Small Screen Reviews: The Do-Over

By C. U. Douglas

Born and raised in Oregon, I've lived most my life on the West Coast, save three years near Minneapolis, Minnesota. I survived four years in the hellish paradise that is Santa Rosa, another two in a land where "Keep Portland Weird" is the first commandment, and I am happily married and living in Utah. I am an electrical designer, Protestant, and a huge nerd. I am a brand new father, and I can't shut up about it. I abuse ellipses with wild abandon.

| June 25, 2016

38 COMMENTS

awful — This isn’t a promotion. That’s Adam Sandler taking aim at Netflix audiences so foolish as to watch this movie.

A couple years back, Adam Sandler signed a deal with Netflix to produce four movies. The first of these, The Ridiculous 6, got a big ol’ goose egg on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s right: It got a zero rating. On the bright side, that means Sandler can only go up, right? Enter this year’s offering, The Do-Over, starring Sandler and David Spade. How does this movie fare? Well … let’s just say that, occasionally, your television and streaming reviewer here watches things so that you don’t have to watch them. In this case, you owe me. Owe you me big time.

The concept sounds like something that should make a decent (though maybe not great) action comedy. Fellow SNL alumnus David Spade stars as Charlie, a beta male so beta that he gets beaten up by other beta males. He’s a gamma male. He works as bank manager in a grocery store bank, his hot wife is having a blatantly open affair with her ex-husband while Charlie financially supports said couple’s twin sons, who have less respect for Charlie than Democrats do for the Constitution. I am inserting politics in this discussion because anything is better than this movie.

At his twenty-five year high school reunion (wait … is twenty-five a thing? I thought it was every ten years. Was I snubbed?) Charlie runs into Max, an old friend. Max (Sandler) was that crazy friend so many of us had in our teen years: the guy with no impulse control, strangely violent tendencies, and a career path that was about as promising as a peanut butter and mackerel sandwich. Well, lo and behold, Max reveals he is now an FBI agent and Charlie is soon spending a weekend with his old friend on a yacht where he can forget his miserable life. Then, the boat explodes and Max reveals he faked their deaths so that Charlie and he could start over. Ensuing hilarity is promised but never delivered.

Seriously, it’s a good concept that could make for a passable movie. Instead, we’re treated to disgusting gags about their brief hedonistic life and it just gets worse from there. Every time a layer is peeled from this story, it just gets worse. The jokes are so crude and sophomoric that sophomores may have grounds for a defamation suit. This is what you get when you let Sandler do his own thing without limits. I’d sooner watch Me, Myself, & Irene again; that movie made me gag 75 percent of the time, but at least I sometimes laughed.

And that’s the thing. This movie is supposed to be a comedy. It’s supposed to be laughed at. Instead you just shift in your seat uncomfortably and wish it away. This movie requires a panic room you can flee to so the movie can’t hurt you (And yes, I just blatantly stole a Family Guy gag; this movie is so bad that I can do that and feel like I’m still in good taste). This movie elicited one laugh from me, and that was from when I watched the trailer. That’s it. There was one laugh and they wasted it on the trailer.

I don’t just want my ninety minutes back: I want them back with the interest a loan shark would charge. As far as I can tell, Adam Sandler is waging a personal war against streaming video content and hes’s winning. He’s got two more movies to go, people. Two more. There is no justice in the world.

The Tyranny of the Immediate

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| May 23, 2016

26 COMMENTS

Aias_Kassandra_Louvre_G458 — Ajax taking Cassandra, c. 440-430 BC.

Perhaps one of my best and (by me) most underappreciated teachers in high school was my sophomore English teacher. Mr. Hill offered methods of studying English and other things in ways that I was too cocky and short-sighted to appreciate. I suspect if I adopted at least half of his studying and thinking methods then, I would have done much better in college.

One of the earliest lessons I do remember from him was the concept of consequences over time. For that he had a scale. It more or less broke down like this:

Immediate Term: 0 to 6 months.
Very Short Term: 6 months to 10 years.
Short Term: 10 to 50 years.
Mid-term: 50 to 100 years
Long Term: 100 to 500 years
Very Long Term: 500 to 1,000 years
Extended Term: 1,000+ years

As an American sophomore on the West Coast, I didn’t quite wrap my head around that length of time. Oregon wasn’t quite 150 years old. I wasn’t old enough to drive a car. To consider something other than what he labeled “short term” was at that time inconceivable. I couldn’t even wrap my head around mid-term let alone anything longer. However, it was a concept that stuck with me, perhaps because of its ability to blow my young mind away.

The value of such a way of thinking is apparent now. It’s important to view an action with an idea of its possible consequences and after effects. The value of foresight is paramount in decision making. In fact, I can attribute my lack of thinking beyond the immediate to be a major contributor to my difficulties in college. The university is not an ideal place to pick up study habits one has failed to develop prior.

We now live in an age where hindsight is massive. Entire libraries exist online in ways that might make those who had seen the Great Library of Alexandria gape in wide-eyed amazement. Past is prologue, and by seeing where we have been and considering where we are now, we can posit where we might go in the future if we follow a certain path.

But that has not happened in the last decade, if not last several. We have existed in a political, social, and cultural realm where the immediate urgencies take precedence over the possible consequences on any scale of time. Warnings of any consequences are dismissed out of hand as slippery slope arguments as if no one ever invented the playground slide. Instead, each immediate urgency must be dealt with as if it was an island unto itself with no effect on the world around us.

Obama famously mocked critics of the ACA the day after it was signed. He joked about conservative panic but, lo and behold, the next day we all got up, the sun was shining, and civilization was still there. Never mind that the consequences of this act were years down the road, we were urged to mock the critics because nothing happened the next day.

Same-sex marriage opponents were mocked for worrying about potential consequences to freedom of association and religion should progressives succeed. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor, again critics were mocked because the US hadn’t gone up in flames by the next day. Never mind that even months later both those freedoms were under severe assault, but we were to ignore these concerns. The same tactics are being used with transgender issues, mocking those with concerns beyond the immediate.

Human beings in general frequently lack long-term vision, thus those precious few who have the vision to see clearly ahead, to see the ill and good from a specific path, should be valued. But in the pursuit of power, we’ve begun to ignore those voices, then finally mock them. We’ve created a plethora of Cassandras and Jeremiahs, always speaking the truth of what’s to come, but always ignored because what’s said is disagreeable to the listener.

What is more distressing to me is that it is our present leaders who are sitting in the seats of the scornful now. Leaders with the wisdom to recognize and listen to those with vision are lacking. They’ve blinded themselves, taken our hands, and are leading us all straight to the pit, assuring us that the way is perfectly safe and clear.

We need vision and foresight now more than ever, but how we can convince a society that has mocked such things as inconvenient that this is important? I’m at a loss.

When Our Heroes Come to Blows

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| May 12, 2016

82 COMMENTS

This is the year we make our heroes beat-up each other: Superman fights Batman; Captain America (and friends) fights Iron Man (and friends); Daredevil fights the Punisher; Deadpool fights Our Sense of Decency and Good Taste; the Flash and Supergirl team up to fight our Suspension of Disbelief. Such concepts bring up questions from my non-cool (read: non-nerdy) friends ,who ask, “Why would good guys fight each other?”

Good question, actually! In fact, the hero vs. hero concept is an old one, not just in comic books but in literature as well. In comics, of course, it’s quite prevalent and we’re seeing a glut of it at the moment. Perhaps it’s the nature of the superhero: take a handful of guys in funny outfits who are fighting crime for a variety of personal reasons and you’re bound to find conflict. Crime-fighting vigilantes are already working on (or past) the fringes of the law, which puts them in highly subjective and nebulous territory.

Once you’re out there, you’re going to come at odds with others who’ve made the same choice for different reason.

For example, in his first comic book appearance, the Punisher was actively hunting down Spider-Man. The former was under the common mistaken impression that Spider-Man had killed Norman Osbourne. And being the Punisher, seeking justice means trying to kill Spider-Man. See? Conflict!

However, having our protagonists become mutual antagonists serves a purpose as well. It helps us to ask questions that are more difficult to wrestle over than if it were placed in a simple protagonist vs. antagonist set-up.

In Daredevil’s second season, the conflict brings up the concept of justice and how two very different vigilantes pursue it. Daredevil works outside the law but, once criminals are subdued, he brings them back to it by handing them over to authorities and the courts (often worse for wear). For the Punisher, this is not enough. The system itself is corrupt and flawed and can’t be trusted. For Daredevil, the Punisher goes too far in killing as a first (and largely only) option; for the Punisher, Daredevil doesn’t go far enough and just perpetuates the problem, telling him:

I think you’re a half-measure. I think you’re a man who can’t finish the job. I think that you’re a coward.

In Captain America: Civil War, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark wrestle with the question of who these super beings are beholden to. What happens when their abilities seemingly get out of control and people are hurt? Who’s responsible? Who keeps them in check? These answers aren’t easy (though I dislike the solutions this film offers on either side). Superman v. Batman asks much the same questions, just not as well.

In some ways, too, this need to see our heroes fight is reflective of our times as well. Look at our primaries, where we’ve had hotly-contested nominations on both sides. Our nation is strongly divided between progressives and conservatives and each of those sides is riven with internal conflicts. These groups and sub-groups come to near blows, and their fringe elements are sometimes accused of abetting the real enemy. We all agree that something is wrong, what precisely it is and what to do about it often leads to conflict.

If you want to know why our heroes fight each other, it’s because we fight each other and they’re our champions. They fight each other because, in the pursuit of what’s good, we can’t even agree on what is good.

Small Screen Reviews: Daredevil Season 2

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| April 15, 2016

27 COMMENTS

I used to joke that I have no more than one or two readers to my running series of TV reviews. Well imagine my surprise when I get multiple messages asking me, “Hey, when are you going to review Daredevil?” I suspect they don’t read my work or they’d not be asking so much. Maybe they just like seeing that I’m keeping busy. Anyways, as my lovely wife Amanda doesn’t care as much for some the violence in this series – and oooh, boy is there violence – I stuck to watching it after she’d gone to sleep; hence, the delay. Sounds simple, save when I’m so tired from work and fatherhood that I sleep through half the episode. But rejoice, Ricochetti! Here it is!

With any successful series, the question always remains after the first season: Can they be as good or better? That’s no trivial matter. I remember watching the original season of Heroes and being thrilled there would be more, only to watch as the creators admitted they didn’t have the slightest clue as to where to go next. I’d also be more than willing to excise most of Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s sixth season (save for the wonderful musical episode “Once More, With Feeling”) if given the opportunity. But have no fear: Daredevil’s second outing is strong.

In part it’s due to some excellent casting: Charlie Cox, Elden Henson, and Deborah Ann Woll are all back in the roles of fresh-faced legal team Matt Murdock (aka Daredevil), Foggy Nelson, and Karen Page, and all three are comfortable and confident in their roles. Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle (aka the Punisher) and Elodie Yung as Elektra are great additions, as well. About the only thing this season lacks is sufficient Vincent D’Onofrio as Wilson Fisk, the main antagonist of the first season. Okay, he shows up, but he is such a great character that I just want more. D’Onofrio’s performance is so good that I expect he’ll be the standard that future versions of the character will be measured against.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. As a character, the Frank Castle — who moonlights as the Punisher, a vigilante with a deep hatred for criminals — is a tricky addition to the series. He was a very popular character in the late eighties and nineties, and he’s been the protagonist in no fewer than three Hollywood films. Sadly, if you’re looking for a theme for a bad movie marathon night, the Punisher makes for good material.

But when Castle is done right, he dances the line between anti-hero and anti-villain, and Bernthal pulls off that dance well; to my mind, he’s the best Punisher so far. You never get the sense that he’s going to hold back against those that deserve it, and he combines a sense of control with propensity for violence that solidifies the character. He makes for a strong contrast with Murdock who refuses to kill, only subdues, often to his own cost.

Elodie Yung’s performance as Elektra is an excellent addition as well. Another contrast to Murdock, she is the deadly bon vivant: the bad influence that he could have become if he let himself go and just follow her. She pulls of the exotic and deadly on-again-off-again girlfriend — who also happens to be a ninja — believably. Murdock knows she’s no good for him, but there’s something compelling about her.

This all adds to the story. Though Murdock and friends are more or less on top of the world after the events of the first season, things are quickly becoming more complicated. Murdock tries to keep his friends at arm’s length from his nighttime escapades, with consequences. Elektra (an old lover of Matt’s) returns and further complicates his life. Frank Castle, meanwhile, goes on an anti-crime killing spree. The moment of peace that Daredevil bought to New York quickly evaporates and — just as he’s having more trouble meeting his obligations and keeping his friends than ever before — he discovers the greatest threat he’s ever faced.

In truth, it got a bit too convoluted to follow, but maybe that’s where I fell asleep because that kid is tiring. Still, that never lasted long — he confusion, that is; kid’s still exhausting) — and it was a good story. The Frank Castle and Elektra storylines ran in parallel more than anything, but that’s because the series is about Matt Murdock and his friends. The other stories are all connected through them and how they respond to each other. Castle and Elektra are there to strain the trio and push them to the limit (and then some).

It’s a good build-up to a third season that’s sure to come. It might not be as good as season one (again, more D’Onofrio please!) that’s like comparing two fine wines and noting one prefers the Pinot Noir over the Merlot while enjoying both.

This is a strong series and — if the writers can keep it up — I can see it doing well for a while yet.

Small Screen Reviews: DC’s Legends of Tomorrow

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| March 25, 2016

25 COMMENTS

Also-rans in a Lague of their Own — These guys are legen — wait for it … … — dary. Sorta.

If you’re as nerdy like me – and I know I am – you’ll have been watching DC’s offerings on the television. Though DC’s big screen offerings have been mixed, their small screen shows have remained strong. I’m including Constantine in this mix because I think it was a great show, but its premise was fresher back when it was released and, nowadays, it’s nothing new. So with Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and yes I’m including Gotham, things have remained strong. Well, until now.

DC’s Legends of Tomorrow is a direct spin-off of the CW’s two hits Arrow and The Flash. In this story, Time Lord Master Rip Hunter, in an attempt to save the world from the immortal Vandal Savage, recruits people from Green Arrow’s and Flash’s present day. So Atom, Firestorm, Sarah Lance, Captain Cold, Heat Wave, and new heroes Hawkman and Hawkgirl are convinced to join him as companions fellow heroes and save the future from a man from the past. And you should be worried for the future because the show just isn’t working.

Let me digress from plot exposition. In any ensemble cast show, success depends not just on the storyline, but also on the cast and how well they mesh together. A good example of how this works well is Brooklyn 99. Andy Samberg may be the lead, but the ensemble cast work together so well that even when he’s off the screen, you’re having a good time. The cast meshes well, the audience is happy. On Legends of Tomorrow … well, it’s just not working. It’s like the early days of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but not as good and so far not improving.

I mean, let me put it this way: on The Flash, I used to cheer inside when I saw it was a Captain Cold episode. He’s one of Flash’s best adversaries, and the back and forth where they alternate between success and failure make for a great dynamic. On this show, he just seems to under-perform. I’m not menaced by him. I don’t feel he’s as competent as he is in The Flash. It’s just a disappointment. When you take one of my favorite characters and make me go “Meh,” you’re not doing a service to your show.

It doesn’t help that no one trusts anyone on Legends of Tomorrow. No one trusts time-traveling Rip, who frequently lies about the mission. No one trusts each other because they are a mix of heroes and criminals, each with his own apparent psychological problem with no counselor to help them work it out. They have to stumble from mistrust to trust and their progress is very clumsy.

Their adversary at least could pick up the slack, though the actor seems to chew enough scenery that he’s belching drywall after each line. A recent episode heroes and villains attempted to blend into a 50’s Oregon town, except Savage almost seemed to have that overdone villain grin even when he’s just giving his neighbors a casserole. I mean, it might work for the Joker Trickster, but Savage is a brilliant immortal mastermind who takes over the world. He should be able to do better than this.

I’m still watching it because, as I’ve noted often, I’m a sucker for superheroes. This was an ambitious offering the DC’s television universe; sometimes, however, ambition doesn’t pan out. In this case, it was stymied by weak writing and an inexperienced cast. It may pick up like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. did later in the season, but Legends seems to be the kind of slow burn that never gets off the ground.

Small Screen Reviews: Lucifer

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| March 18, 2016

28 COMMENTS

luci Take an unusual person with social traits and mannerisms which would normally make him/her someone you’d never want near a police investigation. Then, finagle it so that person is partnered-up with a detective and accompanies the latter on regular homicide investigations. What do get? About half the shows on television at the moment. Apparently, kooky lead and detective sidekick/love interest are all the rage these days. The latest, as you probably figured out from my title and illustration, is Fox’s Lucifer.

Yes, that Lucifer. Unlike most supernatural shows where the super tries to hide its true nature from the rest of the world, Lucifer — played by Tom Ellis — wants everyone he meets to know exactly who he is. In fact his one thorn in his side is the fact his detective partner just never seems to believe him entirely. The story is that Lucifer, who rebelled against God and was banished from Heaven is now … rebelling and hanging out in Los Angeles. Better to run a nightclub than serve in Heaven. In your face, Milton!

In the first episode, a young woman is killed outside Lucifer’s nightclub. As it’s someone whose career he helped along, he takes it personally and takes it upon himself to find the killer. Enter Detective Chloe Decker (Lauren German) who believes there’s more to the crime than is being let on. Of course, the two of them end up working together. Actually, it takes several episodes for the show to establish just why he is allowed to accompany Decker. He’s disruptive, he fouls up crime scenes and investigations, he doesn’t seem to help as much as get in the way, but it takes several episodes before Decker’s boss officially teams the two together. If Lucifer started to write mystery novels and looked more like Nathan Fillion, the circle would be complete.

However Det. Decker has some sort of effect on Lucifer that he finds fascinating but that his fellow eternal beings — demons Mazikeen (Lesley-Ann Brandt) and Amenadiel (D. B. Woodside) — find alarming. Around her, he’s positively mortal, and the immortals, for their own individual reasons, just want him to go to Hell where he belongs.

The show is actually loosely based on one of DC’s Vertigo comics. It lacks some of the depth that the comic had, but I found Jeremy Lott at The Federalist does a better job of explaining that lack than I ever could.

For me, I find this fun and amusing, but it does little to stretch the limits of the medium. Perhaps this is a nature of network and cable television. Netflix has gone further with Daredevil and Jessica Jones, its two great Marvel offerings. Most of the DC shows (with a notable exception), are engaging and entertaining, but don’t offer too much depth beyond what’s required.

There’s some disappointment here. Vertigo was a darker side of DC for some time. Constantine was the first show in recent years under that line, and it maintained that dark side and had a bit more depth than others. John Constantine fought the dark with darkness, the result was he sacrificed and alienated those around him. He is a tragic figure thrust into a hero’s role, and he can’t bring himself to turn from his ways.

And as much as I enjoy Lucifer — never thought I’d say something like that — it comes off as a lighthearted romp rather than a darker exploration of the nature of mankind and, in this case, eternity. However, do note that I enjoy the show: it’s entertaining, it makes us laugh, and Ellis plays the cheerful amoral hedonistic narcissist well. If you want to relax and not think, it’s a good and fun show to watch. If you want more depth or just disapprove of the blasphemy of it all, it’s not the show for you.

Small Screen Reviews: Master of None

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| March 8, 2016

20 COMMENTS

mon So maybe someone here can help me. Aziz Ansari is an up-and-coming comedian. Even if you don’t know his name, you might have seen him on Parks & Recreation as the young go-getter saddled with layabout ne’er-do-well best friend and girlfriend (of sorts). He’s had a stand-up performance on Netflix, and most recently has a Netflix series called “Master of None“.

For the life of me I just don’t find him funny.

Maybe I’m missing something, or he’s just not my type of humor. “Master of None” must be full of it because I find I watch this show waiting for the laugh. And occasionally it comes. Occasionally there’s that one line that makes me guffaw … and then we’re back to boring. In fact, I had hoped to write this review long ago, after I finished all 10 episodes of season one on Netflix. However I’ve found that I am stuck on episode five. Whenever I’m looking for something to watch, I circle around it like a fish examining bait, but decide it’s not for me and opt for something better.

As any good fly fisherman knows, the best resource for a good fly is the local shop near where you plan to fish. The shop owner can almost always point out what fly will best attract what fish. Taking their advice is a good idea. Now the critics laud “Master of None” and it even won a Critics Choice Award. But it seems either they weren’t listening to the shop owner, or the shop owner was dishonest because this fish just isn’t biting.

“Master of None” is billed as a comedy. It watches the self-referential millennial Aziz as a young would-be actor finding work and dealing with life’s little obstacles. It’s standard comedy fare. Along the way, Aziz finds and discusses life lessons that are obvious to anyone save him and the people he hangs out with. Okay, now I’m being old and curmudgeonly. It’s just gets a little tiring to see him constantly amazed at the obvious. To beat my favorite Reagan quote to death, it’s not that he’s ignorant, it’s just that he knows so much that isn’t so. I guess I should could my blessings that he actually seems somewhat willing to learn.

But let’s look at Episode 1. After a near miss with a one-night stand, Aziz considers what life would be like with children. When a friend with children needs a sitter, he offers to take a leap and see what that life would be like. Spoiler alert: taking care of children is difficult. Comedy supposedly ensues. Aziz decides not having kids is the way to go. Achievement unlocked!

Episode two: Aziz and his friend are the first-generation born of immigrants. Their relationship with their parents is much like any reasonably adjusted family’s. But then they have a revelation: Our parents went through a lot to come to America! Well, yeah … that’s a little … okay, it’s a good observation, but it’s revealed as if such a thing is something they just came up with. The realization scene plays as naturally as an ’80s cartoon public service announcement. Our parents went through a lot for us. Now we know! “And knowing is half the battle,” to quote GI Joe.

I guess that’s my problem with the series as I’ve seen it so far. There’s nothing inherently unfunny about any of these storylines. I just can’t find any of these stories amusing in any way. It’s like watching mid-aught Adult Swim fare: stuff happens, it’s not funny, and the characters pause for laughter that never comes. The only difference is the lack of potty humor in “Master of None”.

I really wanted to finish this so I could tell my faithful reader (all one of you) that you don’t have to watch this show because I watched it for you, but I just can’t. There’s plenty on your Netflix queue worth seeing. I recommend reruns of The Rockford Files.

Small Screen Review: “Jessica Jones”

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| January 18, 2016

76 COMMENTS

In a comparison between the two giants of comic book entertainment, I’ve seen it stated that DC presents stories of gods and demigods – myths for modern time – while Marvel presents stories of human beings who happen to have powers. If any recent storyline presents that latter concept well it has to be the Netflix series, “Jessica Jones.”

In fact, “Jessica Jones” is a very human story. Super-powered beings are integral to the tale, but initially the powers seem to be incidental to the characters. It takes some time for any powers to be used in earnest and in all honesty I think it does the series well. By using a slow burn, we get time to learn about the players in this tale. The powers don’t distract us from who these people are and what’s going on at the first.

Krysten Ritter plays the title character. She is a private investigator working in Hell’s Kitchen (a familiar location for those who saw “Daredevil”) in a dingy little office that is also her apartment. Ritter is a waif of a person, which contrasts well with her character’s super strength and attitude. Occasionally she does a job or two for attorney Jeri Hogarth (played by Carrie-Anne Moss). A nice, wholesome Midwestern couple approaches Jones in the first episode. She was recommended to them and they need Jones to help them find their missing daughter, Hope.

Jessica takes the case, but quickly finds that elements of the case feel all too familiar. Hope has been taken by a man from Jessica’s past, Kilgrave (played by David Tennant of Doctor Who fame). Kilgrave is a rather chilling antagonist as he has mind control. Tennant plays this well. Kilgrave tosses out commands casually, with barely a thought. He’s sociopathic and narcissistic, but yet the show avoids making these traits cartoonish. By the end of the first episode, Hope, compelled to kill her parents, is looking at murder charges, and Jessica is faces a decision: flee from this man or face him.

The choices in this series: to keep it fairly human and to avoid comic book caricature is important. The show is truly about dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. Jones was manipulated, controlled, and essentially raped by Kilgrave. Like a typical narcissist, Kilgrave cannot admit his own culpability, even knowing he has complete control over his victims. Jones must overcome her fear and her guilt over what has happened in the past and what happens now as Kilgrave pursues her in his own twisted way. So though this series takes place in a comic book universe, it does not have a comic book feel to it. This is a redemption tale for Jones, and for that it is very satisfying.

There are no wasted characters in “Jessica Jones.” Eka Darville plays Malcolm Ducasse, Jones junkie neighbor who at first appears to be comic relief, but soon proves to be important to the story. The plot is consistently like that. Someone who seems like a throwaway character turns out to be integral to our story. The side dramas are minimal and generally become part of the main story. It makes these incidental stories very satisfying. When we ask, “Why do we have to go through Hogarth’s messy divorce?” the show dutifully answers.

Something I also appreciate is that the pacing isn’t frenetic. They give you time to think about the story and characters. If this were a typical superhero story, it might come off as forced, but the PTSD theme demands a more thoughtful approach, I would think. Not everyone likes a story at this pace, but I find it refreshing as it is done well.

“Jessica Jones” is a Netflix exclusive. Like its cousin “Daredevil,” it is darker and more graphic than other comic-inspired shows have been. Jessica is not quite as bloody, though it has a few very startling scenes toward the end. Still, if that doesn’t bother you, I highly recommend this series. The story and characters are strong, and I found the ending satisfying.

The Ends Justify the Memes

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| January 8, 2016

41 COMMENTS

Sometimes I’m kind of amazed by what the Democrats can get away with. Like this little meme here to the right. I’ve seen it a few times on my Facebook feed in a few different forms. They all follow the same theme: Executive orders like the one Obama just signed are awesome, because look, Eisenhower used them to desegregate schools. Check and mate, Republicans.

Of course, these memes depend entirely on one’s ignorance of history, willful or otherwise.

School desegregation had little to do with executive orders save in one, specific instance. Desegregation was initiated at the federal level by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. I know this because back when I argued against judicial activism, my progressive friends used this as their Ends-Justifying-Means Hammer. In fact, anyone could know this because a Google search on the history of desegregation will generally highlight this as the big moment. In 1955, a second case — Brown v. Board of Education II — declared that federal district courts had jurisdiction over lawsuits to enforce the desegregation decision, and mandated desegregation proceed “with all deliberate speed.” The Civil Rights Act was signed into law on September 9, 1957. Eisenhower gets a small mention.

Eisenhower did indeed issue an executive order, but its purpose and purview was far more limited than the meme would suggest. As desegregation proceeded, a few recalcitrant Southern states tried to assert themselves. A federal court ordered the Little Rock school board to comply with desegregation. Defying both US courts and US law, Governor Faubus of Arkansas placed the National Guard around Central High School to prevent integration. Eisenhower met with the governor, instructing him to obey the law, and Faubus agreed to allow the so-called Little Rock Nine to attend under the protection of the National Guard.

Instead, Governor Faubus removed the Guard entirely. When the nine black students attempted to go to school, riots ensued. Faubus didn’t lift a finger to stop them. Finally, the mayor of Little Rock asked the federal government for assistance. Only at this point did Eisenhower step in, on September 23, 1957, with Executive Order 10730. It sent in troops to maintain order, protect the students, and defuse the situation. It had a narrow remit, designed to redress a very specific and immediate emergency. I mean, what sort of president would sit around while people in a major American city rioted – oh, wait …

Note the dates as well. Eisenhower’s executive order was issued after the Civil Rights Act (which had been passed 73-27 in the Senate and 289-126 in the house) and well after Brown. Contrary to the suggestion of the meme, desegregation had the support of all three branches of the government. The president is sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed: Eisenhower discharged that oath.

The history of desegregation is extremely well-studied, as well-documented as any event in history could be, and known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history. Again, go ahead and do a search on this. I can wait. Seriously, I won’t know if you’ve paused in my post. A plethora of websites treat the history of desegregation. Book after book has been written about it. This is not exactly one of those deeply obscure periods subject to vigorous debate among historians. It’s so easy to do a search on desegregation and Eisenhower’s role in it that it shouldn’t take anyone more than 30 seconds.

At this point, Obama’s supporters are just making things up out of thin air to justify anything the President does. It’s as if they aren’t even trying any more.

And here’s the thing: They know they don’t have to. A handful of my friends have already posted this as if it’s a great argument. They know they don’t have to try. Their self-selecting Facebook echo-chamber will believe anything they say.

It may be a long day for me on Facebook.

Thousands Leave the LDS

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| November 18, 2015

118 COMMENTS

Now you might have missed this news, what with the attacks in Paris and the childishness in the universities, but breaking news: The Church of LDS believes homosexuality sinful. Gasp! Who knew such beliefs lurked deep in their ways? Oh wait, everyone. Still, last week, that didn’t stop a few thousand from making a scene over a recent policy: the church will not baptize children of same-sex couples until they turn 18 and denounce same-sex marriage. So of course my social network feed exploded in outrage, of which I’d estimate 10 percent came from actual Mormons.

The latest news is that recently a few thousand made a public stand to quit the church, with at least 1,500 showing up in person, and another 2,000 (approximately) sending in legal representation to affect the same. (Side note: my lovely wife Amanda is unimpressed by sending your lawyer to submit your resignation. As she knows, you just need write a letter saying that you’re out.)

In my skepticism, I’d wager that few if any of those making this stand are seriously active in the church at all. I have a good friend who is very active in the “Ordain Women” movement and publicly denounced this decision by the church, but she remains equally active in her church. This likely was just a convenient excuse for those leaving to do so while making oneself look important.

The church responded, expressing that these individuals should reconsider this decision as there would be eternal consequences. This was met by mockery from the social progressives. “When threatening people with eternal damnation doesn’t work anymore, you know you’ve lost them.” Again, this doesn’t impress my lovely wife any, as she received similar warnings when she wrote that she was leaving the church. Naturally, leaving the LDS because one has converted to mainstream evangelical Christianity is less exciting (no colorful rainbow flags or news coverage), but the message was essentially the same: “Reconsider!”

I’ve never been Mormon, and I disagree quite a bit with the Church of Latter Day Saints, but here I turn and stand in their defense for a moment. Rather than trying to divide, the church is actually trying to consider all involved while remaining true to their doctrine. “Family is Forever” is a major concept within the church, so pitting children at the age of eight against their same-sex parents creates problems in many ways.

This policy is similar to that when dealing with children of Muslims: don’t cause familial strife. Wait until the child is of majority age and allow them to make the decision then. As for the “threats of eternal damnation” – well those are hardly such. Those religions that believe in the hereafter also tend to believe that one’s actions now will have consequences in one’s afterlife. The reply is a compassionate warning: don’t just consider the present, consider eternity. Understanding that there are rather nasty consequences for apostasy according to their beliefs, it’d be far crueler to say, “Okay, bye guys. Enjoy the Outer Darkness!”

That doesn’t matter to the social progressive. When you’re on the right side of history, you don’t have to argue or even listen to others. You just get to demand everyone embrace your ideals right now. Like the Huffington Post, you know that things are far more complex and that it takes smart, enlightened Social Progressives to figure things out. We religious types just need to take a back seat and let them drive.

Of interesting note is the second bullet point: How is the lay leader of a local Mormon congregation to make this determination when courts and lawyers find [shared custody] challenging?

For decades social progressives have told us that they have a better way, but they have taken a simple concept like marriage and made it so complex that it now supposedly requires lawyers, judges, and associated experts to puzzle out just what is a family and who is a parent. This is the aftermath of no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and shared custody. We can only expect more headaches and issues with same-sex marriage. And we have a bevy of legal experts and politicians in the wings ready to sweep in and confuse the issue even more, and then tell us that we’re too inexpert to understand the real complexities of what makes a family.

In our debates over same-sex marriage, I have stated that if a word can mean anything it will soon mean nothing. We’re finding that marriage and family as a cultural and social institution are quickly approaching nothing, and it’s the legal carrion crows that are picking over the remains. Only in the religious sense will those words maintain a sense of meaning. That is why the social progressives attack the attempts of religious leaders to negotiate and deliberate this morass.

Small Screen Reviews: Minority Report

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| November 6, 2015

19 COMMENTS

You might recall a little Tom Cruise film from 2002 entitled Minority Report. The movie, based on a Philip K. Dick story, posited a world where three “precognitive” children — i.e., teenagers who lay in a bath of goo and have a limited ability to see into the future — are used to predict murders so that the police can stop them before they happened. This being a Philip K. Dick story, things of course go overboard and the police arrest and imprison people for future murders. The tale gets complicated when the protagonist is accused of future murder. Since this is a Cruise film, this involves serious chase scenes and action sequences before he’s finally caught. In the finale, we see how he was set up and it’s revealed that he’s been falsely accused. He’s released, the precogs are set free and they all live happily ever after on a secluded island without murder or chase sequences. But this being a Philip K. Dick story, the ending suggests that the finale isn’t real and that our protagonist is dreaming an all-too perfect end to his predicament while imprisoned in forced hibernation.

It was a solid movie, one of the earlier science fiction films that Cruise has made that I’ve enjoyed. But that’s another topic because, hey, Hollywood has decided to take that overly happy ending that could actually be a sucker punch and turn it into the basis for an uninspired television series of the same name. I’m being harsh: the show isn’t bad so much as uninspired. Thus, it tends to lessen the effect of the source material. As I’m fond of the source material, my judgment on the present tends to be a bit more pointed.

The series begins a several years after the events of the movie, which brings us to its first flaw. Remember that hint of ambiguity I wrote about earlier? Well, it’s gone out the window and the most surface telling of the movie is the show’s unambiguous truth. If you like safe, I guess this is alright, but then why turn to Philip K. Dick when you want safe storytelling?

Anyhow, one of the pre cogs, Das (now all grown up) has moved back to the city so that he can stop the murders he sees when he’s around all these people. Granted, this young man has next to no skills whatsoever – neither urban, survival, nor social – so his crusade is a complete flop; in the first attempt we see, he’s late to save someone from getting thrown out the window. Since that’s not going well, he tries to clumsily recruit the help of Detective Lara Vega. His older sister, Agatha, of course, disapproves because their working relationship with the police has been rather one-sided in benefits.

But Dash is on a mission, and manages to convince Vega to help him. What we find is that his visions are limited to images; he doesn’t get useful things like names. For that, we have to go to his twin brother, who is also in the city, and who doesn’t get images, just names. This is a case of the Polar Opposite Twin trope. Where Dash is an awkward and struggling guy who wants to help, Arthur is a successful underworld criminal who’s charming, quick-witted, and comfortable in society. And here’s my problem number two: Dash is scolded for trying to work with the police, but Arthur is fine working against the law and uses the police against people.

In the end, this is just a cop-teamed-with-talented-outsider show in a science fiction setting. There is a lot of the former nowadays that you really have to stand out to make waves on the small screen. There’s plenty out there that are popular enough – like Castle or Bones – that makes it difficult to impossible to turn people away from there to follow your show with the same enthusiasm. This show doesn’t really break into that must-see category. The acting is competent. The drama is competent. Everything about this show is okay, but just hasn’t achieved the oomph it needs to push beyond. Older sister Agatha seems involved in some Xanatos Gambit but really, do we care enough to see where it’s going? She has a vision of them all being placed back into the precog program for the police and, somehow, Det. Vega is involved, but the morality of this has been explored in the movie well enough. It lacks any sort of punch. Nothing about the show stands out enough for me to care enough to pick that out of my Hulu+ queue instead of the latest episode of Shark Tank.

Sure, taking a pre-existing film or television series as your setting saves you a lot of development and world-creation effort, but choosing Philip K. Dick’s material as your source is a challenge beyond most writers. In short, I can’t recommend the show. It’s not really good to watch with your kids because of the violence but, at this point, it’s just not really good to watch at all.

For this show to improve for me, somewhere near the end of the season we’ll find the entire show taking place mostly in Tom Cruise’s head while he’s imprisoned, this being some telepathic scheme by the precogs to release him and themselves from everything. I seriously doubt the writers could pull that off.

Small Screen Review: Supergirl

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| October 30, 2015

28 COMMENTS

I frequently admit that I’m a sucker for superheroes. I love comic books, I love superhero movies, cartoons, and television shows. In fact, I consider myself fortunate as we seem to be in something of a golden age of superheroes on screen. Marvel has pretty much owned the big screen so far, coming up with at least one or two hits a year (though every year there are a couple of sour notes for them as well it seems). DC Comics, however, has quickly overtaken the small screen with good to great offerings like Arrow, Flash, Gotham, Constantine (now cancelled, cuss mah luck), and now, Supergirl.

If you’re going to do a comic book pilot right, I believe from now on I’m going to point people to Supergirl. Though it stumbles a bit like many pilots seem to, it never falters at all and even gets a couple great notes that if you’re a particular enthusiastic viewer will make you stand up and cheer.

The first great thing: Supergirl doesn’t drag you through the origin story. Oh, it’s there, but it doesn’t take up a lot of time. In fact, this is a full season television show, and they spent far less time on her origin story than the time spent on Superman’s origin in Man of Steel. Mostly because they assume you know Superman’s origin story and, seriously, who doesn’t? Superman is one of the most recognizable characters on the planet (and not just The Daily Planet). Even if you are vaguely interested, you know his story. So Supergirl has that advantage. And then they go, “I’m his cousin. I was sent to protect him, but I got waylaid and arrived later.” Tada! There’s her backstory. To the writers I say “Thank you.” Overwrought origins can bore the audience away from the screen.

That’s where our story begins. Now, we get to see just how she decides to become Supergirl. Our heroine begins as her alter ego mild-mannered Kara Danvers — played by Melissa Benoist. (Side note: the subtitles on the screen spelled “Kara” at least three different ways). Kara works for the newspaper of National City (because DC is terrible at naming cities). Apparently taking notes from Clark Kent, her disguise consists of a pair of glasses and pulling her hair back. She’s grown and is seeking a normal life after her initial purpose for coming to Earth was taken from her.

That’s the second great thing: a good theme and motivation. Supergirl is sent to Earth for the purpose of protecting Kal-El, but — thanks to events beyond anyone’s control — Superman is grown and already a hero by the time she arrives on Earth. She’s not needed to protect him at all. Her human life is, well … disappointing. Her boss is impossible (Calista Flockhart plays Cat Grant doing her best J. Jonah Jameson impersonation) and her dating life is a drag (super-hearing can be a bummer when you get to overhear your date ditching you). Kara is adrift, knowing she could be doing more, but not what it should be.

Then, there’s the answer! An airplane is going down. Kara’s adoptive sister is on that plane. Realizing that, Kara then and there decides that she has the ability to help and should help. Good thing her date left, because it’s time for some super action!

There’s the third great thing: Super action! Supergirl is related to Superman and, as we should expect, she does Super-things. She flies! She has super-strength! At one point, she uses the patented Kryptonian heat vision and it’s awesome. Even though the script pretty much broadcasts, “Hey, she’s going to use heat vision!” and it’s still awesome. Because that’s what a Super-anything should do (including Streaky the Supercat or Comet the Superhorse – not that I’m advocating shows for them). In the pilot alone, Supergirl saves a crashing airliner, fights crime, demonstrates invulnerability, and gets into two melees with a supervillain. The pilot doesn’t drag things along. They let Supergirl be super.

There are stumbling moments. Many of the characters are caricatures (see the aforementioned Cat Grant for starters). I can be forgiving there. It’s a comic book show after all. I believe we’ll see how the characters develop over the course of the show. A couple times, the show tries to dwell on Girl Power and that can be a turn off for me. Then again, I’m not a girl, so I reserve judgment there. Superman and “my cousin” gets named dropped a lot, but he’s apparently too busy to see his cousin that much. He’s probably out punching Lex Luthor or something. This may be more a matter of DC Comics in general than the writing. So far, DC hasn’t put their triumvirate of awesome on the small screen. Batman only appears in larval stage in “Gotham.” Superman and Wonder Woman have yet to appear.

The fourth great thing: you can totally watch this with your kids. We live in a time when to “improve” things, people keep trying to make things darker than they were before. They tried that with the Spider-Man reboot and have been keeping Superman on the darker side. It’s a breath of fresh air that Supergirl remains light and fun. Supergirl/Kara Danvers has energy and when she’s fighting evil she’s doing it with a smile. There’s comic book violence, but nothing at all is over-the-top. One character dies in the pilot, and it’s not nearly as graphic as it could have been, unlike some offerings have been as of late (I’m looking at you, Daredevil and Gotham). I mean, this is a comic book show. You should be able to watch it with the family. There’s not many comic book shows I can say, “See this with your kids” and that’s sad. Even Arrow, where the violence isn’t as bad, still can bring up awkward questions such as “Daddy, what’s Oliver doing with that woman?”

A few more notes: I do like Mehcad Brooks as James “Jimmy” Olsen. Yes, that Jimmy Olsen. Superman sends him to National City specifically to help Supergirl. Olsen has been Superman’s buddy for a while, so he projects confidence while still showing admiration for the super hero. On the other hand, I’m not sure why David Harewood has been cast as Hank Henshaw. It’s not that he does a bad job. It’s that for reasons I won’t spoil, in the comic books Hank Henshaw is almost a dead ringer for Superman. Well, most likely Henshaw is going in a somewhat different direction in this show.

Though Marvel ties all visual media into the same continuity, DC has decided to keep the television and movie continuities separate. I think this is a good decision. Some are not thrilled with Zack Snyder’s direction on the big screen, but the small screen shows have been doing well. I’m not sure how they will tie this in to Arrow and Flash, if at all. Those two shows are on CW, whereas CBS is airing Supergirl. Gotham isn’t a problem as it takes place in the past. Granted, Supergirl may take place in the near future, as her pod crash lands on Earth after Superman has been around, and then there’s five to ten years before she becomes Supergirl. That’s all speculation and really, unimportant.

Finally, I am not sure how often I can watch the show. CBS is very jealous of its streaming. It doesn’t release any of its current seasons on Hulu+, and I don’t even see a lot of current shows of theirs on Netflix. They have their own streaming service, but I can’t really see paying for yet another streaming service just for Supergirl. And of course, having a baby means I’m not always able to watch it when it airs. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I watched something when it actually aired.

The pilot has been great. Here’s hoping that they continue in the same vein. I’m giving the Supergirl pilot four stars and I recommend it to just about anyone. I reserve any more stars to see where this show is going.

Principle and Process

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| October 29, 2015

18 COMMENTS

So here we are, looking at another major election in just over a year, and our intra-party divisions don’t just increase, they’re becoming an out-and-out canyon. You can see the conflict summed up in many ways: Tea Party vs. Mainstream, Movement vs. Establishment, Fringe vs. RINOs, and Chaos Marine vs. Imperial Space Marine. Okay, I made that last one up*. I find these terms inadequate, however. More and more, I find the real divide as Principle vs. Process.

Principle Republicans tend to perceive themselves as embracing our nation’s founding ideas. For the Principle Republican, small government is key. This is not necessarily a reference on locality, but rather on the presence of government in daily life. Indeed, you only need to look at San Francisco or Seattle to see that local government does not necessarily mean small government. The Principle Republican sees government as necessary — which largely differentiates him from more libertarian line of thought — but prefers a government as described in the Tao of Taos: one which has a light touch, where the people see themselves as accomplishing things rather than the government. Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny† eloquently describes the thinking of the Principle Republican.

For the Principle Republican, the process takes a back seat to principle. The advancement of liberty over tyranny, the genuine embrace of small government over big government, and the recognition of the individual over the state takes precedent. The ideas of the Founders are tantamount. This is not intended as a worship of past figures but, rather, as a recognition of their ideas. Principle Republicans prefer to hear their politicians speak about Liberty, especially if it has a capital “L.”

Principle Republicans are not without fault. They’ve a tendency to want to abandon the process altogether, which has its perils. Today’s Democrats enjoy abandoning process in favor of their principles and the result has been a disastrous undermining of liberty; it would be a mistake to think this no-holds-barred attitude would be solely a left-wing problem. They also tend to place increasingly demanding criteria on elected officials, sometimes demanding purity that none can meet. And though I adhere to the Principle Republican side, I fear plenty here would probably demand George Washington’s ouster for being a RINO‡.

Though they are on the opposite side of our internecine debate, Process Republicans also respect the Founders’ ideals, but also emphasize the system they set in place. Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for the republican system of checks, balances, and procedures that encourage moderation and consideration over reckless abandon. We live in a world where people expect government to “get things done” and the process is there to moderate how it’s done and (hopefully) temper and hone ideas into effective tools of government. The Federalist Papers** can help one get into the mind of a Process Republican. Liberty had already been attained by the states. The Federalist Papers discuss the ideas that lead in part to the process we are in today.

Liberty is good, but — says the Process Republican — without checks and balances it can easily lead to confusion or anarchy. The State exists and requires a system to guide and control it, otherwise we get what we had in the Articles of Confederation which was bad enough that the Founders got together to rethink things.

Process Republicans have their faults as well. Converse to their counterparts, they sometimes want to ignore principle entirely in favor of process. Unmoored from principle at all, process continues going forward without a thought as to whether it’s going in the right direction. When “getting things done” becomes a bigger principle than advancing a principle, process leads away from proper goals. Moreover, Process Republicans become annoyed with their sometimes impatient counterparts. Rather than explain how the system can be used to advance liberty, they begin to demand Principle Republicans to be quiet, knuckle down††, and let things play out.

Understanding each other at this point is of tantamount importance. Principle Republicans want Process Republicans to understand liberty and advance us toward it. We’d like to be addressed as valuable members of the party, not as problem students in need of Ritalin. Meanwhile, Process Republicans would like the Principle Republicans to exercise discretion and patience. When Process Republicans lay out a plan of action, they’d really appreciate it if we Principle Republicans didn’t light the plan on fire because it doesn’t accomplish everything at once. Principle Republicans are worried that we are losing the ideas we love; Process Republicans are worried that we might overstep our bounds and abandon a system that works well.

Republican democracy is an inherently messy process. You can’t get ten people to easily agree on pizza toppings‡‡; getting a nation of hundreds of millions to agree on questions of public policy is exponentially more difficult. The strength of our nation’s founding was not just the ideas or just the system, but rather a system that fosters and empowers the ideas espoused. It is time we value our differences and recognize that our differences complement each other, rather than separate us.

* But that would be so cool if either side could settle their differences over mini-warfare games. Yes, I just suggested a solution that favors me. Also, Space Orks are best.

† The book contains far less vitriol and screaming than a typical Mark Levin broadcast. Also, the book is less likely to call you stupid.

‡ He wasn’t even that. Our first president as you know had no party. Also, there were no Republicans then. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT PEOPLE!

** Principle Republicans take heart! We have the Anti Federalist Papers. In your face, Alexander Hamilton!

†† … buckle down, do it, do it, do it …

‡‡ For the record: Pepperoni is the only topping that truly belongs on a Pure Republican Pizza. Adding pineapple to your pizza is a sure sign of a RINO.

The Cake Vendetta

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| April 28, 2015

63 COMMENTS

So this little saga continues. It’s local story that’s made a couple of national headlines and, personally, I find what’s happening to be rather chilling. A couple of years ago, a lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa to order a wedding cake for themselves. Though Sweet Cakes had served one of the ladies in other capacities in the past, they declined to serve the couple in this capacity.

As I’ve written before, the local gay community was up in arms. A complaint was sent to the Oregon human rights bureaucracy, but that wasn’t fast enough for the community. They protested Sweet Cakes. They vandalized their vehicle, sent threats, libeled and slandered, set up a fake Facebook account to spread slurs (which a local news rag then gleefully reported as if it was Sweet Cakes’ actual account, a report that then spread to major outlets long before it was corrected). Suppliers for Sweet Cakes were also threated – told that the same waited for them if they dared to continue to do business with the little bakery. As a result, Sweet Cakes closed its storefront permanently.

That didn’t end there, of course. Over a year later, Oregon finally got around to its ruling, and declared that Sweet Cakes by Melissa owed the couple $135,000 in damages. Note, at the time Sweet Cakes said, “No,” SSM was not codified in Oregon Law – although it was being argued in court and was legal at the time in nearby Washington. Note as well, that since being told “no”, the lesbian couple has since had their wedding with cake and even now have a daughter of their own.

Melissa and her family turned to GoFundMe to raise funds to pay the fine or face personal bankruptcy. The lesbian couple and gay community in question found out about this and demanded GoFundMe to remove the fundraising effort. The web service complied, leaving the family short of their funding goal. As a consolation, GoFundMe did not cancel the funds raised – a little over $100,000, but for a family that’s lost its business, the last bit is still too short and they still face bankruptcy.

Again, the original lesbian couple had their wedding, their cake, and their family. This has not been about justice and liberty. This has been about vendetta. They don’t want to right wrongs. They want to destroy any perceived slight. This just isn’t about not getting a cake. This is to send a message: refuse us and we’ll destroy you just like we did this baker.

On the last Ricochet podcast, there was a thoughtful discussion about how we can proceed we same sex marriage and preserve liberty. There seemed to me to be an earnest effort to come together and see where we can agree and let each other be where we cannot. It was great. There was just one problem: the social Progressives have no desire whatsoever to be reasonable. Theirs is a scorched earth policy.

My more rabid Progressive friends applaud and cheer on the efforts to destroy Melissa and her family. They are mocked and campaigned against. People who have never met them despise them with a red hot hatred. These same Progressives don’t see the Utah effort at compromise as anywhere near acceptable. They mock and deride it as anti-gay and backward. And yes, they are on the extreme, but right now the extreme has the social power and is not going to stop any time soon. We can talk about being reasonable until we turn blue, but again, the Progressives have no desire to be reasonable.

Before it was codified, the campaign slogan was, “Against gay marriage? Don’t have one!” Now it seems to be, “Against gay marriage? Tough. Bake us a cake, or we’ll destroy your life.” As Jon Gabriel has stated, “The Left started the culture war, won it, and now roams the countryside shooting the wounded.”

An Officer’s Lament

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| July 10, 2014

233 COMMENTS

One of my good friends serves as a police officer here in the Pacific Northwest. Over time, he’s been frustrated. About a month ago, he expressed his frustrations thusly:

Dear Conservative Ideology — There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it. I’m breaking up with you. I know what you are thinking. No I am not seeing anyone else. I am not going to remove my conservative sign and replace it with a liberal one. Right now, I’m just going to stand on my own. Ironically, the thing that has pushed you away from me is the one thing that has always kept me far away from liberal ideology … anti-police rhetoric.

He goes on:

I love being a police officer. I know that there isn’t a lot of glory in being one. I know that it’s a pretty thankless job. I’m okay with that. But every day, I love going out and getting a chance to really help. I know that sometimes all I can do is place a dirty band-aid on a gushing wound, delaying society from tearing itself apart. I know that sometimes I may use a tone of voice that is a little tough when dealing with citizens. But it is because it is a tough world, and this is a tough job. And yes, there is a lot of despair in my job, but every once in awhile, I get a chance to help people. I don’t enjoy arresting people. I don’t enjoy writing tickets. I don’t enjoy using force on people. I enjoy doing my duty and knowing that, maybe even just a little at a time, I am making the world a better place. I took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, all of it. Not your amended interpretation of it.

Which brings me to you, conservative ideology. It is true that, as a whole movement, there is not a widespread call for violence against police officers. However, there is a subtle ideology in your thinking. There is a hostile demeanor in your articles, essays, and online posts. And there is ominous silence when your masses respond to such media calling for open violence against “pigs, Fascists, Nazis, and oppressors.” There is no call for violence in your words. But there are words like “revolution, demand action, excessive force, trampled rights,” and “police state.” Often these words are used out of context, or applied to half-truths and partial facts. Your words are stirring followers to use words that advocate, encourage, and call for the deaths of police officers. I have turned a blind eye to it for far too long. But your silence towards the recent shooting of two Las Vegas Officers while they were eating lunch, and the death of a concealed carry American citizen who tried to stop the shooters, is just as hypocritical of the liberal silence over the loss of four lives in Benghazi. The shooters draped a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on one of the officers, and a handful of swastikas on the other officer, (which, contrary to what the media told you, was meant to imply the officer was a Nazi. The swastikas were not placed on the dead officer due to white supremacist ideology.) Where do you suppose that symbolic gesture comes from? Both of these officers had families … wives and children. You always bitch about the “militarization” of American police, because we now wear body armor outside of our shirts and have armored cars? We carry rifles now because criminals carry them and wear body armor. We have armored vehicles because criminals have rifles that can shoot through cars now. You know what? We’re okay with that. We’re okay with law-abiding citizens having the option of bearing arms. But a law-abiding gun owner can go south pretty quick when he loses his job, his wife leaves him, or some other life event takes a turn for the worst. That’s fine. We’ll respond. It’s what we do. But don’t bitch at us because we want vests, armor, and rifles to deal with the problem. Especially when we, the police, as an institution, are overwhelmingly supportive of citizens’ rights to bear arms.

I’ve also heard you complain about police wearing BDUs now. You know why we’re wearing BDU’s? Because $40 slacks that you the taxpayer pay for are not comfortable for the work we do. They tear and need to be replaced due to us working in the increasingly violent world that you and your liberal ideological brother are making for us. Oh, and here’s a news flash: Bullet-resistant vests are not comfortable. Wearing them over our shirts is more comfortable and allows us to carry gear on our vest rather than our waists. Gear on the vest spreads out weight that is normally concentrated on your waist and lower back. This helps prevent back problems, which, for your information, is very common among police officers.

So we are done, conservative ideology. I thought you were different. Turns out you’re just as full of crap as your liberal opposite. I’ll stand on my own with my God, my family, my brothers and sisters in blue, and all of my countrymen.

I’ve been delaying sharing here for a while, but George Savage’s recent article about our militarized interior compelled me to cease my delays. I can see a problem. While I believe there is genuine concern about the increased militarization of federal bureaucracies (I’m not sure why the EPA requires SWAT teams, for example), it’s becoming more necessary for the police officers who serve to gear up and protect themselves. It seems that, as of late, more officers have been victims of shootings not in the line of duty, but doing nothing more than enjoying a bit of down time. If it’s not more common, we’re at least becoming more aware of it.

Here’s the thing: many of these officers are our allies. They love freedom and liberty as much as we do, but they understand that everyone’s liberty comes at a cost. Those of us who enjoy what liberties we have do so because there are officers like my friend defending them. That takes them to dangerous places. And yes, those places can be inside the borders of this country. One needs only look at Chicago’s murder statistics to realize just how dangerous life can be right here at home. That we don’t experience it every day is thanks to the work of men and women like my friend who go there for us.

The last thing we should be doing is treating them with suspicion or contempt. The questions are: How do we support them? How do we reconcile with them? How do I behave towards my fellow man?

The Knightly Ideal

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| May 16, 2014

56 COMMENTS

Some time ago, in a discussion about books on a different forum, I mentioned that one thing I didn’t care for in George R. R. Martin’s works was the denigration of the concept of knighthood. For this comment, I got a severe dressing down from all his fans. His books were well researched; his portrayal of knights is far more accurate than the idealized images we see in Romanticism. (Also included were, if I recall, a few comments about my poor character based on my criticisms of great fantasy literature. It wasn’t made on Ricochet, you see.) However, I remain undaunted. For the most part, it’s not the portrayal of actual knights that caused me to be troubled, but rather the view of knights as expressed in the “more worldly” of Martin’s characters: a view that the ideal of knighthood is a lustrous fiction with no basis in reality. Martin presents the ideal of chivalry as false and even deadly. Holding fast to honor can get one killed and make one an object of ridicule. Having no honor can certainly be deadly as well, but there appears to be no merit in restraining oneself. If either path leads to the same destination, why take the difficult one?

Here we find postmodern progressive nihilism. The perfect is the enemy of the good. If we cannot meet an impossible standard, we should abandon that standard — even if we have no alternative save dissipation. Those who try and fail short are examples of the ideal’s failure.

I look to another great author of fantasy fiction, however: Gene Wolfe. I like how he explores this concept in his work, The Wizard Knight. In the first part, The Knight, the protagonist meets Sir Ravd. Sir Ravd is an honorable knight. It is in witnessing Sir Ravd’s deeds and integrity that the protagonist becomes inspired to take up arms and become a knight as well. The knight instructs our hero,”It is honor, Able. A knight is a man who lives honorably and dies honorably, because he cares more for his honor than for his life.”

Wolfe does not harbor illusions, however. In Able’s journey, he meets several individuals who fail to achieve that level of honor. This does not dissuade him, however, and he clings to the ideal in spite of the poor examples that follow Sir Ravd’s. For Wolfe, the ideal of chivalry can be just as deadly, but one’s sacrifice serves as an example to others — a banner to hold up as inspiration. One’s loss is felt with just as much pain, but it also calls out to others to take up the same ideals.

This, to me, is the sticking point. The failure of men to meet the ideals of chivalry do not mean the ideal concept of a knight is invalid. It is a given that men will fail to meet a standard. It is a mistake to always attribute the failure of individuals to the failure of the standard.

The ideal of a chivalric knight is compelling. He is a man (and, in some cases, a woman) of arms who wields strength to serve justice and defends those weaker than himself. He he seeks honor above his own desires — and is thus accorded it. When we discourage such ideals, I believe we lose something. The bar is impossibly high, yes, but should we seek that standard we will do well indeed. Constantly readjusting that standard — or worse, removing it altogether — leaves us unwilling to discipline our hearts and minds, accepting where we are as good enough and failing to seek a higher purpose.

Should I ever have boys of my own (or girls who are of similar mind) I would encourage them to look to the idealized knights for inspiration without hesitation. A man of honor and righteousness can be a beacon to others. I would rather others speak of how they (and maybe even I) sought honor and goodness for its own sake and not for their own glory. I would hope they would inspire by their deeds.

Man vs. Bear — The Debate.

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| April 22, 2014

46 COMMENTS

Here in Oregon, a rancher recently shot and killed a black bear that was hunting his cattle. The bear made the news, as it hit a record-breaking (for this area) size of 490 pounds. That is a lot of black bear, which is the smallest and most widespread of the species in North America. Of course, the real fun of this article is the comments section. As could be expected, the arguments boil down to city environmentalists versus country conservationists.

For us city folk, the arguments come down to three points:

1. The bear was just doing what bears do, hunting for food.

2. We’re the trespassers on the bears’ natural habitat.

3. It’s just mean to kill bears for little reason.

I’ll see if I can refute my fellow city folk’s arguments.

Yes, the bear was just doing what it does. However, bears like to go for easy meals and will frequent an area where they know they can get them. Once this bear decided that he’d found the world’s best beef buffet, he would have stuck around until he’d eaten his fill. This being early spring, that could be a while. Bears are large animals and there’s little deterring them.

Point two is essentially a reference to “urban sprawl,” which is essentially a popular myth. The contiguous United States is only 5% developed, and the bar to be considered “developed” is set pretty low. Even the most urban states of New Jersey and Rhode Island are only 33% developed. Here in the West, we are on the very low end of development. We’re hardly expanding into the bears’ turf. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, but it’s not as dramatic as the “urban sprawl” narrative would indicate. Moreover, this took place in rural southern Oregon on long-established ranch land.

If anything, bears move in on our turf. A couple of decades ago, Oregon voters made it more difficult to hunt black bears. The ads run by environmental interests showed dramatic, heart-rending pictures of scared bears being hunted. Urban and suburban Oregon rushed to vote in favor of the limitations. Of course, if the bears are hunted, they will breed and increase in numbers. Bears are very territorial animals. They don’t like to share their hunting grounds with other bears too much. The more bears there are, the more they will spread out in search of their own hunting ground — which can mean human areas.

You can say what you want about trophy hunting, but the last point is very subjective. It also ignores all the objective costs in losing cattle to a hungry bear. One cow can have a value somewhere between an old used car and a brand new automobile. Imagine if someone came by your house and destroyed your VW Bug one night, then came back to sniff around your Prius. You are probably going to do something about it.

Finally, despite everything that Disney taught you, Bears aren’t human. They don’t reason. They don’t discuss the issues with you.

They are kind of like Progressives.

How Do You Rate?

By C. U. Douglas

Thatcher

C. U. Douglas

| March 28, 2014

45 COMMENTS

If you’re like me — and I know I am — you probably frequent one or two sites that ask participants to rate something on a scale of 1-5. If you visit Netflix and Amazon.com at all you’ll certainly run across ratings. The one to five star rating seems to be the most accepted online system, rivaled only by binary systems such as thumbs up or down, like or dislike.

Or is it? In many ways, I see the binary system overcoming the supposedly more nuanced five star rating. It’s perhaps best demonstrated in an xkcd comic:

For whatever reason, we tend to regard anything less than super-amazing as not worth our time. I’ve frequently experienced this while reading on Goodreads.com. I’ve read books recommended by friends and family, and enjoyed them enough to give them three or four stars and …

The response generally comes down to, “What? Why didn’t you give it five stars? That was a great book!” To which I’ll agree on the quality of the book, but disagree that it merited five stars. “Didn’t you like it?” Yes, I liked it, but that doesn’t mean I would give it the highest available praise. These arguments generally win begrudging acceptance, but sometimes with a side glance, as the person in question wonders just what kind of freak I am.

[Side note: The Ricochetti have a group at Goodreads that you’re welcome to join. Sometimes we discuss or read books together. It’s just another great way to connect with each other.]

I like nuance. I also like having somewhere to go. If I give everything I remotely enjoy five stars, I feel as if I have little available latitude. What differentiates this five-star book from another five-star book that I know I enjoyed more? Without the nuance, I feel I’m left without a tool to tell someone, “I liked both these books, but I liked this book better than that one.”

But maybe that’s where we are in today’s society. In a world (read in movie trailer voice) where politics and social issues are placed in stark black and white contrast, where there’s little nuance in what one supports or is against, maybe it’s inevitable that ratings too are going to polarize. Perhaps our society is in a “love or hate” mindset. Either we’re all in or all out. If so, I give our society two stars — it reads too one-dimensionally.

« 1 2 3

Conservative Conversation + Podcasts

C. U. Douglas

@cudouglas

Small Screen Reviews: The Do-Over

The Tyranny of the Immediate

When Our Heroes Come to Blows

Small Screen Reviews: Daredevil Season 2

Small Screen Reviews: DC’s Legends of Tomorrow

Small Screen Reviews: Lucifer

Small Screen Reviews: Master of None

Small Screen Review: “Jessica Jones”

Small Screen Reviews: Minority Report

Small Screen Review: Supergirl

Principle and Process

An Officer’s Lament

The Knightly Ideal

Man vs. Bear — The Debate.

How Do You Rate?

C. U. Douglas

@cudouglas