"The Founding Fathers had it right: the greatest threat to liberty is a meddlesome government. This is especially true when many persons look to the government to solve problems caused by human vices. Such problems have never, will never, and can never be solved by governments."
~Ruth Pakaluk, in a 1993 letter to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Printed in The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God: The Story of Ruth Pakaluk, Convert, Mother, Pro-Life Activist, edited by Michael Pakaluk.
Showing posts with label odds and ends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label odds and ends. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
What's in a Name?
So here's a list of names that Disney was considering for the dwarfs in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Some of them are hopelessly dated; Dippy, Neurtsy, Sappy, and Jaunty are a few that would never fly nowadays. Daffy never would have worked (although I love that name, and the word is fun), but Dizzy and Hungry would have made funny characters.
Interestingly enough, neither of the additional dwarf names from ABC's Once Upon a Time - Stealthy and Dreamy - are on the list. (For the record, I think Dreamy is a really stupid name. Particularly for a dwarf.)
Interestingly enough, neither of the additional dwarf names from ABC's Once Upon a Time - Stealthy and Dreamy - are on the list. (For the record, I think Dreamy is a really stupid name. Particularly for a dwarf.)
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Another Slippery Post
Warning: Somewhat mature content is contained in this post.
"The fact that it was a lesbian encounter didn't really bother me. What creeped me out was the difference in their ages. Laura's seventeen and Janet's, what, thirty-eight?"
This sentence (or something much like it) was spoken during a casual discussion of The Female Man by Joanna Russ. I and the others in the group had all just read the section where Janet, with the help of a mechanical device, has "sex" with Laura. The others in the group were offended and put off by the twenty-year difference in the two women's ages. My reaction to that (in my head) was, and I quote, "Why the hell not?"
Speaking from a morally relativistic approach, there is absolutely no reason why these two women shouldn't do anything they pleased. Laura was at the age of consent. This is the age of free love, right? Of sexual perversions taken as lightly as a doodle? If there's nothing morally wrong with homosexual acts (I say acts, not people with same-sex attraction), then there's certainly nothing wrong with a thirty-eight year old having sex with a seventeen year old.
But the inconsistency of my fellow group members' logic isn't what disturbed me. I'm very glad that people who look with an approving eye on things considered unthinkable just a hundred years ago would still have some sexual boundaries. No, what disturbed me is the thing that they didn't mention: Laura lost her virginity to a mechanical device. Let's think about this for a minute. Sex is an extremely intimate act wherein a man and a woman become one flesh. This has been so perverted that a woman can now share this sort of intimacy with a metal device, pretending she is having sex with another woman - and no one objects. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as bone-chilling. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as dangerous. Maybe I'm naïve, but people who express opinions like mine will find themselves subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment just a few decades from now. Abnormal behaviors accepted by society become protected by law, and those who oppose things protected by law are persecuted.
"The fact that it was a lesbian encounter didn't really bother me. What creeped me out was the difference in their ages. Laura's seventeen and Janet's, what, thirty-eight?"
This sentence (or something much like it) was spoken during a casual discussion of The Female Man by Joanna Russ. I and the others in the group had all just read the section where Janet, with the help of a mechanical device, has "sex" with Laura. The others in the group were offended and put off by the twenty-year difference in the two women's ages. My reaction to that (in my head) was, and I quote, "Why the hell not?"
Speaking from a morally relativistic approach, there is absolutely no reason why these two women shouldn't do anything they pleased. Laura was at the age of consent. This is the age of free love, right? Of sexual perversions taken as lightly as a doodle? If there's nothing morally wrong with homosexual acts (I say acts, not people with same-sex attraction), then there's certainly nothing wrong with a thirty-eight year old having sex with a seventeen year old.
But the inconsistency of my fellow group members' logic isn't what disturbed me. I'm very glad that people who look with an approving eye on things considered unthinkable just a hundred years ago would still have some sexual boundaries. No, what disturbed me is the thing that they didn't mention: Laura lost her virginity to a mechanical device. Let's think about this for a minute. Sex is an extremely intimate act wherein a man and a woman become one flesh. This has been so perverted that a woman can now share this sort of intimacy with a metal device, pretending she is having sex with another woman - and no one objects. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as bone-chilling. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as dangerous. Maybe I'm naïve, but people who express opinions like mine will find themselves subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment just a few decades from now. Abnormal behaviors accepted by society become protected by law, and those who oppose things protected by law are persecuted.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Slipping Down the Slope
"Somewhere Hitler smiles. They say that he killed the disabled and the sick (not to mention the Jews) for all the wrong reasons, but if in fact there is no wrong or right, no objective truth, then all that really matters is that he did kill them, which by the standards of contemporary ethics, makes him a visionary."
~Dean Koontz, One Door Away from Heaven, Chapter 41
~Dean Koontz, One Door Away from Heaven, Chapter 41
Friday, February 17, 2012
Look Out, Stranger...
If you like to watch old western movies because you like them, you like to make fun of them, or both, you're liable to split a seam watching this. It's from an old WWII movie called Starlift, which was basically an entertainment show for the troops. The movie's not great, but this song and one other comedic performance are funny.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Soft Openings
Okay, so you know that part in Ocean's Thirteen when some of them are trying to explain a "soft" opening to Saul? A soft opening is basically a preview of the big opening - like a test drive. If there are bugs in the system somewhere, they can be ironed out by management and staff before the real opening comes with its requisite fireworks and flashing lights. Well, that concept is now being applied to Super Bowl commercials.
I kid you not. Just look at IMDb for the preview of the Avengers preview that will be broadcast during the Super Bowl. Seriously? A preview of the preview? There are other commercials posted online, too. Six of this year's commercials are right here. Where's the fun in that? The surprise is the best part of the commercials. Remember the Bud Light axe murderer one? Or the E*Trade baby? Little Darth Vader?
Feedback is the only thing going for this whole "soft opening" idea. Maybe companies can look at ratings on youtube and avoid showing certain commercials during the Super Bowl. Remember Doritos and Pepsi from last year? Crude. Most of the others were just flat-out boring.
But if you're going to put them out there for general consumption before the Super Bowl, it defeats the purpose. Everybody talks about the commercials after the Super Bowl - that's the point of the whole thing for people who aren't football fans. If the commercials have already been seen and digested by most or even some of the populace, doesn't that take a little magic from the moment when they're seen on TV?
For the record, I've seen just one of the 2012 Super Bowl commercials to which I have linked. I'm saving the rest for the day itself. Oh, and one more thing. GO GIANTS!
I kid you not. Just look at IMDb for the preview of the Avengers preview that will be broadcast during the Super Bowl. Seriously? A preview of the preview? There are other commercials posted online, too. Six of this year's commercials are right here. Where's the fun in that? The surprise is the best part of the commercials. Remember the Bud Light axe murderer one? Or the E*Trade baby? Little Darth Vader?
Feedback is the only thing going for this whole "soft opening" idea. Maybe companies can look at ratings on youtube and avoid showing certain commercials during the Super Bowl. Remember Doritos and Pepsi from last year? Crude. Most of the others were just flat-out boring.
But if you're going to put them out there for general consumption before the Super Bowl, it defeats the purpose. Everybody talks about the commercials after the Super Bowl - that's the point of the whole thing for people who aren't football fans. If the commercials have already been seen and digested by most or even some of the populace, doesn't that take a little magic from the moment when they're seen on TV?
For the record, I've seen just one of the 2012 Super Bowl commercials to which I have linked. I'm saving the rest for the day itself. Oh, and one more thing. GO GIANTS!
Friday, January 27, 2012
Everything's Just Ducky
Science fiction. If this doesn't bring to mind Star Trek, then your planet evidently has not been visited by the U.S.S. Enterprise. But, seriously, what does "science fiction" say to you? Aliens? Space ships? Super-cool gizmos? My answer is "all of the above." But apparently I'm an ignoramus.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
Friday, January 20, 2012
New News on LCJ
So Love's Christmas Journey now has a page on the Hallmark Channel's website. (To see my opinion of the Love Comes Softly Saga, read this post.) Turns out I was wrong about Erik. He is not going to be Ellie's next husband; Deputy Michael Strode is.
But what really surprised me (other than Sean Astin's appearance. Really, Sean? You can't find anything better to do than one of the Love movies?) was the preview video. It says "two-part." Think about this for a second. Two parts. At two hours apiece. Minus about forty to forty-five minutes total of commercials, that's still a movie that lasts three hours and twenty minutes. Believe me, there's barely that much decent movie time in all the previous movies put together.
Enough of my griping; I haven't even seen the thing yet. Go to this IMDb page to read a review by "pjheberling" - someone who saw the movie, hated it, and has a great sense of humor to boot. If you read it out loud with a British accent (I know, the guy's from the U.S. - but it sounds like a British sense of humor, doesn't it?), it's even better.
But what really surprised me (other than Sean Astin's appearance. Really, Sean? You can't find anything better to do than one of the Love movies?) was the preview video. It says "two-part." Think about this for a second. Two parts. At two hours apiece. Minus about forty to forty-five minutes total of commercials, that's still a movie that lasts three hours and twenty minutes. Believe me, there's barely that much decent movie time in all the previous movies put together.
Enough of my griping; I haven't even seen the thing yet. Go to this IMDb page to read a review by "pjheberling" - someone who saw the movie, hated it, and has a great sense of humor to boot. If you read it out loud with a British accent (I know, the guy's from the U.S. - but it sounds like a British sense of humor, doesn't it?), it's even better.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
One More Video...
...Before I get back to serious stuff like writing reviews. Not that this isn't seriously funny - particularly for those of us who have had the misfortune of singing the original version of this song - Mary, Did You Know? - for a Christmas choir. I would definitely not recommend it for amateur choirs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Spend Today in the Middle of Middle Earth
"Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."
~J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories
Happy Birthday (and Merry Christmas), old maker of Hobbits!
Today, since it is his 120th birthday, is J.R.R. Tolkien day. I would heartily recommend the enjoyment of the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings films, the repeated viewing of the trailer for the new Hobbit movie due to come out in December, a speedy run-through of any of his books, making and enjoying various fan adaptations of Middle Earth foods, or - the activity I choose - hours spent in the combat contained within The Return of the King video game. I normally would have spent the day in watching all 11+ hours of the movies (or however long the three extended versions run to - I never watch the theatrical versions), but, alas, my family's copies are with an older sibling for the time being. So I shall content myself in my Aragorn- Legolas- Frodo- Sam- Gimli- Gandalf- Boromir- Pippen- Merry- Faramir- and Galadriel-less sorrow (apologies to any good characters I forgot) by immersing myself in a desperate fight to defeat various baddies from the story.
If you're really desperate for something Lord of the Rings (or in need of a good laugh), watch this video. I hear there's a 10-hour one on youtube as well, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch it.
~J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories
Happy Birthday (and Merry Christmas), old maker of Hobbits!
Today, since it is his 120th birthday, is J.R.R. Tolkien day. I would heartily recommend the enjoyment of the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings films, the repeated viewing of the trailer for the new Hobbit movie due to come out in December, a speedy run-through of any of his books, making and enjoying various fan adaptations of Middle Earth foods, or - the activity I choose - hours spent in the combat contained within The Return of the King video game. I normally would have spent the day in watching all 11+ hours of the movies (or however long the three extended versions run to - I never watch the theatrical versions), but, alas, my family's copies are with an older sibling for the time being. So I shall content myself in my Aragorn- Legolas- Frodo- Sam- Gimli- Gandalf- Boromir- Pippen- Merry- Faramir- and Galadriel-less sorrow (apologies to any good characters I forgot) by immersing myself in a desperate fight to defeat various baddies from the story.
If you're really desperate for something Lord of the Rings (or in need of a good laugh), watch this video. I hear there's a 10-hour one on youtube as well, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch it.
P.S. Notice how I snuck in "Merry Christmas" - thus making this post technically a Christmas post.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Happy New Year!
Okay, since this is New Year's Eve, I'm taking a brief hiatus from Christmas-themed posts. This is a video of actress Zooey Deschanel (FOX's New Girl) and actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt singing together. I've never seen Zooey in anything, but I've seen Joseph in Inception and can't wait to see him in The Dark Knight Rises. He's a darn good actor, and he's not too hard on the eyes, either. Apparently he can sing and play musical instruments as well. Anyway, enjoy the music; it's great!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Dickens on Christmas-Time
Since the Christmas season lasts from Christmas Eve night to Epiphany (the day the wise men came to Bethlehem; this season it's January 8th), I will be doing Christmas-themed posts until then. So enjoy this excerpt from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.
"But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas-time, when it has come round - apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that - as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"
"But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas-time, when it has come round - apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that - as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"
Friday, December 9, 2011
Love Dies a Slow and Tortuous Death at the Hands of Hallmark
Hallmark movies. Or Hellmark movies, depending on which title you prefer. In order to enjoy them on any level, you must ignore mediocre acting, writing, storylines, and pretty much everything else to do with a movie. There are typically two molds: 1) Either a Christmas movie of some sort, or 2) a single mother (or father) whose significant other either died or ran out. But sometimes, a Hallmark movie will break out of the typical hum-drum mold and be breathtakingly... worse.
Take the Love Comes Softly series. There have been ten of them: Love Comes Softly, Love's Enduring Promise, Love's Long Journey, Love's Abiding Joy, Love's Unending Legacy, Love's Unfolding Dream, Love Takes Wing, Love Finds a Home, Love Begins, and Love's Everlasting Courage. (I don't really blame Hallmark for the lack of creativity in titles; the book series by Janette Oke has the same problem.) Taken individually, exactly two of them are decent movies: Love Comes Softly and Love's Enduring Promise. The rest are painfully bad, both in acting and in story. But what really makes this series stand alone among other movies from Hellmark is its strangely convoluted family tree.
 |
| I dare you to try to understand this (Click to enlarge) |
Okay, so the light blue represents marriages that end with deaths. The dark blue represents children from those marriages. Gray lines are for marriages that are not killed off in any of the movies. Black lines are for children from those marriages. Red is for fiancées that die. As you can see, nearly everybody is married twice (or at least engaged twice), with the paltry exceptions of Drew and Willie, who both die. Wait a minute, you say. What about Erik? I'll get to him later.
First, I have another objection, as Lady Catherine from Pride and Prejudice would say. This is the mysterious appearance and disappearance of convenient characters. First, Ellen's sister is a teenager in Love Begins. In Love's Everlasting Courage, which takes place only about six years after the first one, she isn't even mentioned. Not one word. They could at least have said she married and moved away or something. (Maybe they have a movie for her in the works somewhere down the road... in Hellmark, there is no mercy.) Then there's Ellie King, who apparently is Marty and Clark's daughter. She is slated as the main character in Love's Christmas Journey, which hasn't yet been played on Hallmark. Hm. Where did she come from, exactly? I don't remember seeing her or hearing of her in any movie I've seen.
As far as Erik goes, I'm only guessing that he'll end up marrying Ellie (I haven't seen the new movie). Thus the dotted line and his exclusion from the deathless club. So he might just end up being the only lucky fellow who not only does not suffer the loss of a significant other, but also doesn't die. Ellie, on the other hand, was married to some dude with the last name of King, so that makes her... a widow. In a Christmas movie. See a pattern?
Hallmark must make a lot of money on Christmas movies and the Love series. But, in point of fact, they're becoming ridiculous. The only (and I mean the only) thing that rescued the two most recent movies (Love Begins and Love's Everlasting Courage) from the mediocrity and overall bleah-ness of most of the others was the handsome, good actor who played Clark. Christmas Hallmark movies can be funny, but the world doesn't need 27,000 of them to survive, especially since they're usually a lot alike. Put Christmas movies and the Love series together and what do you get? Well, I guess something straight from Hellmark.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Black Friday, Captain America, and Tim Tebow
A week ago today was Black Friday. Probably my least favorite day of the year, and I don't even go within thirty miles of a retail store. It's the day that immediately follows Thanksgiving (and just two days before the start of Advent), and the day when people completely lose their minds. What would posses someone to use pepper spray on other shoppers? Trample someone on the floor of a superstore? Leave every shred of dignity behind in order to save a few dollars on things that they probably don't need anyway? In addition to the obvious answer - a materialistic culture bereft of kindness and godliness - there is another that I think plays into the madness that descends once a year: A total lack of respect for mankind. People don't respect themselves, much less each other, so they do ruthless and humiliating things to save a little bit of money.
Just take a few sips of the following tonic to help wash away that Black Friday ickiness - absolutely free! These two men, one fictional and the other very much alive, have a lot in common: They respect themselves and people in general, respect women, and even command the respect of others. The two I'm talking about are Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), better known as Captain America.
Tebow is the most controversial topic in the NFL right now. Some analysts think he's capable of great things. Others think he'll burn out like a match and go down in history as just another flop. Judging from their lack of public support for him, Tebow's GM and head coach think the latter. But Tebow respectfully disagrees. He has more respect for his critics than to get involved in a cat fight with them. He also respects himself enough to maintain confidence in his ability. He just goes about his business - winning football games - every week, regardless of whether critics have fried him to a crisp. Rogers is faced with a similar situation. Up until he frees the POWs taken by Hydra, there are conflicting opinions about him, too. Sergeant Carter (Hayley Atwell) believes firmly that Rogers is capable of more than just selling war bonds. But Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), Rogers' commanding officer for a time, says that Rogers isn't good enough to take on Hydra single-handedly. Rogers disagrees, but he respects the decision. However, he also has enough respect for himself to go out on his own to rescue the POWs. As Sgt. Carter tells him, he isn't just a performing monkey, and he knows it.
Another similarity between the two is their respect for women. With Tebow it's pretty obvious; much has been made of his virginity. He has never had a "girlfriend" in the unfortunate modern use of the term. Similarly, Rogers has never even danced with a girl, and barely had any conversations with them. He tells Sgt. Carter that he's been "waiting... for the right partner." I don't know what Tebow has said on this subject, but I would imagine he has the same attitude. He's saving himself for marriage - for the right partner.
Finally, both have the ability to command the respect of others. Tebow's teammates truly believe that he's a winner and that, as long as he's on the field, they have a legitimate shot at winning. In fact, they try harder simply because he's playing. He brings out the best in people because they respect him - his work ethic, his unwavering faith in God, and his confidence in himself and his team. To some extent, this is the same with Rogers. Most people respect him because of his prowess in battle. Others, like his best friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), respect him because they see in him the heart of the little guy too dumb to walk away from a fight. Either way, Rogers is clearly respected by nearly all who meet him.
Respect. There's way too little floating around in the world today - particularly on Black Friday. Hopefully the kids growing up in the Tebow/superhero years will take lessons from the quarterback and Rogers. Alike in many ways, these two are two of the best role models one could hope to find for the young men of America. Maybe their respect for themselves and others, their respect for women, and their ability to command the respect of others will give these youngsters a counter example to balance out the insanity of Black Friday.
Just take a few sips of the following tonic to help wash away that Black Friday ickiness - absolutely free! These two men, one fictional and the other very much alive, have a lot in common: They respect themselves and people in general, respect women, and even command the respect of others. The two I'm talking about are Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), better known as Captain America.
Tebow is the most controversial topic in the NFL right now. Some analysts think he's capable of great things. Others think he'll burn out like a match and go down in history as just another flop. Judging from their lack of public support for him, Tebow's GM and head coach think the latter. But Tebow respectfully disagrees. He has more respect for his critics than to get involved in a cat fight with them. He also respects himself enough to maintain confidence in his ability. He just goes about his business - winning football games - every week, regardless of whether critics have fried him to a crisp. Rogers is faced with a similar situation. Up until he frees the POWs taken by Hydra, there are conflicting opinions about him, too. Sergeant Carter (Hayley Atwell) believes firmly that Rogers is capable of more than just selling war bonds. But Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), Rogers' commanding officer for a time, says that Rogers isn't good enough to take on Hydra single-handedly. Rogers disagrees, but he respects the decision. However, he also has enough respect for himself to go out on his own to rescue the POWs. As Sgt. Carter tells him, he isn't just a performing monkey, and he knows it.
Another similarity between the two is their respect for women. With Tebow it's pretty obvious; much has been made of his virginity. He has never had a "girlfriend" in the unfortunate modern use of the term. Similarly, Rogers has never even danced with a girl, and barely had any conversations with them. He tells Sgt. Carter that he's been "waiting... for the right partner." I don't know what Tebow has said on this subject, but I would imagine he has the same attitude. He's saving himself for marriage - for the right partner.
Finally, both have the ability to command the respect of others. Tebow's teammates truly believe that he's a winner and that, as long as he's on the field, they have a legitimate shot at winning. In fact, they try harder simply because he's playing. He brings out the best in people because they respect him - his work ethic, his unwavering faith in God, and his confidence in himself and his team. To some extent, this is the same with Rogers. Most people respect him because of his prowess in battle. Others, like his best friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), respect him because they see in him the heart of the little guy too dumb to walk away from a fight. Either way, Rogers is clearly respected by nearly all who meet him.
Respect. There's way too little floating around in the world today - particularly on Black Friday. Hopefully the kids growing up in the Tebow/superhero years will take lessons from the quarterback and Rogers. Alike in many ways, these two are two of the best role models one could hope to find for the young men of America. Maybe their respect for themselves and others, their respect for women, and their ability to command the respect of others will give these youngsters a counter example to balance out the insanity of Black Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)