It's Oscars Weekend ...

 

*Editing still in progress.

Updated, 3/10/2024

... and as I usually do, I'm trying to catch up on the nominees and watch them before Oscar night, but I usually don't succeed.  Some of these things, you have to be in the mood for.

I've seen Barbie, The Holdovers, and just last night, Poor Things, and today/tonight, since it's a cold, rainy day, I'll be watching American Fiction and Killers of the Flower Moon (if the price comes down from 20 bucks to stream the latter!)

So keep in mind as you read this that I have NOT yet seen American Fiction, Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, or Oppenheimer yet, though I love Cillian Murphy and suspect Oppenheimer and KOTFM will do a semi-sweep.  

I think it's the intensity and somberness of both films that I have to be in the right mood for, plus KOTFM and Oppenheimer are 3 and 3-1/2 hours long - who has time for nearly 4-hour movies anymore? 

That's right, Scorsese - I love you, you're the master,  but I AM, in fact, "talkin' to you" 😂

I mean, a book, you can put down and come back to later, but nobody has time to sit in a movie theater for almost 4 hours anymore.  And even you've rented a streamer, you have to finish it in 48 hours and we all do have work and lives and kids' lives to do, too. 

Now, also keep in mind that I wanted to be a screenwriter at one time, and that I've said there are only two things I'm snobby about, film and architecture - because I feel if you have the ungodly amount of money it takes to do either, then do them right -  so it takes a lot to impress me.

Thus, I'll give you my thoughts on what I've seen thus far?

(After I see the two tonight, I may update this post, we'll see.)

 

I should start by saying that although I look at ratings, I don't read critics' actual reviews of Oscar-contender movies until AFTER I've seen the movies myself, so that I can see them with fresh eyes.

Also, I try to remember that we are still watching movies re-emerge after the pandemic, so IMO, it's been slim pickins since, shall we say, for a couple of years, and we're just now starting to see the big-budget films with big-name actors return, and IMO, we're STILL waiting for the type of caliber as before. 

Having said that, though Barbie was a fun movie with a twist on what you think about Barbie, and as much as I love Greta Gerwig, I ... really hope she doesn't wain for Barbie. 

I mean, it was fun, but let's be honest, it wasn't Oscar material.

If Greta DID win for best director or picture or screenplay, it'd actually be kind of a slap in the face to women that it's only this kind of stuff we can win for, rather than heavy-hitting material? 

Same for Margot Robbie, I've seen her do better work in better things.  America Ferrera, too. 

Quite frankly, this movie didn't deserve to be nominated for an Oscar in anything but set design and costume design, maybe soundtrack - NOT best picture, best director, and acting awards, come on.

I think it's just one of those "I think they're just trying to make up for prior losses, knowing they should've won" types of things, like when they give the Lifetime Achievement award 😂

IMO, not only should Oscar-worthy movies have flawless and seamless directing, editing, cinematography, dialogue, and acting, but more importantly, they should have a good story, and not just a story that leaves no loose ends and doesn't suspend our disbelief too far, but even more importantly - a story that hasn't been told before, or at least a story that is told from a different perspective or in a vastly different way than we've seen before?

Thus, to me, the Oscars are really about innovation, breaking new ground, while still telling us a good, airtight story in a believable way, even if we have to suspend our disbelief for a while (but not too far or too long in its absurdity)

Which brings me to The Holdovers, with an excellent message, perhaps an old revived message, told from a different perspective  ... 

... and yet I can't help this movie ending with the thought "this could've been done better?"

More on that below.

SEMI-SPOILER ALERT

A white male college professor at a prestigious all-boys Northeastern Boys Prep School has much disdain for his students and reserves his compassion for the poor and those who have truly struggled or lost much in life, and most of the time, he's right about his students and their families - until he meets one student, who at first is the sarcastic bane of his existence, despite setting the curve on his overly harsh grades. 

We learn that there's more than meets the eye, with this kid, who not only gets left behind at the school for Christmas by his mother and stepfather, but is hiding a secret about his father that he cannot share with anyone and is in tremendous pain. 

We white people tend to do that, that's true.  We expect other white people to behave a certain way and only tolerate other people getting upset about petty, trivial things, because real pain and struggle is often too much for us - AKA "white fragility"  is a real thing.  

Also, we confuse burying emotions with strength, when true strength is compartmentalizing things so you can get stuff done, but letting yourself feel emotions at a good time and then moving past them, rather than stuffing them so they come out in other ways, particularly shaming other people for displaying them.

And in this day and age especially, both political parties tend to sanction us to only feel compassion for certain labeled groups.

Like for the political right, it's veterans and other white people.

For the left, it's also veterans, but more about anyone else BUT white people.

HOWEVER, both parties are guilty of believing that money solves all problems and heals pain and thus don't need our compassion.

And that's the lesson of this film: Don't let politics or society dictate who is the most deserving of your compassion.

Let your compassion instead be guided simply by anyone in actual pain, regardless of "deservingness," remembering that no amount of money will fill emotional voids and heal emotional pain.

Now - that does NOT mean we should allow our compassion to be manipulated or enable behaviors that aren't good for them/the people around them, just that compassion IS in order, albeit with boundaries to keep yourself/the person safe, "and to stop letting society tell us who we should feel compassion for and shouldn't!

Otherwise, as much as I am always impressed by Paul Giamatti's acting skills, I wasn't blown away.  I just said to myself "Paul Giamatti is killing it, like he always does" - but it wasn't anything new for him or a character stretch?

So I was more impressed Da'Vine Joy Randolph, best supporting actress nominee - specifically the kitchen breakdown scene over her son ...

... but otherwise, she was just sort of hanging out blandly in the background, they all were, as if they all took a backseat to the scenery as its own character.  

Don't get me wrong, the scenery should be its own character, I love that - but let's not lose the characters in the scenery, either? 

(Special mention to Dominic Sessa, though, while although his acting may not have Oscar-rendering performance, was still incredible, despite having been discovered at an open audition at the boys' prep school location where the movie was being filmed!)

Honestly, though, as much as I loved the message of this movie, it's one of my favorites over the past few years, as I said earlier, I also felt it could've been done better overall.

And you know who's fault that is? 

The director.

I have nothing against Alexander Payne, it's just that although he was really good at effective environmental scenes to set the tone, the shots on the actual actors as they had emotional meltdowns or moments were too far away, which is an essential part of the audience making an emotional connection with a character?

For instance, when "Mary" breaks down in the kitchen at a party at Christmas over the death of her son in Vietnam, I'm thinking "WHY ARE WE WATCHING HER HAVE THIS EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN OVER THE DEATH OF HER SON FROM ACROSS THE ROOM?!" 😂

Or - SPOILER ALERT - when "Professor Paul" is making the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Angus, again, I'm thinking "Why are we watching this monumental moment for main character from across the room?!?"

Okay, yes -  in real life, that's how it would probably look, and yet wouldn't you naturally move closer to that person?

Nope.  Instead, Alexander just stands there awkwardly and lets it happen,  as if it didn't just happen, which reminds us that we're an audience watching, and just moves on to the next scene, la la la, that didn't happen, which prevents the audience from relating better to the characters.

I couldn't find a still image of either scene, but here's an example - we have mood lighting to set the tone, a darkly beautiful background with spotlighting meant to create an intimate feel - and yet we don't feel that, because we're still too far away from the characters to better relate to them!?!

Also, the actual film quality was almost grainy, and the sound editing was atrocious, at least in my view.  (Sound editing isn't something you notice at all when done well, but when it's done poorly, you know - even if you can't put your finger exactly on what's not working.)

I'm not sure if that was intentional because it was set in the late 60s or what, but it doesn't help your ability to emotionally connect with the characters much.

Moving on, just last night I watched "Poor Things."  I must forewarn you, it's a weird, effing movie and there's lots of soft-porn going on -  but if you're an artist/creative type, you'll get it. Mostly. 

Of course the premise is grotesque, absurd, and impossible, especially during the Victorian era - but the good news is, you can suspend your disbelief to "what if" in thought provocation?

However, there were some major problems with it.

For instance, I get where the movie was trying to go, and had it gotten there, I'd be telling a different story - but it didn't.

It's supposed to be a twist on a Pygmalion/My Fair Lady story where instead of allowing her creator to control her or running back to him out of either codependency or fear, the creation breaks free from control and finds her own path as a feminist icon.

However, if I'm supposed to be watching a new feminist icon in the making, why am I at the same time watching her full-frontal-nudity sex scenes every other minute, while we don't see the same for the males?

I mean, sure, I get that being free of social constraints and her sexual liberation was an essential part of the character, and yet scene after scene of Emma Stone's gratuitous full-frontal nudity sex/orgasm scenes - without doing the same for men - kind of detracted from the "feminist icon" point.

It became so gratuitous that I just started thinking to myself, "Wow, Yorgas Lanthimos must've just wanted to repeatedly see Emma Stone naked and having orgasms, because the rest of us are getting bored"

In fact, my final synopsis thought was: "This is not true feminism or social-expectation defiance - this is a male-fantasized ideal of what true feminism and freedom is, making being liberated all about sex without commitment and lack of true emotional attachment - this is what MEN would do if they were female!?!

And upon checking, sure enough, both the book AND the screenplay were written by men, directed by a man!

Greta Gerwig, you care to chime in here? 😂

In fact, why don't you remake this movie from a female perspective, still using Emma Stone and Willem Dafoe (and though I love Mark Ruffalo, not his best performance).

Once again, I think many modern feminists confuse feminism with being allowed to behave like stereotypical white, powerful men, when that is not necessarily a good thing to emulate!

In fact, maybe no one should be acting that ways!

But I digress, on the positive side, some things that I think were done well.

Though her brain development is fast, it's spot on with Piaget's child development theories; differentiation between the self and others and empathy, life versus death, concrete versus abstract logic, all of it.

But we have to remember that the motor-muscle development is already there because it's a baby's brain in an adult body, so development would be especially quick.

Also keep in mind that the brain never again grows as rapidly as it does in the first two years of life, the brain is like a little sponge, absorbing everything.

Along the lines of feminism that I think were done well was recognition that despite women getting a bad wrap for the desire to "trap and control," it has historically actually been men that have done this to women.

Thus, with the exception of her "creator" father eventually learns that as much as he wants to protect her from the world, the only way she's going to learn how horrible the world can be is to experience it, trusting her intelligence and that his advice thus far will suffice in making good choices - which is all you CAN do as a parent - even if you know they're making a huge mistake, even if it hurts YOU - they have to sometimes learn the hard way, and all you can do is hope that your words of wisdom and experience will eventually sink in.  

Also kudos to her future husband's character, who understands her background fully and lets her go have her fun, but will await her return when she's ready to settle down, as promised. 

Because the old adage is true - if you truly love someone, set them free - and if they love you, they will return. And if not, they won't, and that's okay because you're both better off - and then find someone who wants to stay 

Now, having said all of that about the mixed point of the film, I still must give kudos to Emma Stone, I was impressed by her emotional range in this film. 

Her ability to express genuine child-like joy in her eyes, rage, sorry, later empathy, was phenomenal.  I wouldn't say I was blown away, but I was impressed.  

The emotions of showing genuine interest - or joy, mischievousness, or intelligence -  are particularly hard emotions to convey from the eyes, when acting - but Emma is successfully able to do it.

Speaking of things that would be hard to express believably in a room full of a mostly male film crew - and  eventually the world - having to fake an orgasm believably, THAT many times! 

So I wouldn't say that I was blown away by her acting skills, but I would say that she has shown us what she can do other than play the pithy, sassy, sarcastic, smart college-girl movie roles. 

So overall summary - keeping in mind that I'm a harsh film critic - thus far, from what I've seen, nothing and no one has blown me away since before the pandemic.

However, though not blown away, I will say that I was somewhat impressed with Paul Giamatti and especially Emma Stone's acting, and the innovative story-telling of "Poor Things," despite feeling that both films could've been done better.

I'm not saying that I could do them better, mind you, just that there are people who could have?

Otherwise, let me watch the other contenders and we'll see if anything blows me away 😂

______________________

Update:  3/10/2024

So I've watched American Fiction and Past Lives, but I didn't have time to watch Oppenheimer or Killers of the Flower Moon before the Oscars start, in an hour, so I guess I'll be saving the favored-to-win for last, probably after Oppenheimer has  swept it, from what I understand. 

Quick thoughts on the above two that I have seen since yesterday- Past Lives made me cry in the best of ways from nostalgia and in a cleansing sort of way ... 

... and American Fiction made me both think and laugh out loud, sometimes at the same time, both at the movie and at ourselves - brilliant, thought-provoking, social commentary.  

Most striking of the thought-provocations is unfortunately true it is, how much we white people only want to read/watch, as the main character "Monk" puts it,  "black trauma porn," and have little interest in stories by black authors that aren't about being poor and black.

Are we guilty of that? 

Yes, we are - but this film doesn't shame us, it makes us laugh at ourselves about how ridiculous we are😂 

The only thing that didn't quite fit about it was the end?  

Now, I've mentioned before that I hate the whole "pick your own ending/leave it up to interpretation" thing, but in this case, that wasn't the issue; in fact, I have to admit, it totally worked and that was the point - instead of giving it a realistic ending, give it the Hollywood ending that sells, that everyone wants, regardless of how absurd it is :)

I think because I think if the whole movie had been like a narration of the ideas in his head, but it wasn't, it only happened only twice, which came off as somewhat of confusing, "WTF moment" for a minute. 

I might have a whole other post on American Fiction, because it was so brilliant.

The only other downside is that as much as I loved every actor/actress in this movie - particularly Tracee Ellis Ross - no big "Oscar moment" acting scene from anyone, which Best Actor/Pictures usually have, but we shall see, very soon ...

PS - Trump Compares Those Crossing the Mexico-US Border to Hannibal Lecter 😂😂😂

So ... y'all know that Hannibal Lecter was a cannibal, right?  😂😂😂

Not to mention, a fictional character???

But okay, wow - who knew there were a lot of white, male, Harvard-educated, forensic-psychiatrist cannibals illegally crossing the Mexican-US border?  😂😂😂

(He also compared their Spanish language to "languages from Mars" without apparently realizing our own language of English heavily borrows from Latin, too. Regardless, it's pure racism.)

So he acts like he's semi-joking, but at the same time, he's rambling on about insane asylums, and apparently, this isn't the only time he's said it lately - and his whole schtick is power of suggestion to cause panic.

Now, you would think that MAGATs  - Making America Great Again Terrorists -  would finally say to themselves "Okay, this is absurd, it's pure fear-mongering propaganda to win an election, now," over this one. 

Nope, they're already buying up straight jackets and bite-muzzles masks in preparation for the onslaught of cannibals  😂

(Ah, if only they would use them on themselves and their fearless leader.)

Settle down, MAGATs - ain't nobody releasing cannibals on America, c'mon.  😂

I guess the whole "criminal, rapist, and pedophile" fear-mongering thing wasn't working out so well for him anymore, considering he was found guilty of at least 2 out of 3 of those crimes himself (and the third is still in question considering his close friendship with Epstein.)

But not to worry, if you read the books instead of just watched the movies, then you know that Hannibal only killed and ate the rude/offensive and the self-important-but-unqualified/stupid  ... oh, wait, never mind ... yes, y'all especially should worry. 😂

(He also killed anyone that caught onto him or wanted to turn him in, but if they were nice and a good person, he apologized as they lay dying, and he didn't eat them later, so there's that? 😂)

Okay, we all know the border crossings are a problem, but comparing them to cannibals to cause panic?

Totally something Jesus would do, just to win an election.  Very sane, not demented at all (see previous post).

(Cough, cough).

But where would Trump be if he didn't have his power-of-suggestion, panic-inducing speeches based on BS?

Thank you, that'll be all for today. 😂😂😂

Okay, We Get It, Joe Biden is Old - But So Is Trump ...

Yes, we have two nearly-elderly presidential candidates, not just one - Biden is 81, but Trump is 77.

But if we don't stop picking on just Biden alone about his age, we are going to have a repeat situation of 2016, and nobody wants that!

As for dementia, I'd really like to see those MoCA or MMSE test results -  for them both, actually - because I'm not sure Trump did as well as he claims.  

In fact, he was making up shit that isn't even on there, and I know, because I've transcribed the dictated results in reports from them many times.

So ... if you can't remember what's on the test, later, or you make shit up later, doesn't that actually leave you suspect for having dementia?  😂

Also, we know that any time he brags about something, usually the opposite is true.  And these aren't intelligence tests, these are short-term memory and cognitive-functioning tests!

And did anyone ever stop to ask themselves WHY a doctor felt that Trump needed to take the MoCA in the first place?

Of course not - but I can assure you that  there was a reason a doctor felt they needed to administer the test, it wasn't just for kicks and giggles.

The other day, he confused Obama and Putin again during a speech and was met with confused crickets.  And let's not forget his confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi and accusing her not protecting the capitol building.

So careful, people - they're BOTH old, but this is what we've got to work with. 

Do you want Trump as president again?

No?

Then you'll stop throwing shade at JUST Biden based on age alone.

Now, Biden's bugging the living shit outta me lately, diving in head first with Israel without thinking - already knowing that Netanyahu is a corrupt, far-right, overly nationalistic a-hole.

Then trynna act like "Oh, no - now Israel is taking things too far, they're destroying the Gaza strip and killing too many civilians,  themselves!"

Well, duh, what did you think was going to happen if you took sides - one faith/culture wants to decimate the other!

So for God's sake, if you're going to get involved, then help mediate, don't take sides!

As I said from the beginning, what Hamas did was a horrible terrorist act, so yes, help Israel get the hostages back, but don't get into bed with Netanyahu at the helm of this thing, as you do it, he cannot be trusted.  

There's a difference between the Israeli people and their current government, right now, and to blanket-generalize an entire country or race based on their leader isn't fair - it's like saying the whole U.S. is like Trump. 

(Okay, that one may be semi-true at least - only half the U.S. is like Trump, to be fair.)

Dang, if Jimmy Carter wasn't in hospice, you could ask him, because mediating between Israel and Palestine was like the one thing he was really good at 😂 At least look to his legacy on this one, dang.

And yet even still, my PTSD triggers every time I even think of Trump as president again and his angry impact on our culture 😂

So I Just Fed Two Star UK Basketball Players My Lasagna 😂

... and I'm not gonna tell you WHICH two players, just that they're in this picture and they're two of the star players, likely headed to the NBA - one of them even likely at the end of this season, he's top 10 in the country in his position 😉

For those either not from this country or not college basketball fans, the University of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team are national champions several times over and often a conduit to the NBA after graduation (and oftentimes before). 

In fact, they're one of four teams who play the "Champions" Game to kick off the NCAA college basketball season, every year, based on their legacies - Kentucky (my alma mater), Michigan State (Mark's alma mater), Kansas, and Duke. 

Anyway, when our new neighbors moved in, we had no idea they were UK players, we are just nice to them like we are everybody, and one of them especially loves Ziggy pug. 

Some of our neighbors from across the way asked Mark "I heard your new neighbors play for UK?"

Now, even though I don't watch UK much anymore since MSU is only allowed in this house (lol), we already suspected they might be, not only because one of them is like 7'2," but because their security sits out in the parking lot watching their apartment at night and they have a high-end security camera at their front door 😂 

Now, you may be saying to yourself "Security?  For college basketball players?"

Yep - this is the world we live in now, especially thanks to social media, which can falsely make people feel like they're "friends" with people because you're friended on Instagram or FB - and Kentucky fans are notoriously boundariless and crazy!

Regardless of whether they were or not, we've both been around famous people before and know that famous people like their privacy and want it protected, so we're happy to help them do that, before everybody here goes all fanboy/fangirl on them 😂

So to help guard their privacy and security, Mark just said "Maybe, I don't know" which is  kind of true, because we've never directly asked and he follows MSU 😂

We're always friendly to them but respect their privacy, just like we do everybody else - and I think they appreciate it. 

So tonight, one of the two players (won't say his name for privacy) came up and gave my husband the DAP and said ...

Player:  "Did you see our game last night?"  

Mark: "Which game?"  

Player:  "UK, we play for UK."   

Mark: "I wondered about that, but to be honest, I'm from Detroit, I'm a Sparty and went to MSU, sorry? lol I watched their game at Purdue, so I didn't see UK's.  My wife went to UK, though, and she used to follow, but I think I've converted her to the dark side lol."

Player "Oh, Really?  That's cool. Yeah, I've seen you wearing your Detroit stuff. We'll have to convert YOU, though lol. I can get you tickets sometime, if you want. Do you know Alan Haller (Athletic Director at MSU)? 

 Mark:  "Yeah. I know Alan, we even text every now in then.  You know Alan? 

Player: "Yeah, man, he's my guy, love Alan."

 

So for those of you saying to yourselves "What's a DAP?"

It's this ... 

It's a greeting for a casual acquaintance that you either like or are in agreement with on something.

But if you DO know them well (or are celebrating something), it ends in a hug, rather than a shoulder bump, like this ...

Awww  😂 

It's mostly a guy thing, whereas women, we just hug, but I've seen women occasionally do it in sports. 

Anyway, during this conversation, I looked out my window to see who Mark was talking to - when I saw like 9 or 10 people gather  together across the street to watch them have this conversation 😂😂😂

Mark came back in and said "The neighborhood cool clique just watched us Dap, soooo jealous lol."

Now, I'm friends with some of those  "neighborhood cool kids," and though they do like their gossip (which I'm not into), they're actually pretty nice, so I just said "Okay, now, be nice."

Because believe me, I have known my share of mean girls (and boys), and if they were true mean girls/boys, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them!

My husband had a lot of culture shock, moving here from Detroit, which I did too, many years ago, moving here from Cincinnati after high school.  If you just visit here a few times, you won't notice it until you actually live here, which is what happened to us both.

He has a bias, now, against people from here because he hasn't had the best experience here, but that's kind of your initiation here, I explained lol.  

He's not the first person to transfer in from somewhere else and say it's hard to make friends here and he won't be the last.  In fact, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone who transferred to Kentucky say that, I'd be a millionaire, at least. 

Because though it is worse in rural areas, in Kentucky in general,  you really had to have grown up here, or at least spent some part of your childhood/high-school life here, they like to "know your people" and don't trust outsiders.

So even if you had a ton of friends elsewhere and were Mr. or Ms. Popular, if you moved here anytime after high school, it will take extra time to make friends and get invited to anything, and even then, they will only let you in their circle so far ... 

*UNLESS*

... you dorm/live together in college and/or are in a sorority/fraternity together, you're a UK or Louisville basketball player, or you're otherwise famous 😉

It's very confusing, for people who move here from another state, because Kentucky people are very friendly, they can seem like they're your new best friend, but they really don't like you at all and are saying all kinds of stuff behind your back, and you'll never know lol.  

I warned my husband about that, but he just HAD to go get himself burnt by that, and now, it's thrice bitten, four times shy and he just wants to leave, but I tell him to keep trying - not everyone here is like that - he met me, right? 😂

When I moved here from Cincinnati after high school, I didn't live on campus at UK, so I went through the same thing, and I've noticed that since, most of the people I hang with here the most aren't from here, either.  It's not that I dislike them or vice versa, it's just what I said earlier - I didn't grow up with them, they have their set of friends since childhood, so I'm not getting in that inner circle! 😂

Also, the rules are different here than in Detroit, or even in Cincinnati, where if someone doesn't like you, you know it.  They weren't rude, necessarily, but they didn't act the opposite to throw you off. 

You can't be direct here, passive-aggressive is the rule.  They don't like direct communication or confrontation, it's an affront.

But the truth is, no matter how friendly someone is to you in Kentucky, no matter how sincere they may seem, you'll never know if someone is really a friend until they're either willing to help you move or show up at your hospital bedside 😂

ANYway, back to my point - so I had been inside, making lasagna, had just sent two pieces down to my neighbor and her son, so I asked Mark if he thought they might like some, too, since I'm like the building mom/grandma lol. 

The player came back outside and I went on the balcony and said, "Hey, you all like lasagna?  I'm sure you all miss home-cooking."

He said, "Yes MA'AM, thank you!"

And that is the story about how two star UK basketball players ended up eating my lasagna lol.

No word on if they liked it yet, we'll see later 😂

I Have Been Waiting Almost 40 Years for this Day!

 

Senate Minority Leader, Republican Senator from my state of Kentucky, Elitist Behind-the-Scenes Puppet Master, and Chief Swamp Turtle in Charge, Mitch McConnell, is stepping down!

WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 

Oh, but wait a second - this likely means some MAGAT will take his place as our state's senator, so I won't celebrate too much, because we will likely get even worse.  Can't believe that there IS worse than Cocaine Mitch, but there is.

I would pause to celebrate anyway, because his poor health lately may be playing a role and I don't wish anyone ill health.

Then again, the man has tried to defund Medicare and Medicaid for years, as well as railed against government-provided healthcare insurance for decades.

Thus, all I have to say to him now is "Hope your federal pension covers the costs of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare and pharmaceuticals for ... whatever your problem is ... and don't let the Capitol doors hit you in the arse on the way out!" 🤣

Daniel "Uncle Tom" Cameron was his groomed protege since high school, but he's currently Attorney General for our state.  We shall see what happens. 

For now let's enjoy this moment! 

WOOOOOHOOOOO!

PS - Hey, Alabama SC - Rendering Justice VS. "God's Wrath" - "What About the Love (of God)?"

*Edited - content added.

(The title of this post refers to an old Amy Grant song, actually written by 60s folk singer, Janis Ian, which I've included at the bottom of this post with lyrics.)

So another fertility clinic has stopped doing IVF treatments after the Alabama SC ruling.

Apparently, the basis for this ruling is preventing embryos from being destroyed, even though they're only destroyed if there is a problem with the fertilization and the embryo is not viable anyway; otherwise, all are inserted in hopes of even one attaching to the uterus instead of being sloughed out.

I read in the NYT today, that even most anti-abortion, Christian Republicans find this ruling strange, as well as government overreach. 

You know, not everybody is a Christian - and preventing couples from having children because the woman has had trouble getting pregnant and/or miscarrying is NOT the way to draw more people to Christ! 

In fact, it's a sure-fire way to "shut the door of kingdom of heaven in people's faces," as Christ warned the Pharisees about.

Also, you're enforcing just your interpretations of the bible onto everyone - which is what many of our ancestors came to America to escape from!

So also in that NYT article, I'm reading the asinine things that a few if my overly-literal fellow Christians are saying, and so I'm really questioning their ability to understand the bible, and why they continually fail to negate the entire NT and Christ's own words in favor of the OT.

But then again, even Paul had trouble with that, after Christ. He kept waffling between OT law and Christ, often choosing OT law to please the Pharisees, to keep himself alive longer (which is something Christ would never do.)

But they're saying things like quoting Proverbs 31-8: “Speak up for those who have no voice.”

Erm - do you think Solomon meant only those who are mute or unborn children?  

Pretty sure he did  NOT mean just people literally without a physical voice, but also poor, oppressed, vulnerable people without representation or power, and Christ, our actual Messiah,  said the same, by the way.

But if you're such a fan of that verse, then why aren't you speaking up for  marginalized groups like people of color?

And particularly in this case, what about speaking up for WOMEN, of both political parties, who had no voice in this?!?

But instead, you vilify and scapegoat these groups without power or money for all societal problems, now even making up stories to make it appear that they do have power and rule the world, trying to justify your racism, classism, and bigotry?!?

Why do y'all continually quote the OT and negate Christ, when you do merciless stuff like this, misapplying/failing to apply these verses equally and fairly?

Then I read Chief Justice Parker's own words, on some backwoods Tennessee preacher's broadcast say:  “Life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

Of course quoting the OT and Genesis that life was created in God's image, but then added his own stuff, like"Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

Really? 

Where is that in the bible, exactly?

Yes, we were made in God's image, but that doesn't make US holy; otherwise, why would there be a choice to to choose God and Christ or not?

Do you mean the lives of people of color,  too?

Jews and Muslims, too?

Do you mean killing by taking part in wars that we have no business being in and dirty actions we've taken like killing even innocent citizens trying to win these wars? 

Do you mean the death penalty?

Because I don't think you do, based on how you vote.

Where IS God's wrath for destroying life, because I haven't seen it?

In fact, no one has seen God's wrath since the Old Testament,  and there may be a NT scriptural reason for that (see verse below). 

Also, he doesn't seem to actually intervene with justice, and Christ never promised he would - just that we should seek it.

But since y'all are such fans of the OT and Paul re-adhering to it, here is one possible reason why nobody has seen God's fire-and-brimstone wrath since the Old Testament: 

"Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Christ redeemed us from God's wrath for us with his death, and if we sin - according to whomever's interpretation of scripture and sin - all we need to do is ask forgiveness or not - and there is nothing in the New Testament otherwise about God's wrath other than the time of Revelations upon Christ's return. 

In other words, we were born into God's wrath already - and only through Christ taking on the wrath of God for us, paying the ultimate price with his life, are we saved - through grace.


Believe me, I would looovvve to see God's wrath myself, on some people - particularly people that act as if they are speaking for God , twist scripture for their own selfish purposes, and do horrible things in Christ's name - but that ain't gonna happen, because God, in his infinite mercy and grace, gave us Christ to pay the price, and thus we have a choice, right up until the very end.

This is why I'm not God and cannot speak for God, none of us can, though we imagine we can render what other people deserve from a subjective, limited perspective, without considering all aspects of a person's life, what we would do in certain situations, and our own sin.

Again, there is a difference between vengeance/wrath and justice that we humans just can't seem to wrap our heads around.

Vengeance/wrath is delivered subjectively out of anger, malice, and/or bias.

Justice is delivered as objectively as possible, without anger, malice, and/or bias, and includes mercy. 

So even IF these couples are sinning with IVF - which no one has proven to us they are, that's not supported anywhere in scripture without twisting it - then all we need to do is ask forgiveness.

There is no imminent societal danger at large, here, there are no victims, so no need for state or federal law - these people are just seeking assistance at starting a family, a "sin" born out of love, if you will, and it is God who determines the consequence for such sins, not us - no need for a law.

Also, don't forget that though Jesus paid the price of redemption from God's wrath, there is no scriptural passage in the bible that God has claimed his dominion over the earth just yet; in fact, quite the opposite, according to numerous scriptures, and further explained in Revelations.

According to Revelations, "Satan" - and the rule of Babylon, which doesn't mean what you think - has been given limited authority over the earth to give us a choice between light and dark - but will fall and God reclaims total dominion upon Christ's return.

"Babylon" in Revelations is a metaphoric concept - NOT literally the region of Babylon or the Persian race of people.

In fact, Revelations itself is entirely a metaphoric vision. So the infamous "mark of the beast" of "666" isn't literally accepting a mark of 666, it's a human choice to follow fake ideology.

The metaphoric concept of Babylon refers to a persistent, oppressive, destructive, merciless, falsely-accusing (Revelations 12) ideology/philosophy, while simultaneously excusing themselves from adherence to the same moral code.

Or if you wanna use more biblical-sounding/spiritual terms, it's an oppressive, negative spiritual energy stronghold that "rested" in the region at that time by human choice (see the passage from Daniel below).  It could happen anywhere, with anyone - but at the time, it was in Babylon.

Think of the Nazi regime in more modern times as being an example of the concept of "Babylon."

The ideology is deceptively seductive, too easy to resort to, and spreads like wildfire by appealing to the worst of our human nature; fear, hatred. materialism/greed/lust, and idolatry - thus, why this element is represented as the "Whore of Babylon."


*Aside - Revelations says "Babylon" will be represented by three entities or spirits, like an unholy trinity - and John does NOT explicitly say  whether or not they will have a physical form, but that they are spirits -  the Antichrist, the Whore of Babylon, and the Beast - but they are all part of the same spirit, just like the Holy Trinity.  

What I find particularly interesting about this is that there's a father, son and mother, rather than a genderless third being.  

This lends credence to my theory that the original translation of the Holy Spirit wasn't genderless; the Holy Spirit may have been, and was even likely, originally female energy - represented by a dove, the nurturer, comforter, healer - and the gender may have been removed by the church at the councils of Nicene or even at Trent, as we know that many stories about women were removed into the apocrypha during that time, and that some things were destroyed/lost entirely, but that's a whole other post. 😉

(Not that I care what gender it is, as Christ said after death, "neither marry nor be given in marriage, we will be like the angels in heaven," meaning genderless anyway, the soul has no gender - Matthew 22:30)

Back to my point, this ideology or "unholy spiritual trinity" will apparently be false religious doctrine that could be chosen by any group of people at any time; therefore, to blame any race, region, or even religion for it isn't an accurate interpretation of the concept of Babylon - so to say all Persians are "Babylon" is like saying all Germans are inherently Nazis.

In fact, our own OT law borrowed heavily from Babylonian Hammurabi's code stone, as their captors' law, which is why Christ specifically defied it or repudiated it - because nothing based on fear and hatred would ever come from God.

Because basically, at the time, Babylonians did not believe in an afterlife and thus all punishment for "sin" was swift and merciless, whereas Christ said that all law "should hang on love" and promised an afterlife.

The only problem today is, light and dark are not as simple to distinguish as we try to make them (for example, Christians sometimes do bad things in the name of Christ).

There are numerous hints to support this theory, even before Revelations, for instance in Matthew 4:8-9 - where Satan tempts Christ by offering him power, money, and rulership, if he will just bow down and worship him.

This suggests that "Satan" has the authority over all of those things to give, doesn't it?

Which means, of course, that all of that "Gospel of Prosperity" and that God blesses us with material stuff  - is complete nonsense.

In fact, having so much materialism may leave us suspect for idolizing the dark side, because in many cases - but not all - what did you have to do, or who did you step on, throw under the bus, or  enslave to poverty in order to get that wealth, if you're honest?  

Regardless, if you believe that you've been blessed financially because you're such a good Christian, then you've already received your reward, and thus may be among the last in heaven - "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" - Matthew 20:16 

I personally began thinking more about this concept when my friend - more like a mother - was killed by a drunk driver last May. There was no one more faithful to God, more exemplary of Christ's compassion. 

I could not reconcile why she was killed and the drunk driver walked away without a scratch.  In fact, I still can't. It really shook my faith to the core, such that I considered disbelief/atheism again.

But her pastor said "Remember, Satan still has a certain amount of authority over this earth; which means, people can still become be slaves to addiction, or just live selfishly, even Christians.  This person, whether because of being a slave to addiction or just selfishness, chose his addiction and/or himself over the safety of others and God unfortunately does allow that, for the time being."

I'm not really sure where I stand on "Satan," but I definitely believe in negative spiritual energy. And I guess if you allow for the possibility of God, you have to allow for a dark side.

Regardless, I never really thought of it like that before, actually, as an explanation for bad things happening to good people, but it makes more sense than common Christian logic that bad things only happen to bad people, or that bad things happening are necessarily a result of our own poor choices.  

In fact, some things appear to happen just randomly, wrong place at the wrong time, regardless of how good of a Christian or person you are.

He's not necessarily saying that "Satan" is actually doing these things (though he does believe that in many cases), but that God has given the world a choice and some people choose selfish things, and others pay the price for it, Christian or not. 

The bible says the rain will fall on the just and the unjust, of course, but also, there doesn't seem to be any special protection from the selfishness and evil of others for believers, like many evangelicals think there is, despite special incantations and prayers - or my friend, who prayed over herself, her family, and even her car, every day, would've been spared, of all people.

As I said, I think sometimes things just happen randomly, regardless of what kind of person you are, and that God has nothing to do with  it; but at the same time, there are people with stories of miracles and angels - were they more special to God or better than my friend? 

Then I heard something in an Adam Sandler comedy movie, recently that helped. 😂

The female rabbi said that God is random. 

Not only do things happen randomly with no respecter of persons, but that God himself is random as far as intervention - and it has nothing to do with what we do or don't do, it has to do with God's ability to see the bigger picture, as well as where his attention is turned at times in priority.

Interestingly, there is a verse in the OT that I've struggled to understand that actually supports that theory, in Daniel 10.  

Remember when I said above about the passage in Revelations about "Babylon" having nothing to do with race or region, but was an  "oppressive philosophy" or "negative spiritual stronghold" that "rested over" Babylon/Persia at that time?

Here it is again, in the OT, actually, long before Revelations.

An angel came to Daniel in a vision and said:  

"Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”

So clearly, these "princes" are to mean archangels, because we know that the Michael that he mentions coming to his aid is an archangel, and the angel speaking to Daniel is referring to a struggle with another prince that we can only assume is a fallen angel since they were in conflict, which kept him for three weeks from getting to Daniel.  

Also, Genesis 30:22, "And God remembered Rachel, listened to her, and opened up her womb."

So did God, like, forget her or was he just busy? 😂

This would suggest that it may not be that God doesn't exist or that he chooses only the most righteous, or even that he's necessarily random  - perhaps he just prioritizes? 😊

Who can say, but regardless, it is God who determines what is light and dark, what is sin, and what the consequences should be - especially with "sins" that are born out of love, since Christ commanded that all law should hang on love.

Which brings us back to my point - how arrogant are YOU, Alabama SC, vainly imagining that you have the authority to speak for God, twisting OT scripture to your own strange personal interpretation of scripture into state law? 

Your job is to render justice - NOT "provide God's wrath,"  based on your personal interpretation of scripture.

Christ said that all of the law and the prophets should hang on love - and he specifically defied or repudiated OT scripture that did not.

If you're such a believer in basing all current government laws on the bible, where is Christ's call for love in this ruling?

FYI, God and science are not mutually exclusive - God IS the ultimate scientist, just waiting for us to discover his science and things we may find useful to cure what ails us.

Also, if you're not viewing the bible as an evolutionary piece of work from OT to NT - separating out our Messiah Christ's words from all other humans - then you'll stay perpetually confused when reading it.

The bible evolved along with humans, Ladies and Gentlemen, and in my opinion, we shouldn't stagnate and stay in either testament, but continue in Christ's ideology of all the law should be based on love.

In writing this, I am reminded of an old Amy Grant song, actually written by 60s folk musician, Janis Ian, called "What About the Love?"

The song is encouraging us to speak up for the powerless, but to be careful in rendering judgement without love and mercy, because all of us are only saved by grace. 

LYRICS

I went to see my sister
She was staying with a friend
Who had turned into a preacher
To save the world from sin

He said, "First deny your body
And then learn to submit
Pray to be made worthy
And tithe your ten percent"

I said, "Is this all there is
Just the letter of the law?
Something's wrong" ...

I went to see my brother
On the 32nd floor
Of a building down on Wall Street
You could hear the futures roar

He said, "Here we make decisions
And we trade commodities
If you tell me where there's famine
I can make you guarantees"

I said, "Is this all there is
Power to the strong?
Something's wrong" ...

Something's wrong in heaven tonight
You can almost hear them cry
Angels to the left and the right
Saying, "What about the love?
What about the love?
What about the love?"

I went to see my neighbor
He'd been taken to a home
For the weak and the discarded
Who have no place to go

He said, "Here I lack for nothing
I am fed and I am clothed
But at times I miss the freedom
I used to know"

I said, "Is this all there is
When your usefulness is gone?
Something's wrong" ...

Something's wrong in heaven tonight (Something's wrong)
You can almost hear them cry (Cry)
Angels to the left and the right
Saying, "What about the love?
What about the love?
What about the love?"

I looked into the mirror, (Yeah)
Proud as I could be, (Yeah)
And I saw my pointing finger (Yeah)
Pointing back at me,

Saying, "Who named you accuser? (Yeah)
Who gave you the scales?" (Yeah)
I hung my head in sorrow; (Yeah)
I could almost feel the nails

I said, "This is how it is
To be crucified and judged
Without love"

Something's wrong in heaven tonight. (Something's wrong)
You can almost hear them cry (Cry)
Angels to the left and the right,
Saying, "What about the love?"
What about the love?
What about the love of God?"

God Deliver Us From the Ignorance of the Political Right ...

 

Apparently, the State of Alabama Supreme Court ruled that it considered unfertilized eggs of women as children, so UAB has paused fertility treatments.. 

UAB is allowed to retrieve the eggs and even freeze them, but they cannot combine them with the father's sperm in the lab/develop them, and then insert them into the mother's uterus, or they face criminal charges.

What is the basis for this ruling - because they think God should  combine them instead of humans in a lab and then insert them in the uterus or-? 

Okay - but y'all think God would be A-OK with retrieving and freezing a "child" for later use?  😂

Oh, but wait, never mind - because you can't use them later, that's the illegal part. 

So why the hell would freezing eggs be okay, then?

Because some backwoods evangelical preacher wants to "increase in number" by personally fertilizing the eggs and inserting them himself?  😂

That is the most absurd and asinine court ruling that I've heard yet, regarding women's health from the religious right.

If that were true, then we women would lose a child every month when we menstruate! 

And what about 9-year-olds that start their period, are they losing children?

What are we supposed to do, stay pregnant all the time or we lose a child each month in the eyes of the court?

Well, that'll be news to my 55-year-old uterus, who is just finishing menopause and sometimes still bleeds, that my eggs are automatically still viable children.

(No, they are NOT viable eggs anymore, actually, or I'd be pregnant.)

Does that also mean every time we eat chicken eggs, we're eating baby chicks?

I don't think so.   The eggs must be fertilized by the rooster first.

No word yet on whether or not a man's sperm is also considered a child, of course, just women. 

Y'all realize none of this makes any sense, right?  

And I'm pretty sure you all can't speak for God like you think you can, and in fact, it's the epitome of arrogance for you to even try.

Oh, Lordy, Alabama, you're more backwoods and ignorant than we Kentuckians ever even thought of being, and that's saying a lot.

These couples are trying to have a child, not abort one, you idiots! 

Why do politicians/the government now also get to decide how and when couples get pregnant? 

And here's something you'll understand - fertility treatments are one of the few money-making/profitable procedures you can undergo - you prepared for that much loss in revenue (and thus taxes) to state university hospitals?

God deliver us from their short-sighted, narrow-minded, Dark-Age ignorance!

I'm so embarrassed for them - because not only do they not seem to understand how the female body even works, nor how these treatments work, but because they're too ignorant to even know they should be embarrassed!

Also, please deliver us from the sort of religious men who cannot understand the bible as an evolving scripture, cannot see the difference between OT and NT and where Christ was going, and view women as nothing more than breeding chattel for children.

Because I know that isn't the way YOU see us, or you wouldn't have given us a brain and a voice - and the way Christ treated women versus men with this mentality is proof.

_________________________________________

PS - Republican Presidential Candidate, Nikki Haley - who had a child herself through in-vitro fertilization - said “Embryos, to me, are babies ...embryos created through I.V.F. are considered children.”

For the ignorant, embryos are fertilized eggs.

Well, at least one Republican understands basic biology, and of course, it's a woman.

See, this is why a bunch of men shouldn't be making all of the reproductive decisions for women, you need more female input on such matters..

(There's on woman on the court, but I'm not sure if she voted for or against it, but her single vote wouldn't matter against the otherwise all white men anyway.)

Because especially men like these don't know enough about basic biology and physiology for women and don't care to learn;  they only care about external anatomy, what's on the outside of women, unless it's a child inside.