An Elementary Disappointment

If you create an alternate-universe television series, imagining if Sherlock Holmes lived in modern times, this gives you plenty of latitude to put words in the mouth of the 21st-century Holmes. The reputation for genius of the original Holmes character means that _anything_ you want to tell your audience, once placed in the mouth of _your_ Holmes, can be made to seem brilliant and indisputable. But if you are a bootlicking lackey of the politically-correct pop culture, you won't try to provide any _actual_ wisdom to the viewers; instead, you'll use your Holmes-bot as a flattery device for leftwing urban audiences. You'll program him to tell those yuppies that whatever they wanted to believe anyway, is the peak of sophisticated insight.


 Several episodes ago, the p.c. Sherlock in the series "Elementary" did the bidding of his p.c. scriptwriters, trying to make sure that the expression "intellectually bankrupt" would mean what the viewers wanted it to mean. It isn't hard these days to find authentic examples of intellectual bankruptcy: it can be found co-existing with _moral_ bankruptcy. There are men, for instance, who display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by saying a woman is worthless unless she is "hot," who _define_ "hotness" in ways that real-world women can scarcely manage to live up to, and who meanwhile don't even TRY to be pleasing to the women in return. There are women who display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by proclaiming how all-important "freedom to choose" is when they want to kill their babies, but who refuse to see ANY importance in "freedom to choose" when abortion is forced on Chinese women who _didn't_ want to kill their babies. And of course, millions of American men and women display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy by insisting that our government should be able to distribute unlimited welfare giveaways to countless people for endless time, and by pretending that anyone who contradicts this fantasy must be a racist. There's no end of genuine idiots to point to. But whom did the revisionist Sherlock Holmes identify in dialogue as being "philosopher-in-chief to the intellectually bankrupt"? He identified Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged."


 Ayn Rand contradicted the fundamental delusion of welfare-state thinkers. The viewing audience of "Elementary" includes limousine liberals who perpetuate that same delusion. Surprise surprise, Revisionist Sherlock was made to side with the limousine liberals. Ayn Rand had to be the one who was intellectually bankrupt, so that the elite crowds of the east and west coasts could continue patting themselves on the back for being hip and progressive.


 That much was bad enough. But then came the "Elementary" episode broadcast on Halloween night. In it, they showed Lieutenant Gregson's wife deciding that she was tired of him and wanted to shop around. This kind of thing has become the _norm_ for detective shows, with either spouse equally likely to break the vows; but in this instance, it set up the opportunity for Sherlock Holmes to flatter the leftwing audience again. He told the female Doctor Watson that Gregson would do _better_ as a detective without a wife, because MARRIAGE ITSELF was unnatural and unhealthy. This, to please the crowd that goes for frivolous divorce, shack-ups and one-night stands.


 The way this plot thread was handled had an additional purpose: using ambiguous talk about "partnerships" as a way to serve notice to the audience that it _would_ be possible for Sherlock's relationship with Joan Watson to become a romantic one someday.... only, it MUST NOT AND WOULD NOT ever, ever, ever be a matter of that yucky, outmoded custom called marriage.  


Funny thing about the female Watson: I was never a fan of Lucy Liu before, but she does such a _superb_ acting job as Joan Watson that now I am a fan of hers. It is really _only_ for her sake that I still watch the series. Between her skilled portrayal of a smart lady with a likeable personality (unlike the abrasive shrew she portrayed in "Ally McBeal"), and her simply spectacular physical attractiveness, she provides a female-lead character whom any unattached male-lead character _ought_ to fall in love with. But for the sake of gratifying the chic-nightclub set and the campus-hookup set, the writers of "Elementary" have installed their own kind of glass ceiling: a ceiling intended to prevent any Sherlock-and-Joan affection from rising to the level of -- oh, _merely_ the sacred life-commitment on which civilization was built.


 Ironically, Ayn Rand was _also_ not a champion of Biblical marriage, or of Biblical faith. But as I have remarked before now, the hard left in the United States has its own version of setting high standards. You're not allowed to agree with the left merely on _some_ things; unless you fall into lockstep with the left on _every_ subject without exception, you remain vulnerable to being accused of hate speech, greed -- or intellectual bankruptcy. Miss Rand opposed socialism, so she fails inspection just like that. Readers of Miss Rand's books need not marvel at this; after all, you're not even allowed to be Sherlock Holmes anymore unless you conform to the hard left.

Trying Once More to Make the Google Blog Function Do Its Job

Trendy neo-pagans (including those who operate inside churches, pretending to be Christians) frequently insist on worshipping a female Deity -- either as a solitary female supreme being, or in a dualistic father-mother pairing. Marion Zimmer Bradley, in her pagan Arthurian fantasy "The Mists of Avalon," opted for the dualism, pretending that this promoted "tolerance" and "equality;" but she made sure that, in her story, _only_ the goddess really counted for anything. Christianity had nothing to offer. In real life, there is one result which this goddess-worship usually _does_ produce, and then there's a _claimed_ result which often _doesn't_ work out as advertised. Let me first identify the one which doesn't work out. It is the claim that if we worship a goddess, then women will be set free from patriarchal oppression. To refute this, we need look no farther than pre-modern Japan. In traditional Japanese mythology, a _goddess_ was the absolutely supreme head and unequalled ruler of the pantheon: Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess, who had no male equal. But this theology did _not_ spare mortal Japanese women from being subordinated to a male-dominated social system in actual practice. In fact, it was not until Japan was conquered by the United States, a nation with a _Christian_ background, that Japanese _women_ became empowered to vote in elections. Now for the result which _does_ commonly occur where modern people reject the God of the Bible in favor of a goddess: PANTHEISM. In case anyone reading this doesn't understand the term, "pantheism" is the belief (with several variations possible) that everything is divine.... that all is one.... that everything is everything else.... that we never have to obey a God Who stands _above_ us, because "the light is within us all." Pantheism is one of the poisonous fruits of goddess-paganism. A pagan author has demonstrated this for me. In 2004, Hay House of California published a book titled "Mother God: the Feminine Principle to Our Creator." The author, Sylvia Browne, is known for books which publicize astrology and psychic powers. In "Mother God," Ms. Browne, like Ms. Zimmer-Bradley, opts for the dualism, the male-female cosmic couple. She credits a "spirit guide" with informing her that the goddess member of this couple goes by the name of Azna. _Again_ like Zimmer-Bradley, she uses this "equality" to _eliminate_ everything that makes Christianity what it is. On page 108 of "Mother God," Ms. Browne states, "If there is a God the Father who always was, there was also a Mother God. For that matter, there were also all of us.... WE ALL ALWAYS WERE." This is near enough to a flat-out proclamation of pantheism. If each of us has always existed from eternity past, then we didn't need to be really _created;_ thus we have to be divine in and of ourselves. Now, if we are _that_ self-sufficient, we are not likely to believe that we need _moral_ redemption; so the atoning work of Jesus must also be dispensed with. And sure enough, Ms. Browne dismisses it, very early in the book. On page 5, she demotes the Savior down to a trivial assignment: "the messenger Christ, who was the emissary to show that we cannot divide the intellect from the emotion." Fooey. Even when I was a teenage agnostic, I _already_ realized that we human beings have intellect and emotion both operating in our lives, both making us human. What kind of Christ is that, whose only achievement is to tell us what a teenager already knew? Well, actually, when Ms. Browne assigns Jesus to be a kindergarten teacher, she re-interpets His teaching to support her divine-feminine doctrine. This includes claiming that the Virgin Mary is identical with Azna (which was not _quite_ the intent of even the most Mary-obsessed Catholic). _Anything_ to deny that the Lord Jesus was and is WHAT HE SAID HE IS. Near the end of her book, Ms. Browne "generously" says that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit still are entitled to attention. She can afford to say that, when she has _redefined_ the Father, Son and Holy Spirit beyond recognition. This whole occult-and-pantheistic mess (complete with New Age "visualization" exercises) boils down to what the _real_ Jesus warned about in John 5:43. People resist the actual gospel, because their pride balks at the thought of themselves needing to be _forgiven_ for something; instead, they'll jump at anything that seems cool and hip, strokes their ego, and helps them to get laid at parties.

Google Is Malfunctioning Again!

Trying to keep the blog active

It does seem that Google HAS NOT finished ruining things. Here in weblog territory, it keeps pushing irrelevant junk in my face, INTERFERING WITH every attempt to get into my blog and POST something. That's one reason why I'm giving browser business to Bing.

Sad To Have To Say This Just After The D-Day Anniversary

There is a difference between the desirable and the feasible. If America had the strength, as in _overwhelming_ superiority that _nobody_ could even begin to challenge.... and if we retained the moral integrity to assure that such strength would NOT be used to enslave others for our own gain.... then it would be a _great_ idea for us to overthrow a series of dictatorships all over the world, bringing freedom to billions of people. No, this _wouldn't_ inevitably have to mean we were being a greedy imperial power. America-bashers don't like to admit it, but Japan was quite literally made _more_ free by being _occupied_ for a time by us; it was _America_ which gave Japanese women the ability to vote.                  


Unfortunately, we have been weakened to an extent which probably is uncurable. Communist infiltration -- and I remind skeptics that _Russia_ has confessed that the Soviet-era infiltration _was_ real -- has eroded our will to resist global dictatorship. Various U.S. administrations have wasted our strength on counter-productive interventions; I leave it open to discussion _which_ interventions were the most ill-advised. Our nation and its citizens have done monumental deeds of charity and compassion for needy people worldwide; but those who selfishly envy our success have labored to ensure that we _don't_ get any credit for this. Our economy is being drained by parasites, domestic and imported. And our technology, which was our greatest material advantage for war, has been stolen from us, chiefly by China.                            


Our gun is about out of bullets, and the rowboat has a dozen holes in its bottom. It was never _inherently_ wrong for the United States to be the strongest nation on Earth, but between one thing and another, we've dropped the ball -- both losing our strength, AND losing our moral worthiness to lead. We've missed out on many of the fine things we could have done and been. And as a sad irony, we _still_ have Americans who think that the "cure" for our ills is to INCREASE THE DISEASE: more welfare entitlements, more appeasement of evildoers, etc.                            


If God does not see fit to intervene for us, the whole North American continent will almost certainly be in bondage under some form of absolute dictatorship within the next five years OR LESS. Then all the delusional Democrats who thought we would be better off without that icky Bible and that icky free enterprise, will _experience_ exactly what life is like without the Bible and without free enterprise. Then they'll wish they _hadn't_ been so eager to saw off the branch they were sitting on.

After A British Soldier Was Murdered

 Discussing Islamic fascism in light of the recent murder in Britain, one friend of a friend said, "When you are right, every one else is wrong...and an infidel." But there's a problem with this. My friend's friend, albeit with good intentions, was making the mistake of emphasizing the feeling of rightness as innately being the problem. This is the very emphasis which is exploited by hardcore leftists who HAVE NO PRINCIPLES themselves, in order to LIE that anyone who even HAS firm principles is a fascist.



A feeling of rightness is no worse and no better THAN THE THING THAT YOU ARE FEELING RIGHT ABOUT. Bible-believing Christians like myself are confident that we are right about our Savior, Who heals broken hearts, gives wisdom to the ignorant, reconciles the estranged, and calls on His followers to win new followers BY NON-VIOLENT FREE-WILL PERSUASION. And we refuse to be told that this makes us "exactly the same" as that Muslim thug boasting to the camera in Britain.

Speaking from an Outpost of True Love

It was only yesterday that Carol and I celebrated the first anniversary of our late-in-life wedding. Just yesterday. Well, Carol and I are still fine, but is anyone else? I go to a pizza shop and hear talk about divorce; I turn on the radio and hear talk about divorce. I remember being in the Navy and having shipmates be _startled_ to learn that my parents, unlike theirs, had _stayed_ married. How blessed and fortunate I am, that I never _was_ divorced, nor caused anyone _else's_ divorce, nor saw my _parents_ getting divorced.
                                                                                                               

If any divorced person is reading this, _don't_ get judgmental at me for supposedly being judgmental at you. Nothing I'm saying here is meant as criticism of any _particular_ person; so for purposes of this little essay, you have permission to come away as convinced of your own innocence and rightness as ever. For there _are_ such things as innocent, injured parties in divorces; the criminally stupid nonsense about "both sides always being equally guilty" rubs sand into the wounds of persons who _really_ tried their best in a marriage but were backstabbed by the _other_ spouse. Least of all am I trying to tell battered wives (and the occasional battered husband) that they have a "duty" to remain at the mercy of an abuser. But my heart aches for the _most_ innocent and _most_ injured parties in divorce cases: children, and sometimes other family members affected by a split.
                                                                                                           

In its eagerness _not_ to seem "judgmental" toward persons  who get divorced for causes _less_ extreme than physical abuse or blatant adultery, society has become guilty of minimizing the harm divorce can do to children. Before anyone starts harrumphing at me, "So, you want children to be trapped in a hostile, violent atmosphere," look again at what I already said about abuse. There are plenty of households where, if only the trouble between the parents could be healed, there _wouldn't_ be anything hurtful to the children. But look at how the children's problem is minimized by society.
                                                                                                               

The minimizing takes the form of only acknowledging _part_ of what is affecting children of a broken home. The one part of the children's plight which _does_ get widely acknowledged is the likelihood of a child thinking, "The divorce is my fault, so Mommy and Daddy won't love me anymore." Like setting _one_ broken bone for a crash victim who has _multiple_ fractures, the popular wisdom addresses _this_ worry of the children, saying, "Everything's okay, because the divorce _isn't_ your fault and Mommy and Daddy _won't_ stop loving you." But there is _more_ disruption involved than the _single_ area of disruption which pop culture consents to recognize.
                                                                                                                     

Where, if not in the family, will children learn the qualities, like forgiveness and loyalty, which make it possible for _them_ to have successful marriages -- even friendships, for that matter -- in the future? Pop culture is willing enough to say that physical violence learned at home will be carried elsewhere; so why is it not possible for pettiness,  treachery and selfishness _also_ to be carried beyond the household where they were acquired? If children witness the demigods of their childhood, Mommy and Daddy, becoming estranged (whether by equal fault, which of course is _sometimes_ the case, or by the fault of only one spouse), then what _positive_ example will ever outweigh this negative one? These children have been taught in concrete experience that relationships _don't_ last, that love _isn't_ permanent, that promises _won't_ be kept. So how are the children being helped to do better in their turn, just because the people breaking the promises offer the superficial assurance "I _stopped_ loving your mother/father, but I still love you, really, honest, why are you looking so skeptical?"
                                                                                                                       

I offer no magic wands here; do you think I don't know life is complicated? But if we never face the truth about _what_ the problems of society are, we'll never even _begin_ to undo the damage.

A Hybrid of Half-Truth

The Monsanto Corporation, as I understand it, sells genetically modified seed corn which can survive exposure to pesticides and herbicides far better than any ordinary vegetation can. Thus, with a crop of the G.M.O. corn, you can saturate a field with poison, and the corn will survive. So you don't have bugs eating the corn, or weeds choking it. But you also _don't_ have clean _soil_ that would be healthy for non-modified plant life again anytime soon; and the leftover poison enters the water table.

Today on Denver television.....

A pro-homosexual spokesman said of the gay takeover of the Boy Scouts: "This is about building character, not about sexual orientation." His empty line only proves that the hard left understands about winning a debate by defining the terms. He is asserting that sexual preference ISN'T character, because it's hard-wired by heredity.



All right, let's ACCEPT his terms, and see what follows. Character does at least involve caring about the well-being of others, doesn't it? So if it's built-in that gays HAVE TO BE attracted to their own sex and not to the opposite sex, can they not be asked to practice the same precaution as every heterosexual person is expected to practice as a matter of course?


If heterosexual adults demanded to be allowed to camp overnight with other people's children of the OPPOSITE sex, parents would object vigorously; and the potential heterosexual pedophiles would NEVER FOR ONE INSTANT be allowed to get away with whining, "Poor me, I'm being discriminated against!" No doubt some of the adults wanting this camping arrangement would in fact NOT be desiring to molest the children; but parents would STILL be within their rights to want to prevent ANY risk of molestation. So tell me why gays should be permitted intimate access to the same-sex children THEY could potentially lust after, when straights ARE NOT given a corresponding access to opposite-sex children?


If gay men really DON'T have the slightest interest in using boys sexually, there is a VERY EASY way they could show good faith. Let them offer to camp out WITH GIRLS -- who, on the gay mens' own declared terms, would be completely safe from sexual molestation by the gay men. Why do you suppose I'm not hearing them offering this?

Master of Brown-Nose Kung-Fu

Jackie Chan, like Errol Flynn, has played the roles of many valiant heroes. But alas, like Errol Flynn, Jackie Chan is a fake. He has just proven that he only cares about betting on the winning horse. Chan was friendly enough to America as long as (1) he was making lots of money from American moviegoers, and (2) America seemed healthy enough to remain important in the world. Now that America is rapidly becoming weak and ineffectual, Chan has turned around and announced that America is MORALLY INFERIOR TO CHINA. That is, inferior to the dictatorship which has MURDERED TENS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CHINESE CITIZENS. Great technique there, fawning on slavemasters. Well, Jackie is all jacked up, and he can go yin-yang himself.