Jump to content

Rich Kennedy

Member
  • Posts

    3,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rich Kennedy

  1. Wow. Frank's getting old fast. I've heard it said that the older you get, the more you revert to what you were when you were young. He's not quite 60 and this sort of thing is the late '70's and early '80's all over again for him. It appears to me that he is what he indicts in Graham, but in partisan opposition. That's the worst sort of screed to my mind.
  2. Does the filmed cheering of folks like those in the stands at the Phillies game Sunday night suggest that christians cheered OBL's killing? I'm not so sure. I'm having trouble with the recruiting value angle as well. Sadly, what I read today by Reuel Marc Gerecht requires registration and subscription (I found it on the op-ed page of WSJ). He implies that al Queda has lost some of its luster with the constant killing of Shi'ites in Iraq during the mid-aughts. Bombing mosques, etc. Al-Queda has adapted and its most magnetic and telegenic spokesman has been killed as well. How does this event compete, or compare with "The Arab Spring"? How will this look a month hence if things keep escalating in Syria? Let's see how this plays out, rather than expecting 2002 all over again. Mike: if violence is always seen as the failure of more proper means of the resolution of conflict, what about the violence as an initial act in a conflict? Is the pressure only on the respondent if the initiator sees the encounter differently? If the conflict ends in the demise of the respondent (who, it is here assumed, is not responding in kind), is this also failure?
  3. I agree on all points here, but one. We forget, bin Laden was stateless an therefore not a political leader in the sense that, say Karzai is. This is an entirely different sort of conflict though it is international.
  4. I've lost a lot of the cynicism I've had over the years, but one form remains. I have a hard time hearing the word "justice" anymore. It is hard not to hear it used at all without some socio/political tinge at least between the lines. Mercifully, I have not yet experienced this in this thread, partly because I know and trust those who have used it in this discussion. Sadly though, there are echoes that I am attempting to muffle as I read through this. This might be some latent cynicism talking, but this scarring. In the 7000 or so years of recorded history there has been so much scarring of this sort and other sorts, I fail to see the new scars so clearly. Only the scar tissue. The guy is dead. He apparantly fought to the last, or wanted to appear so to his attackers. I was oddly wistful this morning at the news. Much of the substance of the above posts gets to my wistfulness. Heh, I must say that my FIRST thought was one of hoax. Found bin Laden! Killed him! Buried at sea quickly to observe the Moslem rule of burial within 24 hours. Too neat. So efficient. There hasn't been such ecfficiency in this administration. Or in any administration in recent memory. Such an equation is impossible to weigh. I see it in terms of something like chess moves and this is one of them which has a small measure of finality to it, but does not equal or balance many of the moves on any or all sides that were made before. I think that humanity mucked up the justice commission long ago and this/these deaths neither advance or hinder justice. This death does not prevent more deaths.
  5. I like both. Preparing for church and on the way, I enjoyed the TAL show on proms today. As to RADIOLAB, I'm fascinated by the distinct editted format. If I can find it, sometimes I listen just for that.
  6. I'd say, flip-floppery is flip-floppery. Speaking as a conservative, yes comedy is perfect, but so many conservatives are humorless. Or, true believers are humorless. An American Carol was funny at least. At most times. So, it's a start.
  7. In addition to Triumph there would be Birth of A Nation. However, there might be the question of any film qua film. Once it is in the can, it is what it is. Apparantly, as a vehicle for Objectivism, it is confused and seems to highlight the elemental entry and surface ideas of Rand at the expense of her foundational principals. Presumably, the ideas exemplified in the film are different than the ones many of us would routinely find objectionable. If this is the case, run-of-the-mill free marketeers might find value in the expressed ideas (because one might have sympathy with some tenets of Objectivism, it does not follow that one is an Objectivist) while Objectivists might find the film a travesty, having ruined an opportunity. At this point, realization would be more relevant to the free marketeer while the discussion would be a waste of time for the Objectivist as it is for you, no? Further, how far do we take this abhorrance? Amoral anti-heroes (Godfather, Taxi Driver, Wild Bunch)? Trumped up "moral heroes" such as depictions of Che Guevarra? Revolutions that turned out to be more despicable than the tyrannies they replaced such as The Battleship Potemkin?
  8. Cute, but that last clause is a problem. Most adolescents are clueless as to the sacrifice others make for them and because of them. Persiflage: I see your point on the quality of ideas and the quality of the realization of a thing. But aren't both significant? Are you saying that you would prefer a hamhanded execution of something you respect and agree with? Oh, and let's say that the expression of the ideas and philosphy that you endorse is lousy as well. This you would prefer to some soaring and glorious realization of doctrine you despise on the screen, loquaciously explained? Would you not be at least a little embarrassed about the former, maybe even the existence of the former? would you not at least admire the beauty of the latter? Would you not at least respect the latter as a more than worthy adversery? I think that this gets at the heart of the problem of "christian" filmmaking and the rejection of same by some of us. Nevertheless, the above is a point of contact for your film criteria. persona: Four hour train trip? It takes five or less to DRIVE from Detroit to Chicago. I'd think the train would be less? Doesn't it take, like two-and-a-half hours to "do GR/Chicago?
  9. It's nice to see Beahr hoist on his own petard. Still, it would seem that he makes the standard mistake of confusing Randian thought with libertarianism. And for better or worse, there is a difference. SDG hits on an interesting point as well. I'd say that if a sufficiently talented team realized a film based on any of Rand's novels, her acolytes would trash the thing for not quoting her right. It reminds me of some of my fundie friends criticizing Jesus of Nazareth for not being "accurate", preferring filmed recitation of scripture in some sort of Holy Land context.
  10. I like 'em both. Payback has better realization of most all of the secondary characters IMO (well, Kristofferson and Coburn, for example, would outclass most anyone in similar roles from the earlier film) and helps me understand Walker's motivation. In fact, Point Blank made more sense to me after Payback. I guess I need to read the book. The thing with the dial phones as contrasted with everything else being clearly in a more contemprary era in the latter film bugs me though. I get hung up on idiosyncrasies and anachronisms like that.
  11. Heh, heh. For me, the bold face seems to be: "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things". I'm childless yet beset with children. This is my challenge regardless of children. This enterprise and this discussion is excellent. Oh, Thom. This is real good. And I've been having a debate at church with a good friend about the value of James.
  12. Yes. I love the relationship he has with his Dad's wife, heh. As to the beating, he seems to be 0 for 2 hand to hand for the series, but Wednesday's beating was by a guy with a cast on his hand. I'm impressed that Raylan was still conscious.
  13. So, last night's episode seems to explain the limp. Good story about that confrontation too.
  14. So Christian, relevant to this particular thread, what are you for.
  15. Heh heh, I believe that is the jist of the term co-belligerent. Seriously, it is always easier to state opposition than afirmation, particularly in theological and philosophical matters. Detailing what one is for often makes one the mountain in a game of "King of the Mountain" just about anywhere. That said, I am for immersing oneself in the scriptures as much as possible, consulting the scriptures first in an interpretation enterprise rather than sticking only with various studies of scripture. I affirm the value of reading scripture for its own instructive value and because it is God's Word on a page.
  16. I've always been uncomfortable with the term inerrancy. "In the original autographs" is not something I want to defend without the original autographs to hand. Now, maybe sola scriptura as defined by the solas might be extra biblical, but it would seem to me that taken at face value, the writers of the scriptures certainly are arguing God's truth as it was revealed to them. And they, by reason of tradition and canon are not ordinary writers. If scripture is not the most stalwart of the three legged stool, there is not much to anchor the church in "the faith once revealed to the saints". Besides, the real practical value of scripture is the stuff few read because it has no real reverse-prooftext value (by this I mean the cherrypicking of the odd passage to highlight the anachronicity of scripture). Feel free to explain. Like I say, I've never seen Biblicism used as a non-pejorative term.
  17. I'm sorry Jeffrey. I had no intention of creating a dartboard. I was responding to another encounter with a rarely used and heard term outside of particular theological circles. A term I embrace in response to its use as a pejorative (I don't know of its use other than as a pejorative). It is the employment of a term that galvanizes me, not the trashing of books yet to be read. I will read it.
  18. My best friend at church is fond of the late Raymond Broun, a scholar of the Gospel of John. We together encountered the biblicist term working through one of Broun's books. I have since happily declared myself a biblicist. My anecdotal experience on the subject is that biblicists, whatever their faults with respect to, I imagine, comprehensive interpretation of scripture, actually read, absorb, and inwardly digest the scriptures. They have much of scripture at their fingertips. Many who, anecdotally now, might enjoy using biblisism as an epithet are not so familiar with scripture and enjoy the study about scripture and the meta analysis of scripture. Many, not all. I will read this book. I say the above as the official Bible scholar at St. John's. In the land of the blind, One Eye is king.
  19. I have missed this entire season (the only one I've missed), but my wife broke the finale to me yesterday. I agree totally with the general analysis of your hidden spoiler. Irrespective of the polygamy angle, there is a solid and respectful treatment of a variation of the "in the world, but not of the world" theme that could have become prurient, or condescending, but didn't. Even the challenges to polygamy within the family were done quite sympathetically as well. This was great series and I just have to find the time to finish it.
  20. Nope. Didn't. Particularly the Please Release Me cover by the iguana. I had a hard time believing this was a Herzog film before this stuff. Never really had a taste for him and still don't.
  21. Rich Kennedy

    Madrid!

    Um, the wine. Spain makes wonderful Cava and various reds and whites. I bet they save some of the best for themselves. And the hams. Unique regional hams that don't conform to USDA curing standards and, alas are left over there.
  22. Having Griffin play a religious conservative wasn't going to be inclusive. Frankly, the whole thing played into the absurd and over the top shenanigans of Sue Sylvester. I thought the whole panel of judges were cartoons with the only rational line being the "nun's" description of the song you linked.
  23. It does not matter that the Senate won't pass anything like the House bill. If the House won't pass a bill to defund, it has little or no standing to argue the defunding of almost anything else. Regardless of what has come out in recent days, NPR is way down the list of priorities in the budget. As George Will claimed during early budget battles with Gingrich as Speaker, if Congress isn't capable of cutting NPR it isn't really capable of cutting anything.
  24. Made stuff up on ACORN? I'm not so sure, but like I say, I grew up with this kind of thing being done all the time. Mountain out of a mole hill. Frankly, I don't believe in shunning and letting folks arbitrarilly twist in the wind. I'm not defending so much as gloating and feeling a little smug that holy rollers have gotten a little dirty in the aisles. Again. Besides, despite what his editting did to Schiller, no one at all defends him. It appears to me that it is convenient that he was on the way out anyway. The other Schiller, heh, that's another story. I admit that I despise fellow Michigander Micheal Moore, but this is not really dissimilar to his style. So how 'bout Mark Judge at The Dailly Caller for a slightly different take. Read the blogpost for the Plato reference and the surrounded by liberals context. EDIT: Dang, won't let me link. The page it sends to is a siding. On the DC website the blogs are listed on the left after a few prime articles. www.dailycaller.com
  25. It shouldn't have thrown you too far. Like I said, just like on his TV show. While it is crucial to keep in mind who he gets his info from, when he goes into junior professor mode, he always insists that the viewer investigate for him/herself. In that way he's different than his dopplegangers on the left who always want to explain it all for you QED. Cute. Anyone hostile to O'Keefe always wants to mention the caveat that Schiller had to go, BUT!!!! Yes, he twisted his video for his own purposes, but he was right in, the end, no? Nobody is really forcing the point that Schiller did not cross the line. Me, I wouldn't have done it that way. However, I can't help but think that NPR and media defenders in this are not hoist on their own petards. This sort of thing happens all the time on the other side of the aisle. Man up and take it lefties.
×
×
  • Create New...