 cubic feet per day of air (or more precisely, the 20% oxygen in the air).  The fact that they are depleting the oxygen suggests that there may be limited  volume with poor ventilation.  If so, it also means you can fill it with air and the leak rate may be considerably smaller than what a decent pump can provide.  

You  may not be able to just pump water out of the cave, because that lowers the pressure and causes more water to flow in to take its place. 

The water level has risen to flood passages into the enclosed volume where the soccer team is trapped.

So, is it possible to connect sections of hose from the surface to where the team is?  Then you need a compressor to deliver maybe 20 cfm to the cave.  If the cave is pressurized with air, the water will recede.  If you pressurize with 4 psi, it will recede 10 feet. 8 psi will cause it to recede 20 feet.  How low do you need the water to be in order to walk out of the passages? 

If you could pump 20 cfm of air into the cave, the air would push out the water.

If the cave leaks too much and won't hold pressure, can you spray the walls with polyurethane foam to plug them up?  

Does the Constitution Really Grant the President the Power to Torture Illegal Immigrants?

    Maybe some of my friends who know more about American Law can straighten me out, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the Constitution gives the American President the authority to commit child abuse.

         How can the President impose such a tough sentence on children as to take them away from their parents without at least putting the children on trial?

     It would be one thing if it could be argued that there was no choice, and that the children must be separated in order to put the parents on trial for a misdemeanor attempt to enter the country illegally.   

       I tend to buy Alan Dershowicz's argument that the President can't be put in jail for breaking the law, and if he does break the law, he can issue a pardon for himself.  So good luck to those who think they can catch the President on a technical infraction--say, campaign finance or sending classified information in email or Tweet.  You're not going to put him in jail in 2025 when his term is up.  Or if you can do that, then every single President from now on is going straight to jail after their term is up. 

     But, what the Constitution does provide is a way for Congress to act when they see that the President is acting illegally.  They may remove him from office.  The Impeachment process, as best I understand it, is not a legal trial that generates a conviction and jail sentence. But it does take him out of office.    

      So you could argue that the separation of parents and children is an administrative procedure to allow the parents to stand trial.   But it is also a legally administered punishment, and probably the worst thing you could do to a small child, to take a child away from the parents and give the child to someone else.  This is the cruelest form of child abuse I could ever imagine, and it is very hard for me to understand how it is not a punishment, particularly if it is demonstrably avoidable.  The President has used his power to increase the number and the severity of these punishments, it's an action he committed.  It didn't just happen.
      Ok, legal scholars, help me here.  Does the President have the legal right to torture anyone he wants, including babies and small children?  And he can take away children or parents without trial?  Or is it okay because they are not citizens?   Or maybe it's okay if it is considered an "administrative procedure" rather than punishment?  If this isn't cruel and unusual punishment, without trial, then what it is it?    

        Or has the President has wrongfully and flagrantly exceeded his legal authority  systematically seeking to break up the family units of illegal immigrants?   This is so horrific, is a minor apology and corrective Executive Order enough? I don't believe he can be sent to jail, but should Congress exercise their power to review the President's a actions and force him to GO?   Or if they do not, is it because they lack the Constitutional authority?  Or merely the heart?  

      

       

Sports Protesters, You're Making Yourselves Look Foolish.

Dear Sports Protestors,

   This letter is written first of all because you are acting like a bunch of ignorant jocks. You are not accomplishing anything positive by foolish actions such as boycotting invitations to the White House, plus disrespecting the National Anthem or the American flag.  I don't care if you don't like President Trump. I don't much care for him either.  However, the actions you are contemplating are not about a single person, they are about the whole of the United States of America.  You will not win anything by taking on the entire United States of America.  

    Donald Trump did not create the National Anthem.  There was a National Anthem before he was born and it will continue well after he is gone.  Donald Trump is not the American flag.  He is not even the White House  He is only the current occupant, and there will be others when he leaves. This whole business of deciding whether we are Democrat or Republican before we honor (or not) the National Anthem based on who is in the Oval Office is repulsively ignorant.  

     I served the United States of America as an Air Force officer under a Democrat (Jimmy Carter) and two Republicans (Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush).  I did not ask my superior officer to state their political party before deciding to salute him or her.  I was taught to salute out of respect for the country I chose to serve, not as an endorsement of the officer's political beliefs or persuasion.  It is respect for a COUNTRY not an INDIVIDUAL.  They are not the same thing.

     You seem to have forgotten that the United States of America, it's Constitution and its flag transcend the people who are working for it at any particular moment. That's the whole point.  It's the NATIONAL anthem not the TRUMP anthem or the OBAMA anthem. The WHITE HOUSE belongs to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not to the President.  Maybe if you had studied harder in school you would understand the underlying philosophy behind our government. 
        Look it's a free country.  If you want to burn our flag and cuss us out, that's fine and I support your right to do it and in fact I was ready to lay my life on the line to make sure you would be free from federal prosecution. That's what freedom means.  It means the Federal Government will not seek to apply legal punishment for your actions.  It does not mean that everyone has to like you, or continue to pay your salary, or that people won't call you ignorant.  In fact, I just did.
     Truth to tell, President Trump has faked you out like LeBron James fakes out a rookie guard.  You are not disrespecting the President by boycotting the White House, the National Anthem or the flag.  You are disrespecting US, all of America that owns these national institutions. Moreover, this particular President actually likes it if you help him to promote the idea that the flag and to the National Anthem are part of his brand identity.  Your unhappiness doesn't bother him one little bit.  Really, you accomplish the opposite of what you intend.  What you are doing is the best possible thing for the President's popularity.  You are making it the Trump Anthem, the Trump Flag and the Trump House.  Stop it.  

      Look, when Osama Bin Ladin blew up the World Trade Center, it was not a Republican building that he blew up.  It was OURS. The affiliation of the sitting President doesn't matter. Ever so much more so, it's the AMERICAN flag, not the REPUBLICAN flag or the DEMOCRATIC flag.  We don't salute it in a Democratic administration and burn it during a Republican one.  It's US, not just half of us, and certainly not one person.  So if you decide you want to protest one person or a group of peole by disrespecting the flag--by disrepecting the entire country--people will be upset with you even if they support the cause you seek to draw attention to.  It's not just your intentions, it's the way that you are choosing to advocate your cause.  Anyway I'm not sure I even know what your cause is, other than you like being on TV.   
    Years ago, Muhammad Ali used to regularly fight lousy fighters, which served to keep him in shape and to look good. They called those untalented fighters the "Bum of the Month" club.  Well, that's what the misfiring protester-athletes are.  You are the "Bum of the Month" making the President look good by beating your brains out.  You don't know what you're doing, and mainly you are making yourselves look foolish and you're giving more power to President Trump. 

The President DOES NOT CARE if professional athletes wish to boycott, take a knee during the National Anthem or some other action. This is a fight he can easily win, and the sports figures look foolish, and President Trump becomes more powerful. 

   

Sports Betting Legalized? Well, Non-Illegalized, actually.

from Jeff Darcy, cleveland.com.  Nailed it! 

         The Supreme Court ruled that sports betting is legal.  Or to be more precise, it is not up to the Federal government to prevent states from having it if they want. 
    There are different ways to look at it.  In general I'm personally against gambling, because I think it is proven that a certain percentage of people can get addicted to it. But the issue of whether or not you or I favor sports gambling is not the same issue as who should decide the policy.
    There are a lot of activities and products that you or I may not like but others might hold the opposite value. I'm not crazy about drugs, alcohol, motorcycles without helmets, cars without seatbelts, junk food, guns, and any number of unhealthy products and behaviors.  But in a free society if a majority or even sizeable minority really want to use these things, having been apprised of the downside, I don't think it should be the role of the Federal government to pass laws that are against the will of the people.  In the case of sports betting millions of Americans play fantasy sports or have an office pool on the Super Bowl and March madness.  So, are we going to put 100 million people in jail for these transgressions?  I don't think so. 
     Moreover, in many cases, the Constitution of the United States stipulates what things are going to be done by the President, what things are done by the Legislature and what things are left for individual states to form a policy for.  On any one issue, it is possible that, say, the US Senate and House might provide a bill that agrees with yours or my opinion.  But that doesn't mean that the Senate and House should be granted  the right to regulate it for all time.    

      Many forms of sports betting are currently legal in Nevada, because the Federal government passed special laws to that effect.   Well, okay, that's nice I suppose.  But now they have something they can hold over the Nevada legislators. Perhaps some future Senate Majority might demand,  "You either vote for my issue, or I'm taking away Federal permission for gambling in Nevada."   No doubt this threat has already been used in the past, to some degree or another.   Are we okay with that?  Or is that giving too much power to the Federal government?         One of the strengths of the American government  is that it has many checks and balances that prevent any one person from getting too powerful.  In recent years, however, the trend has been to give more power to the Federal Government, and especially to the President. The party in power seems to figure, "Who needs checks and balances?  Just give the power over to the Senate and House, or better yet, to the President."   

     If you're on the political left and think that giving more peer to Congress and the President is a great idea, Senator McConnell and President Trump are glad to have your support.   

       I would probably not want to have my state pass a flurry fo laws enabling expansion of the already problematic gambling industry in Ohio.  But overall it is probably better for each state to decide its own future.  I think there has to be some form of sports betting given the fact that so many Americans participate in it. 
       So, what are the odds of Pete Rose getting into the Hall of Fame?  

Reverend Daryl versus Reverend Darryl in Dayton

I don't know if I can recall a recent election in which I liked both candidates.  But I don't like the candidates for Dayton City Commission, I LOVE the candidates for Dayton City Commission. I'm just glad that I am no longer a resident of Montgomery County because it would be very hard to vote against either of them.  In the fullness of time, hopefully both Darryl Fairchild and Daryl Ward will find their way to serve in the City commission.  

Darryl Fairchild was my classmate at United Theological Seminary in Dayton (now Trotwood) in the mid-1980s.  I met so many wonderful people there and diligent scholars, including John Allen, Matt Thomas, Jeff Barkley, Margaret Mallory, just to name a few.  Darryl was one of the most thoughtful and studious young people at the Seminary.  Many of us were working professionals studying at night.   Darryl, if memory serves, was in his early 20s when he came to United.  While he was there, he had an accident which left him partially paralyzed.   Did that stop him?  No, he went on to graduate from Seminary and is now the Children's Pastor at Children's Medical Center in Dayton.  In addition, he organized the Greater Dayton Interfaith forum, and is a respected community leader and  political 

There couldn't be anyone with better character than Reverend Darryl Fairchild.  

Vanessa and Daryl Ward.  Daryl is an Attorney, Minister, Professor, Dean and one of the greatest people I have ever met.  

Now what can I say about Reverend Daryl Ward?  Reverend Ward was the Dean at United Theological Seminary when Darryl Fairchild and I were students there.  Wow!   What a small world.  What you need to know about Reverend Ward is that he was an attorney, a graduate of Georgetown University law school, but then gave up a life as a successful lawyer to attend to Seminary and enter the ministry via Colgate Rochester Divinity School. At United, he was enormously effective at increasing enrollment and initiated a mind blowing African American Studies program.   I don't know how to describe it, other than to say that was one of the greatest privileges of my life to be part of that program. 

But here's where it gets crazy.  While at the Seminary, he started a part-time ministry at Omega Baptist Church, meeting initially at Roth Middle School.  The church grew at a phenomenal rate, and moved to a Jewish Synagogue in West Dayton.  The day they moved in to the new building, they were able to pay off the mortgage, if you can believe that.  They are now 4000 strong.  The best thing I can say about Reverend Ward is that he really does what other people talk about, and for that reason I regard him as one of the greatest people I have ever met.   Namely, he has always been about building the community via education and jobs training.  Really he is not very good at complaining, but he is good at inspiring young people to apply themselves in school and achieve high goals and in the process, obtain the jobs they want to have. He's really about getting people from different backgrounds to work together and build a community. My guess is that he would be the type of community leader that would gain the confidence of the business leaders, rather than chase them away.   Among many other duties, Reverend Ward is on the Board of Directors of the University of Dayton.

I should also mention that another of my classmates was Vanessa Ward, who happened to be the wife of the Dean.  She is also an absolutely wonderful person, also very accomplished. 

Who to vote for?  That's a tough call, but since I don't live in Montgomery County I'm going to stay officially neutral, however I hope that ultimately both of the two Reverends will find their way to serve together. 

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.