The Greatest Story Ever Screwed

I finally overcame my anticipatory revulsion and watched the new version of Disney's The Jungle Book. I have concluded that while the movie is not the hideous train wreck that the animated version was, it's still pretty bad. It is obvious that no one connected with either movie has ever actually read even a single one of the original Mowgli stories.They just gave the general concept the Disney treatment. If you are a work of literature and receive the Disney treatment, you can expect to follow a process similar to ancient Egyptian mummification. First they gut you. Then they scoop your brains out through your nose. Then they wrap you up in bandages and soak you in a bath of ooey gooey, sugar sweet clichés, throw in a few wild chase scenes, add a couple of adorable but mischievous animals, and you're done.

How bad do I find it? Well let's say Disney decided to do a New Testament spectacular. It would go something like this:

Walt Disney presents The Greatest Story Ever Told:

God the Father falls in love with that hot babe, the Holy Spirit. She's bad, but she has a heart of gold. She gives birth to a son, whom they call Jesus. Unfortunately, there's a war in Heaven at the moment and, what with heaven being bombed, all the children have to be evacuated to the countryside, that is, Earth.

Jesus gets sent to the Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph because he's too old to have kids and this lets them have a family.

But the great prophet, John the Baptist, is jealous. He fears this new Jesus will take over the number one spot. He can't let that happen. This is especially sad because John the Baptist is a follower of Moses. Moses set all the Jews in Egypt free and now wanders around the desert singing "The Bear Necessities" and teaching the people of Israel that they don't need to be slaves to material things, they can just be free and wander around eating bugs, honey, and manna. He especially likes locusts and wild honey. His greatest student, John the Baptist, still likes locusts and wild honey, but now he also craves power. (Moses, happily wandering the desert while eating bugs between two slices of mana coated with honey sandwiches, plays no further part in the movie.)

Hearing about Jesus, John decides to "baptize" the infant "accidentally" drowning him and making himself safe.

This is made easy for him because he is married to Salome, daughter of kindly King Herod. Evil John the Baptist convinces kindly king Herod that Jesus is trying to replace Herod, not John.

Hearing that Harod is out to get their child (they now regard Jesus as their own son) The Holy Family leaves his birthplace in a manger, taking along that adorable but mischievous little lamb and the dove up in the rafters, which is also very adorable.

They settle in Egypt for a while, which is ruled by the mighty pharaoh who uses his Royal cartouche to surf the waters of the Nile. He's a really laid-back dude and sounds like a Californian surfer.

I think you get the picture now. This is what Disney does to great literature. I know I'm very much in the minority, but most Disney movies really stink.

Sent from my iPhone

Banzai!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/fashion/denim-japan-weaving-shibusa/index.html

The classic tale of modern Japan. You guys invent something, we'll perfect it.

A few examples:

➡ Having been introduced to the idea of clockwork figures from China via Korea, The Japanese produced a remarkable number of complex devices including amazing little clockwork puppet figures which many regard as the seed from which the Japanese fascination with robots has grown.

➡ Shortly after Commodore Perry forced Japan to open her ports, modern guns were introduced from the West. This struck Japanese society at its roots as peasants could now be formed into a brutally effective fighting force with minimal training, which threatened samurai supremacy. Soon Japan was producing the finest guns in the world. The corps of musketeers was so effective that eventually Japan did a remarkable thing, they banned a highly effective and desirable technology and made the ban stick! Probably this only happened because all the samurai class, from lowest soldier to the Shogun, were deeply committed to the concept of honor and guns were clearly a dishonorable weapon (which also happened to threaten their own power).

➡ Japan eventually realized that their military system was inferior to the west. During the Meiji era, the country used the British as a model for the Navy and the Prussians as a model for their army. They quickly became one of the finest militaries in the world. At the beginning of World War II there is no question that the best operational air supremacy fighter in the world was the Mitsubishi Zero.

➡ Disney style animation swept the nation after WWII and today Japan produces much the world's most popular versions.

➡ Electronics was largely an American invention, but, as Marty McFly declared, "Japan makes the best stuff!"

➡ Interestingly, the Japanese recognize serious failures in their educational program. They have long envied the invention and creativity that America's system produces. This has been so for at least the last 20 to 30 years. Ironically, we are now imitating all the flaws of the Japanese system and weakening or even destroying the strengths which were once inherent in our own.
Read "Samurai's Ghost" for more on this topic.

Channeling Fascisism

A Facebook post:   Watched episode one of KanColle.  Not very impressive, but when the intro referred to girls channelling the spirits of famous warships, I thought, "They wouldn't!  Would they?"

They did.

The two girls channeling aircraft carriers were Akagi and Kaga (no mention of Soryu or Hiryu).  Both carriers were instrumental in the attack on Pearl Harbor and were sunk at Midway (ditto for Soryu and Hiryu).  

So what's the problem?  I can't imagine a German cartoon channeling the spirits of Nazi warships, like the Bismark or Graf Spee.  While Germany has come to terms with the horrors of their fascist past, Japan is still bitterly divided by her own history

It is important to note that even Americans who fought against them regarded both the Japanese and German navies as honorable enemies, unlike the armies in question.

Hang 'Em How?

Am I the only one who ever noticed that when the gun nuts start talking (the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun) it's clear that they are not describing the real world in which we live but the last spaghetti Western they watched?

A Pox On Both Their Tweets

In response to the hysteria over the movie American Sniper:

Sorry it took me so long to respond. But I think a response on this particular debate is essential. Both sides have chosen extreme positions presenting a typical forced choice-false dichotomy situation. The truth lies between the two extremist positions.

What did Michael Moore actually tweet? Here are the quotes: "My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes, and invaders r worse."  And later, "What would Jesus do? Oh, I know what he would do – hide on top of the roof and shoot people in the back!"

While fully supporting Mr. Moore's right to say whatever he wants, I have a right to respond.  My response is:  My uncle killed by a submarine in World War II. Submariners are cowards. Or, my uncle killed by artillery in World War II. Artillerymen are cowards. Or my uncle killed by bomb in World War II. Bombardiers are cowards.  

Exactly the same logic applies.  Each one of these individuals killed from a distance without being directly open to return fire from the individual killed. Does Mr. Moore suggest that all these men are cowards? What about men who fire a missile? What about men who plant a landmine and are long gone by the time it explodes? Tankers who fire from an armored vehicle?

I don't like Michael Moore. I haven't liked Michael Moore ever since I first heard of him. He reminds me of a liberal, although admittedly quite a bit milder, Rush Limbaugh. My opinion of him has not improved in this current debate.

Soldiers do their duty. Sometimes that duty is ugly, cruel, and brutal.  The justification for such actions is that they are done to protect our country, and our loved ones at home, from the forces of evil. War is an evil which is sometimes the lesser of two evils. As long as we do need to go to war, war will be ugly. 

Yes, it would be nice if we would all be so perfectly Christian we would never need to go to war.  I am certain Jesus would refuse to go to war. Does Mr. Moore suggest that we should never go to war even if attacked as we were in World War II? I doubt it.  His uncle certainly went to war, even though that's not what Jesus would do.

Moore is is just as much an emotionalist as are his Republican opponents. Facts don't matter. Only what feels right to them in their guts is correct.  

I must add that Mr. Eastwood pointed out that a movie about how soldiers suffer when they come home and how their families suffer from the horrors of war can't really be called a movie that glorifies war.  Mr. Eastwood's political opinions are childishly naïve, but I have to agree with him on this one. By the way, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have an opinion about it. I do have an opinion about extremists who take a movie and turn it into a huge sociopolitical issue.

I don't like them.

Never Ever In An America That Never Was...

Dr. Ben Carson, DAA (Doctor of Advanced Asininity) has declared, "A bunch of rag tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet. Why? Because they believed in what they were doing. They were willing to die for what they believed in," Carson told a luncheon audience of national committee members. "Fast forward to today. What do we have? You've got ISIS. They've got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for it while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness. We have to change that."

Fact check: A bunch of rag tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet. Why? Because the equally powerful and professional French Army and French Navy fought on our side.  This is called fact, aka, reality. 

And don't forget the Spanish and Dutch assistance we also got.  

Dr. Carson, I suggest you attend a few fifth grade classes in American History. You will learn a lot.  Among the things you will learn is that American History is not part of the Star Wars series.

Of course, you will need to surrender your right wing political correctness...

Forgive Me, Lord, For What I Have't Done Yet

In response to a post from a family member meditating upon the issue of those who commit sins believing that it's no big deal, they can always be forgiven for it later; I responded:

An interesting point. TE Lawrence in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom reported that before he was tortured by his Muslim captors during World War I, they often prayed for forgiveness before torturing him. They knew what they were doing was wrong but thought they could get pre-forgiven. Some reports from the captives held in Iran after the attacks on the US Embassy reported the same behavior. It assumes God is a real idiot, I suppose.

He seems to be easily deluded by pre-regret for the crime you're about to commit but haven't actually done yet. Somehow the concept of repentance is lost in this, or at least distorted into a pro forma ritual. You don't need to actually regret your sin; as in you wish you had never done it, promise never to do it again, even wish you could go back and undo it. Instead you simply go through the magic ritual and now you no longer need to have any responsibility for any actions you commit even if they are clearly sinful and wrong.

I do not think this particular attitude is associated with Islam any more than any other religion. I think it is associated with individuals who do not wish to take a careful look at the actual nature of sin and repentance, preferring to think there's always a magical get put of jail free card which can be played to get out of responsibility for your own actions.

I'm inclined to doubt that God is as easily deluded as they think.

Speaker for the Gays

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9909314/ender-game-controversial-author-very-personal-history



Comments on a friend's post regarding the movie Ender's Game and the author of the original book.

Excellent article. And I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Jordan. I suspect that Jordan has not read Speaker for the Dead, which completes the picture. You need to remember that in terms of Enders Game, we believed an alien species has decided to exterminate us! In our terror we strike out against them, not to commit genocide, but to save ourselves. This is made clear in Speaker for the Dead, which also adds an historical perspective to the events of Ender's Game.

Let me add that unlike Hitler's fantasy that the Jews had to be exterminated because they were a threat to humanity, the "Buggers" had brutally attacked us without provocation.

Final note: I like Ender's Game, but Speaker for the Dead is a vastly superior book.

Idle Thoughts -- Torturous Logic

Unthinkable a movie.

Editorial Reviews from the web delelted

End quotes, more at search...    unthinkable movie plot summary

My comments:

The terrorist is finally forced to talk after his wife is murdered in front of him and the torturer threatens to torture his young children in front of him.   However, he admits to only three bombs and the officials come to suspect there is a fourth bomb.  An agent refuses to bring the children back to be tortured. The terrorist grabs a gun and kills himself. Then the fourth bomb goes off killing millions.

So, point number one.  The movie is not realistic. Terrorists don't actually behave this way and the whole thing is played for maximum entertainment rather than even minimum reality.

However, the question of torture is at least presented in a way that allows people to discuss it.  I am very disappointed that even Hollywood would stoop to the level of preparing to torture young children.  Even though they were attempting to get a discussion going, frankly, it just disgusts me.

Let's take a look at torture as was actually practiced by the United States and our allies. Point number one:  All professionally trained and experienced interrogators say torture does not work. The way to get information from the suspect is to build a relationship of trust with them.

Point number two:  The only individuals who are now claiming that the torture worked are those were guilty of this international and American crime. That is to say the criminals say,  we were right to commit our crime.  These claims are denied by the professional interrogators who say that in fact it was their professional interrogation techniques, not torture, that gained useful information. Someone is lying. I prefer not to believe those who are confessed criminals to crimes which are generally regarded as worthy of the death penalty.

Point number three:  Of course, in the movie there is a ticking time bomb. There is no time to develop a professional interrogator's working relationship with the prisoner. In reality, no one can point to a single case in which this was true when United States officially declared torture legal and proper. It simply didn't happen.

Having expressed my complete disgust with this movie, for all it's well intentioned effort, I will now repeat to you a case which I think I told you earlier, in which I believe torture was justified.

Some years ago a man in Germany kidnapped a small boy. He was captured. He did not deny that he was the kidnapper, in fact he said that if they released him he would let the child go.  In other words, the evidence was very clear, he was guilty.

During the Bush years we tortured many people. Many of them turned out to be completely innocent and were later released. That's right, there is no doubt that we tortured innocent people to get information they did not have.

In the German case, the kidnapper said the child of been placed in a closed box and would suffocate if he was not released in time to save the child's life. The desperate police official in charge of the case went to a court and got an actual permission to perform torture under these circumstances. This was probably not legal, nevertheless, it was given.

As soon as the kidnapper saw the man who was prepared to torture him and the instruments going to be used on his body, he immediately told the police where the child was to be found. No torture was actually necessary.

Unfortunately, it was too late. The child had died. Had the police officer simply prepared to torture the man himself, without seeking permission, the child might well have lived.

Let's look at how this is different from the torture practiced by our government.  1. The individual was doing this for profit not because he was willing to die or suffer for his cause.  2. There was excellent evidence that the individual was guilty, he even admitted it himself.  3. There was actually a ticking time bomb in that the child was running out of oxygen. 4. Torture was only attempted as a desperate last measure after all other methods had failed.

And to differentiate this from the movie, the torture was performed on adults to save a child suffering, not too inflict it upon the child.

It is easy when one suspends his disbelief, to make a very compelling movie.  However, movies rarely have much to do with reality. It makes as much sense to make moral judgments based upon a movie as it does to make moral judgments based upon a cartoon starring Bugs Bunny. The level of reality reflected is usually remarkably similar.

After all, a terrorist who is prepared to die for his cause, believing this will take him straight to heaven, might very well permit his children to be tortured to death. After all, they would then face an eternity of eternal reward in heaven.  He might well think it worthwhile.

The key here, is to understand that people are willing to commit horrible acts of mass murder or not what most of us were generally regarded as sane or rational. Expecting them to behave in a sane or rational manner is not rational on our part.

We know that the most effective way to get effective accurate information out of an individual is to build a long-term trust relationship with him. This is what actually works.

Get On With It!

Add a new Die Hard movie to the list below. I hear they are already planning yet another. It's working title is, Hurry up and Die Hard, Already!


Die Hard
Creator Roderick Thorp
Original work Die Hard
Print publications
Comics Die Hard: Year One[1]
Films and television
Films Die Hard
Die Hard 2
Die Hard with a Vengeance
Live Free or Die Hard
A Good Day to Die Hard
Games
Video games Die Hard
Die Hard Arcade
Die Hard Trilogy
Die Hard Trilogy 2: Viva Las Vegas
Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza
Die Hard: Vendetta

Alice In Boringland

Just watched Alice In Wonderland. Many of the characters were great, as with make up. Unfortunately, the story was slow and the plot was stale. Occasionally the 3D action was reminiscent of Bwana Devil--from the old days of red and green 3D paper glasses with spears poking at the audience for no good reason. I am glad I went to see it, but it was disappointing.