text:
Tag Archives: Mr. Atheist
ethics, healthcare, law, modern problems, poor judgment
Medical freedom… or medical freedumb?
September 15, 2021 knottyabortion, arguments, Arran, Bob Enyart, COVID vaccines, COVID-19, disrespect, Duggar Family News, face masks, government overreach, Jimmy Snow, mask mandates, medical care decisions, medical freedom, Mr. Atheist, pro-choice, seatbelt laws, slippery slope, vaccine mandates, vaccines, Zane 4 Comments
Today I reposted a 2017 era article from my original Blogspot version of The Overeducated Housewife blog. That post was written in a time of blissful ignorance of what awaited the world just three years later. In 2017, I was inspired by reading about young people who were critically ill and forced to accept medical care decisions thrust upon them by older people. Most of the cases of the youngsters in that post suffered from cancers of some kind, but a couple of them had other medical problems.
In several cases, the young patients' parents were religious or wanted to try a more "natural" approach to healthcare. The parents were taken to task by medical professionals who wanted to override their decisions. In one case, the patient was a 17 year old young man who was deemed mature. He didn't like the chemotherapy that was prescribed to treat his Hodgkin's Disease, so he tried to refuse it. Doctors sought to force submission by legal means. In the end, the young man's case was the inspiration for "Abraham's Law" in Virginia, which allows older teenagers and their parents to refuse medical care or choose alternative therapies.
It amazes me now to read about these controversial cases involving young people, especially given that COVID-19 wasn't on the radar at the time. Nowadays, the term "medical freedom" is a hot topic, as people fight over whether or not vaccinations against the coronavirus should be mandatory for all who can safely take it. On one hand, there's a group of people who want to be able to make all medical and healthcare choices for themselves, although a lot of the people in the anti-vaccine group curiously draw the line at abortions for other people. On the other hand, there's a large group of people who fear the rapidly spreading COVID virus that has, so far, killed over 650,000 Americans and well over four million people worldwide. That group believes that people should be required to get vaccinated.
Although I am all for vaccination and I do believe that the vaccines are saving lives, there is a part of me that empathizes with those who don't want to be forced to take it. I don't think it's smart to skip the vaccines. Many of the arguments I've heard against the vaccines seem to be mostly based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. A lot of people worry that there will be terrible side effects to the vaccines. Or they know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy whose balls shriveled up and fell off after the first shot. Personally, I think those arguments are pretty lame. But I also genuinely don't like the idea of forcing people to do things. I wish those kinds of rules weren't necessary, and more people would cooperate simply because it's the right thing to do.
I've read many stories of people who took a "wait and see" approach to COVID-19 and are now dead. Some of the saddest stories involve people who had young children or newborn babies. I've read at least three tragic stories about parents who have left large broods orphaned because of COVID. I've also read a lot of sad stories about people who are sorry they didn't get vaccinated.
And I've also read about many conservative radio talk show hosts who have either gotten very sick from COVID or have actually died. There was a news story just this morning about a conservative talk show host named Bob Enyart, who had spread false information about COVID-19. He got sick and died. Enyart was vehemently against vaccine and mask mandates, and last year, he successfully sued the state of Colorado over mask mandates and capacity limits in churches. Enyart was all about making choices for his own health, but as a very vocal opponent of abortion, he apparently didn't mind making healthcare choices for other people.
Curiously enough, Enyart was a Christian pastor, and he once gleefully read the names and obituaries of people who had died of AIDS while he played "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen. What a charming man… huh? As Mr. Enyart was the 5th conservative radio talk show host to die of COVID in the past six weeks, perhaps the Queen song is appropriate theme for him and his ilk.
This morning, I ran across an interesting thread in the Duggar Family News Group. Someone, yet again, compared the COVID vaccine and mask mandates to seatbelt laws.
I disagree with this comparison. I also am old enough to remember when the seatbelt laws went into effect. At the time, I was pissed off about them. Don't be too hard on me, though. I was a teenager.
I have mentioned before that I don't think the COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates are the same as seatbelt laws. I mean, yes, I can see how people would make the comparison, but I don't think it's a very accurate one. When I was a child, I hated seatbelts and would only wear them if I was forced to… and generally that only happened when my dad was feeling controlling. In those days, a lot of people didn't wear seatbelts. They weren't as comfortable as they are today. Thankfully, as time has passed, the technology behind them has improved. I doubt we will ever be rid of the damned things. In any case, seatbelts are kind of different from masks and vaccines, as they don't involve being injected into someone's body, nor do they impact normal living and communicating as much as face masks do. You only wear them in the car. They don't interfere with speaking, hearing, seeing, eating, or breathing.
And before anyone tries to tell me that masks don't impede breathing, let me just stop you right there. I know they don't. But some people do find wearing them oppressive, and the anxiety that comes from that might impede breathing. There are some people who can't wear them for whatever reason… not too many, I will admit, but there are some. Likewise, some people can't wear seatbelts for whatever reason. A lot of times, the reason has to do with being very obese, but sometimes it's because of an injury or an occupation.
The point is, I don't think seatbelts will ever go away. However, many of us hope the masks will go away, if and when the pandemic ends. Personally, I don't see the pandemic ending happening unless a lot more people get vaccinated. But even though I think vaccines are an excellent idea and I would strongly encourage people to get the shot(s), I also feel uncomfortable with government mandates on things like medical care. Because, there are people who can't or shouldn't get vaccinations, for whatever reason. I also understand that some people are genuinely concerned about government overreach. Their concern isn't entirely unfounded, although some of the arguments I've read are pretty ridiculous.
One thing I don't think is helpful, though, is being rude and insulting to those who disagree. I don't like the dogpile approach to trying to change minds, either. The above photo was shared in the Duggar Family News group, and it did invite contention. One woman posted this:
I remember when this page was about snarking on fundamentalist Christian families on television rather than promoting the divide of human kind based on personal choices they make for what they put in their own bodies.
That comment led to this response…
Even though I understand the frustration behind this response, I don't think it was helpful.
The original poster was offended by the image. She expressed her dismay that a total stranger would wish death on her. Then, a big, long thread of comments ensued, with the vast majority of people name-calling, hurling insults, being sarcastic, and typing "all knowing" responses at the original poster. Her response, rather than being convinced, was to dig in her heels and respond in kind. Then, she either got booted from the group, or left on her own accord.
The last comment ends with the person telling the OP not to go to the hospital because she doesn't believe in science. I disagree with that attitude, too. If someone gets sick with COVID, I don't want them out on the street, infecting others. I'd rather see them getting treatment.
So… what exactly was accomplished by this contentious exchange? Not much, that I can see. I think a more respectful and friendly dialogue might have done more to foster group harmony. Maybe no one's mind would have changed, but at least there would be listening and constructive communication going on, rather than flaming and hair flip rage exits. No matter what, I don't think it's appropriate to wish death on people simply because they disagree with you. On the other hand, I do understand the sentiment and the frustration behind such responses. I will also admit to occasionally being a hypocrite when I get pushed too far. I'm human, after all. I do try not to start out with abuse and insults, though.
I have never liked "nannyism", especially in laws. However, I understand why "nanny" laws are often necessary. Many people, when left to their own devices, will not do things that are in their own or the public's best interests. I have always hated wearing seatbelts myself, but I do understand why they're necessary. I also have a husband who will turn into Pat Boone if I don't wear one. So I do comply with that rule.
Even though I fucking hate face masks, I comply with that rule, too. However, I hope someday it will no longer be necessary. And I had no issues whatsoever with getting vaccinated against COVID, because as a student of public health, I know the theories behind vaccines and have seen concrete evidence that most of them work. That doesn't mean I'm not open to learning new information, nor does it mean I'm not aware of potential risks from certain vaccines.
Below is advice given to people during the Spanish Flu pandemic. I agree with most of it, although I don't think it matters whether or not someone "obeys cheerfully", as long as they are compliant.
From 2018, when the Spanish Flu was killing people. They used masks then, and the masks eventually went away. I hope the same for COVID-19.
My late beagle, Zane, was a prime example of a dog who didn't do well with vaccines. He had mast cell cancer (immune system cancer) that eventually progressed to lymphoma. He was allergic to at least one vaccination, and would get tumors when he had others. I actually think some people over-vaccinate their pets, and some of the encouragement to vaccinate is due to the revenue vaccines generate. Dogs with mast cell tumors should not get any unnecessary vaccines. I'm a little concerned about Arran, because he is due for a rabies shot next month, and the rabies shots can stimulate mast cell tumors. Arran has also had mast cell tumors, though not to the same severity Zane had. Because of Zane, I have some sympathy for people who are against vaccines, even though I think their reasoning is wrong in most instances. We don't vaccinate people like we do pets, anyway. We certainly don't get as many shots as they do.
Although I do believe in vaccine efficacy, I am not one to run out and demand the latest and greatest shots, nor do I get every vaccine available. For instance, I've never in my life had a flu shot. I would get them if I spent more time around other people, though. COVID-19 is different, at least right now. There's hope that the virus will eventually weaken and become less dangerous, as flu mostly did. But at this point, it's not getting better. Many people are getting sick and dying, and from what I've read, COVID-19 is a pretty nasty way to go.
I do think sometimes we need laws to protect ourselves and each other from those who lack insight, perspective, and wisdom. On the other hand, I agree that people should be free to make choices, whenever possible. Either way, medical freedom doesn't do a damned bit of good to anyone who is dead. So I do hope that those who are against vaccines will wise up and get with the program. I understand wanting to wait and see how other people do with the shots, but time is running out… I have read too many sad stories about people who waited too long and got sick. There are too many stories about orphaned children, and bereaved spouses, siblings, and parents. And too many people are becoming downright mean and NASTY toward total strangers. I wish we'd all remember that when it comes down to it, we're in a community. And being in a healthy community requires compassion, responsibility, and solidarity.
That being said… sometimes people DO need protection from crazy beliefs. Case in point, an old Mr. Atheist video I came across yesterday. Religion and politics make people do stupid things, even to their children. So while I am mindful of the so-called slippery slope when it comes to government overreach, I also think some people need to be saved from "freedumb" ideas.
JWs are just one group that have beliefs that can harm others… especially their own followers.
videos, YouTube
Why I'll never willingly be a YouTube personality…
July 17, 2021 knottyInternet fame, Internet infamy, Jimmy Snow, Katie Joy, Mr. Atheist, Road Hog, SingSnap, videos, Without A Crystal Ball, YouTube 4 Comments
I have a YouTube channel, but I don't use it to make a name for myself. It started as a place for me to deposit raw videos from my travels. Now, I use it for travel or dog related videos I put in blog posts or when I feel like trying a song. Usually, when I record a song, I do it on SingSnap, since a lot of the ones I want to do are available there. It's easy to record a song on SingSnap, but there are some drawbacks. The sound quality isn't typically as good. I'm recording on the Internet, so that can affect syncing and background noise. SingSnap also got a new recorder, which I'm finding to be pretty wonky. However, in terms of ease and just trying stuff, SingSnap is good.
Sometimes, I make YouTube videos for music because I want to have something sharable. I've also found some interesting people on YouTube and, at least in the past, I could collaborate with some of them. I have no illusions of becoming a YouTube star, though. In fact, I don't really promote my channel, nor do I post a lot of content. I have 79 subscribers at this writing. I'm not unhappy about that. I am primarily a writer, not a YouTube personality.
There was a time several years ago when I thought I'd like to expand my "audience". I got a taste of what that can be like. I realized that when you put yourself out there, you can run into some real snakes. An encounter with a "real snake" is one reason why I moved my blog to WordPress. I don't like drama. I just like to articulate my thoughts, and I tend to be very honest about how I feel. Some people like it. Others don't.
Why is this subject coming up today? It's because I'm sitting here listening to Jimmy Snow, a popular YouTube personality who has been going through some major YouTube drama right now. Some people know him as "Mr. Atheist". I like his channel, although he has recently changed formats, which I don't like as much. But still, I find him clever and interesting, and sometimes he's pretty funny, too. Lately, Jimmy has gotten into some kind of disagreement with two women over someone's book of poetry that was poorly reviewed. Somehow, Jimmy got into the middle of this and it's turned into a huge drama. I'm not going to try to explain it, because I can't. But I've seen sooo many videos about this drama, and it's all culminated in the one I'm watching right now.
Jimmy Snow apologizes for the latest kerfuffle.
I don't really know what this is all about. I'm not sure exactly why a negative book review has turned into such a huge deal. I've seen several videos by other YouTube personalities who have commented on this. Some have said some bad things about Jimmy Snow. Maybe, for some people, it's personal. Maybe they're involved in the drama themselves. I suspect, however, that some folks are making these videos for views and money. It strikes me as kind of tasteless and needlessly dramatic. I listen to Jimmy talk about this– he's obviously upset and stressed out. It seems kind of pointless… and it reminds me that there's a downside to being popular.
One of the many people who made a video commenting on Jimmy Snow's drama.
For the record, I still like Jimmy. I even like his new format somewhat, although I preferred his Mr. Atheist stuff a bit more. When I listen to him speak in the above video, I hear someone who really is hurt and distressed by what's happened. He sounds sincere to me, although again, I don't know him personally. I just find his show entertaining and sometimes funny. I don't like to see people in distress… but listening to him talk about this situation makes me realize that I'm happier as an obscure blogger. I remember how I felt when it seemed like people were stalking and spying on me, trying to stir up shit. I definitely don't like it.
Jimmy Snow isn't the only one who's been getting dragged lately. Katie Joy Paulsen, of Without a Crystal Ball, also seems to have a lot of enemies. Katie Joy does a lot of videos about the Duggars, and she's pretty popular. I do watch her videos sometimes, having gotten hooked on them when Bill was TDY for weeks. I've seen many people posting about her, making allegations that she lies and threatens people.
Katie Joy has made videos addressing the critics. She says she's had CPS called on her, as well as multiple visits from the police over videos she makes. She's even said she's had dealings with the FBI due to death threats. Obviously, like Jimmy Snow, she makes money on these videos. But she's also been sued over her commentary. Believe me… I am not interested in that kind of notoriety myself. I don't know Katie Joy personally, so I'm not involved in her drama. But other people sure are.
No thanks… that kind of drama is more than I want to deal with.
This guy, Road Hog, has been posting all kinds of videos about Katie Joy. He calls her a liar and takes great pains to find falsehoods in what she says and does. It's creepy and weird. I don't know if what he says is true. He's not the only one I've seen criticizing Katie Joy. I wonder if part of it is an attempt to score viewers and cash from monetization, or if he's just on a quest to "uncover" a scandal. I just know that dealing with this kind of shit doesn't appeal to me at all.
Hmm… what's Road Hog's real problem with Katie Joy?
He's made a bunch of these videos. I'm beginning to think he's got a problem.
Why is this guy so invested in Katie Joy's channel? Has she accused HIM of something? Or is he just trying to cash in on drama and make money from views?
I notice that the more followers a person has, the more likely he or she is going to have to deal with strife. I write because it brings me pleasure. I find it liberating to put my thoughts down. I like sharing these thoughts with others, especially when they enjoy or even learn from my observations. But I am not interested in the kind of stress people like Jimmy Snow and Katie Joy are enduring, especially when it's clear that making YouTube videos is their job. Jimmy has said that he has an actual "staff" who depend on him for their livelihoods. So when people start turning on him, it doesn't just affect him.
My YouTube channel is pretty boring and non-controversial. In fact, last year I even stopped doing collaborations with a YouTuber because he reacted very negatively to a relatively innocuous comment I made on one of his videos. I decided I didn't need that kind of drama in my life, so I unsubscribed. He didn't seem to take that well, and he actually came to my channel and deleted every single comment he'd ever left on my videos within about eight years. That, to me, is pretty telling, and definitely weird. It's a sign that I was right to back away from him.
The other main reason why I don't try to make a name for myself on YouTube is that I don't like being on camera. I don't want to put on makeup, fix my hair, or wear a bra. I have an okay speaking voice, but I get very self-conscious on camera. The Zoom meeting I attended last week was enough video exposure for me. I don't even use the camera when I make SingSnap videos.
So I am content to write this stuff on my personal space, on a fairly under the radar blog. I let the people who want to find me, find me… and enjoy relative privacy. I don't know what I think about Jimmy or Katie Joy and whether or not these dramas are justified. I just watch their channels to kill time. There's a downside to popularity, and I'm too old and cranky to deal with it.
bad TV, complaints, politics
I fell down a rabbit hole yesterday…
October 14, 2020 knottybad TV, British television, Doctor Foster, dog training, face masks, Jimmy Snow, Kanye West, Mr. Atheist 2 Comments
After a short training session with Noizy the wonder dog, I decided I wanted to relax with a little TV. I pay for Netflix every month, but I don't watch it very often. I decided to see if there was anything on there I wanted to see. I think I did see a show about a month ago– it was British and kind of contrived, but entertaining in a pseudo American kind of way (however, I no longer remember the name of said show)…
I decided to try again with another show, called Doctor Foster (2015 and 2017). This show, which so far has had two series, is kind of loosely based on the Greek myth, Medea. It's about a female doctor named Gemma Foster who suspects that her husband, Simon, is having an affair. What aroused her suspicions? A blonde hair on his scarf. Next thing you know, Gemma is losing her shit.
A patient comes to her complaining of not being able to sleep. Gemma doesn't want to give her sleeping pills. But she soon realizes that she can trade the pills for a spy. She recruits the patient to spy on her husband. Sure enough, he's fucking someone else… his business partner's daughter, who is about 22 years old to Gemma's 37.
I guess I'm an old fart according to the people who wrote this show… and Bill is regularly fucking other people.
I should mention that Gemma (played by Suranne Jones) is smoking hot. She's tall, well-built, and dark, with brooding eyes and a willowy, fit figure. More than once, the men on the show mention how "hot" she is, "for her age"… Wow. But still, despite being a well-paid doctor who is smoking hot and the mother of Simon's son, Tom, Gemma isn't enough for her randy husband. Apparently, men are completely incapable of being faithful. Seriously, they literally say this in the show.
Anyway, Simon's lover, name of Kate, is pregnant. Guess who breaks the news to her? Gemma… who has somehow managed to finagle a doctor switch, quickly figuring out that the guilty blonde is the pretty girl sitting in the waiting room. She has Kate take off her trousers and top, remarks on how "fit" Kate is, and draws blood and urine.
Now… all of this is a bit contrived for my liking, but I have to admit, it's kind of addictive viewing. I like British TV because it's about as trashy as a lot of American TV; I can understand what is being said; and the humor is often witty. But this series, which won awards, is pretty far-fetched and ridiculous. I still binge watched the whole first season yesterday and have seen a couple of the episodes of season 2 today. It beats reading the news and the comments, which apparently I "kill" myself over, according to a regular reader.
The other alternative, besides playing Sims 4, practicing guitar, working on my latest jigsaw puzzle, or writing fiction, is trying to read my latest book. For some reason, I usually fall asleep when I read, even when the subject matter is interesting. I didn't used to do this. I think it's partly because I don't sleep through the night thanks to Bill's early wake ups and because Germany is entering the cold, dark time of year that makes me want to hibernate. The book I'm reading is about hellish doctors during the Nazi era. It's very interesting, well-written, and personal, since it comes from a woman who was a court reporter during the Nuremberg Trials. But I get through a few pages and drift off.
I am glad we have the new dog, though. He gives me a reason to go outside and work with him. He's making strides. A few days ago, he was absolutely terrified of the leash, to the point of submissive peeing on himself just by seeing it. Today, I put it on him and brushed him thoroughly. I could tell he enjoyed the brushing, even if he didn't like the leash. I think he likes the attention, and the brushing probably feels good to him. I'm sure it scratches the itches, so to speak. He needs to be brushed, though, because he's shedding a lot and we're not quite ready to try a bath.
I also got him to take some roast beef from my hand. This dog isn't very food oriented at all, but he has learned that beef and pork are tasty. He wouldn't take the treats on the leash, but happily enjoyed them after we were finished with our session. And he also sit twice on command, without my having to touch him. After two times, he was too overwhelmed to continue. But… this was another big leap. I put the leash on the outside table with the brush and shedding blade and I saw him sniff it. I hope that means he's realizing the leash isn't to punish him. Maybe soon, he will see the leash as a great thing, as Arran does. I look forward to taking them both on a walk.
And finally, this morning, I watched this video about Kanye West's ridiculous presidential campaign. The man has clearly lost his marbles and needs to get back on his meds.
Hard to believe, the election is so soon… any way it goes, it's going to be a weird aftermath.
The mask crusaders continue on, trying to shame people into wearing masks. I really think it was a mistake to promote the idea that masks only protect other people. Even if that's technically true, I think they should have been promoted more as a self-protective measure. I think people are more likely to cooperate if they think they're doing something that is in their own self-interest.
Americans, by and large, are pretty selfish people. We're big on individualism, personal freedoms, and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We don't want to be told what to do or lectured, even if mask wearing makes sense. I see so many people fighting with others about the stupid masks. Frankly, I think that's a waste of time. Getting on a moral high horse doesn't inspire cooperation, even if what you're saying is "right". Unfortunately, it's going to take people getting very sick and scared before everyone is on the bandwagon.
As for me, I continue to stay home most of the time. I'm sure I'm not alone. When you stay home and watch bad TV, you don't need a mask, nor do you hear a bunch of carping from other people. I'm sure that staying home isn't what is best for the economy, but it is what is best for one's health. Because even if you wear a mask, you can still get sick. Mask wearing just helps slow down the spread of the virus and keeps the hospitals from getting overwhelmed. On the other hand, I might wind up with other health problems from staying home.
This has definitely been a very ODD year. It's going to be one of those years that changes everything, kind of like 9/11 did. I hope 2021 isn't worse. I definitely relate to today's featured photo. According to Ancestry.com, I come by that relation honestly.
domestic violence, psychology, religion
"Grooming" your wife…
July 29, 2020 knottybloggers, Christians, domestic discipline, domestic violence, fundamentalist Christians, grooming, Jimmy Snow, Mr. Atheist, spanking, The Duggars, YouTube 2 Comments
A few days ago, a friend of mine shared a blog post with me. He shared it because he knows I am fascinated by fundies– particularly of the Christian type. The post, which I have now seen passed around on Facebook on Duggar Family News and now on YouTube, has a lot of people in a tizzy. Here's a video done by Jimmy Snow (aka Mr. Atheist) about this very blog post.
Jimmy Snow talks about a blog post entitled 7 Steps to Grooming Your Young Christian Wife.
Jimmy is clearly shocked by the contents of the blog post, which was written by a guy who thinks he ought to be treating his wife like a child. The article, as well as the comments, even includes references to spanking the wife for disciplinary transgressions. For example, the author of this piece includes an example of a man named "Robert" who is 24 years old. His wife is 18. He wants to be in charge of her, but she won't get with the program. He's asked the blogger for advice in getting his wife to accept her supposedly "Biblical" role as submissive to her husband's leadership.
What follows is a list of seven steps to indoctrinate young women into being "godly", submissive, disciplined wives. And he does specify that she must be young. Prerequisite #3 is exactly that. See below.
And why is this? I think I know…
As Jimmy points out in his video, people under age 25 tend to still be in "development". It's a fact that most human brains aren't fully developed until people hit their early 20s. A person's judgment is still forming when they are in their late teen years. They are physically mature, but mentally and emotionally, they're still a work in progress. Which isn't to say that a person can't be "progressing" emotionally and mentally beyond their early years. It's just that a lot more of it is going on during the time in which a person is maturing. The author of the "Biblical Gender Roles" blog correctly points out that a woman in her 30s or 40s is a lot less likely to accept that her husband must be in charge. I would add that even though young women might accept this condition of marriage, some of them will eventually reject it when they get older and are more mature.
So then, after listing three prerequisites, the blog author continues with his seven steps to "groom" a Christian wife. As he delves into this post, he even points out how creepy the word "grooming" is to many people, and he specifically calls out "secular humanists".
Many of us cringe when we hear the word "groom", when it's not pertaining to personal hygiene or cleaning up an animal.
But then the blogger goes on to explain why "grooming" is okay when it's your "Christian" wife. Then he goes on to write about why spanking wives is okay.
I probably have a controversial opinion about so-called "domestic discipline" in that I don't always consider it abuse. If the people involved are consenting adults and they have truly consented to living that lifestyle, knowing the potential risks that could befall them in surrendering their personal power to, or accepting total responsibility for, another person, then I don't figure that it's any of my business what they do at home. If they don't consider it abusive that their husband is head of the household, who am I to tell them they're wrong, even if I disagree?
What I find especially interesting is that so many people are quick to call spanking one's adult wife "domestic abuse", but they have no problems with spanking children. Even if a wife is being abused by her husband's spankings, she is always in a better position to seek help than a child is. And yet, many people don't have an issue with spanking children, and a lot of folks even think that if we spanked children as often as we did back in the day, there would be fewer social problems.
If you're a regular reader of my blog, you probably know that I am not a proponent of spanking children in most situations. I see it as a last ditch thing that should only be used when every other measure fails, and even then, it probably shouldn't be used. My father spanked me a lot when I was a child. It was pretty much the only method he used to discipline me, besides yelling at me (also not very effective, although often employed by frustrated parents). He's been dead for six years, and I'm still angry with him about some of the things he did in the name of teaching me wrong from right. In my case, the spankings were usually abusive. They were always terrifying because he was almost always enraged when they happened.
Although I don't remember being spanked once I got into true adolescence, I do remember that my dad was fine with hitting and slapping me until I was about 21 years old. The last time he did so, I told him that I would have him arrested if he ever laid a finger on me in anger again. It took considerable courage to tell him that, especially since I still relied on him at that point in my life. But it was a groundbreaking day for me. I decided on that day that anyone who hits me without my consent had better kill me. Children have no say over what an adult does to discipline them, and they are mostly unable to ask for help out of an abusive situation the way an adult can. Adults are usually bigger and stronger than children are. Women are also often smaller and weaker than men are, although there are certainly exceptions.
It always surprises me when I see people like Jimmy Snow flatly condemning domestic discipline as "abuse", but so many other people are perfectly fine with physically punishing children. If you do a little sleuthing on the Internet, you'll find that there's a large population of people out there who are a little bit kinky and they enjoy exchanging power with others. As long as it's safe, sane, and consensual, they don't see it as abusive, even if other people think it's "sick". Some of those people also align these practices with Christianity. Again… not my cup of tea, but the brain is a fascinating and powerful thing. Some people, like it or not, get off on it.
A person who is legally able to get married can consent to "domestic discipline". I may not agree with his or her decision to allow a spouse to discipline them with spankings or other punishments, but it's not my place to tell them they can't or shouldn't. Ultimately, it is their decision. What's sad about these fundie Christian marriages, though, is that a lot of the people who are in them don't know another way. They have not been exposed to life beyond the religion they were born into, and a lot of them have not been taught critical thinking skills– hence the blogger's comment that "grooming" a wife to be a disciplined Christian helpmeet is not going to work unless she's young, and from a very sheltered upbringing. If she's been exposed to another way, she probably won't accept it.
In any case– I'm not sure that what the author of the Biblical Gender Roles blog is proposing is really the same thing as two consenting adults entering into a "domestic discipline" relationship. It sounds to me like his advice to "Robert" and his ilk is to "manipulate" their young wives. That practice, probably IS abusive, because it's done in a deceptive, underhanded way. The very fact that the women have to be "young" and therefore naive and tractable, is kind of sick and creepy. These men simply want to marry children who have reached legal adulthood and will do what they say without question. That's abusive.
In a weird way, because they have been on TV, I think the Duggar women might have escaped worse fates than they would have otherwise. If they kept being raised in an isolated community, with no exposure to "normal" people and worldly ideas, the daughters, especially, might have wound up being stuck in marriages in which they are treated like children and expected to obey their husbands without question. I think that being exposed to the world because they've been on TV has made them a little less subjugated than they could have been.
Look at some of the choices the Duggar daughters have made since they've been married. Jill Dillard wears pants and has a nose piercing, and she's been photographed wearing what most women would consider modest swimwear but, for her, is probably scandalous. Jinger Vuolo moved to Los Angeles, where she wears pants and has had her hair cut. She's only had one child so far, although she's pregnant with her second. Her husband doesn't take orders from JimBob Duggar, nor does Jill's husband, Derick. Jessa Seewald is still close to home, but she obviously has a strong personality and is not being controlled by her husband, Ben, who has a milder personality than she does. I don't know about Joy Anna Forsyth's situation, but her husband makes his own money flipping houses, rather than working for Boob. Had they not been on TV, God knows who they would have married, and what they'd be expected to tolerate. And it would all be behind closed doors! Since they're famous and a lot of "normal" people are watching, there's somewhat less secrecy and weird shit that would go unnoticed or called out. On the other hand, Michelle Duggar had a somewhat normal upbringing and she willingly submitted herself and her children, especially her daughters, to what many might consider an oppressive lifestyle.
Anyway… like a lot of people, I was kind of grossed out by the Biblical Gender Roles blog and its tips on "grooming" a Christian wife. It's definitely not something I would be interested in, and I'm grateful that I was raised by people who would not want that for me, either. But, I must admit that it makes for interesting speculation and a temporary diversion from all of the other doom and gloom headlines that are currently circulating. And now that I've written today's tome, I think I'll take Arran for a walk and get some fresh air… then practice my guitar.
"Re-education" is creepy…
January 12, 2020 knottyhomeschooling, Lori Alexander, Mormonism, Mr. Atheist, re-education, re-education camps, sheltered kids, the transformed wife, YouTube 2 Comments
Recently, I became a fan of Mr. Atheist's YouTube channel. Mr. Atheist, aka Jimmy Snow, puts out high quality videos about religious wingnuts. He's done quite a few about Lori Alexander, aka "The Transformed Wife". I have written a few posts about her myself, although I think most of them are on the original blog. Lori Alexander, for those who don't know, is a woman who writes blog posts and makes videos about the role of Christian women. For example, she thinks women should stay home and raise children instead of working outside of the home. As I write this, I'm listening to one Jimmy Snow did about Lori Alexander several months ago.
I wouldn't know… I don't pay much attention to Twitter, and if I did, I would pay any attention to Lori's…
I think Mr. Atheist is bright and entertaining. Sometimes, he's even funny. As an ex Mormon, Mr. Atheist is especially qualified to opine about ex Mormon bloggers and YouTubers. I happened to catch one he did about a YouTube content creator calling herself MonsonSchoolhouse. This is a very blonde Mormon lady with several children who makes videos about homeschooling. I haven't watched much of the original incarnations of her videos, mainly because it's not a topic that interests me on a personal level. I don't have children, and if I did, I probably wouldn't homeschool them. I'm also not LDS and definitely never would be.
But, because Mr. Atheist was raised LDS, he knows all about it. And he watched MonsonSchoolhouse's video and provided the following commentary on it.
Damn… she is so blonde…
I did watch the above video, and in it, I noticed that MonsonSchoolhouse says that she no longer has to "re-educate" her children when they come home from school. She says that because they are closed off from influences that might cause them to stray from her LDS principles, they are better off. I couldn't help but think of another use of the term "re-education". Before I listened to MonsonSchoolhouse talking about the wonders of homeschooling her children and controlling her children's indoctrination, the only other time I heard about "re-education" was regarding harsh camps where disobedient people were sent to be taught the "right" way to think and behave. Right now, they exist in China, where Muslims are being sent to have their "thoughts transformed".
I have heard about them in other places, such as Vietnam and North Korea. They're not nice places to be. They tend to be prisons, where unlucky inmates are "persuaded" to change their views or else. I wonder if MonsonSchoolhouse knows anything about that as she talks about "re-educating" her kids after they've been in school.
I know a lot of parents believe their children are "theirs" to do with whatever they want. They feel it's their responsibility to "train 'em up" right. Some parents, particularly those involved in strict religions, actually kind of run their families like a mini cult. I don't know if that's how this mom runs her family… but I do think that using words like "re-education" kind of make me conjure up visions of people being forced to think a certain way… or face dire consequences.
I'm really glad my parents gave me the freedom to do a lot of what I wanted when I was growing up. I could read whatever I wanted, study any subjects that interested me, watch the movies and TV shows I wanted, and basically learn whatever I could before I became an adult. Although I was forced to go to church when I was growing up, I'm glad they chose a fairly liberal, mainstream church that valued educated leaders and embraced science. Whenever I hear the stories of children raised in strict religious belief systems and the "catching up" a lot of them have to do once they become adults, I'm glad I wasn't in that kind of family system. I won't say I'm not fucked up on any level because I think most people are to some extent. But I definitely could have been a lot more fucked up than I am… I look at how my husband's daughters were raised and what they're having to overcome, and I realize how lucky I was.
I don't think shielding children from the world is the best way to teach them or help them grow up. Eventually, they will have to function in the real world. Being able to recite vast passages from the Book of Mormon is not likely to help those kids pay their bills… unless, of course, they manage to find a job working for the church. And, in my opinion, preventing those kids from associating with people who aren't like them is also not the best way to prepare them for the world. Eventually, they will run into people from different places with different ideas and different appearances. Instead of being able to consider those differences and draw their own conclusions, they're liable to hear their mother's voice saying that different ways are "not correct".
Personally, I think homeschooling can be a bad idea, anyway. I won't say it's always a bad idea. I know some people who invest the time and effort into doing it right. In fact, Bill and I know a couple who homeschooled all seven of their children and they're all pretty brilliant. But I also know that Bill's ex wife supposedly "homeschooled" Bill's daughters, mainly as a means of controlling them and preventing others from influencing them. And though both have managed to get into college and one has even graduated, they missed out on a lot. They have succeeded in spite of Ex's efforts, rather than because of them.
I noticed on Mr. Atheist's video about the Mormon homeschooling mom, a German commenter was flabbergasted, since homeschooling is pretty much forbidden here. Frankly, I kind of agreed with what the commenter said– that most people really shouldn't be trying to teach their children alone. It's kind of like a doctor treating his or her own family. But then… I can't say that all homeschooling is disastrous, because I know it's not. It works well in some families. I think the ones that are most successful are the ones who don't do it for religious reasons.


Let us begin with the first picture of day four in Ireland: Us in the car, ready to drive to the Cliffs of Moher in Co. Clare. It was our farthest drive yet with the car on the other side of the road, and I thought it was worthy of a snap: When we arrived, we stopped in one of the tourist shops and bought a small slab of chocolate to tide us over as we planned to spend all day walking. The tourist shops are cleverly built into the side of the hill, and it brought to my mind the dugout that Laura Ingalls lived in on the banks of Plum Creek. I wanted to buy an Irish scarf there, but Alex reminded me that the prices were usually higher in these places, and that it would probably be best to wait. I had banked on getting one here as a memento of our walk on the Cliffs and thus left the scarf I had packed in our room, but I knew he was right. So I prepared myself to face the elements scarf-less. Please cue heroic music… The walk has been described as a beautifully bracing and healthy cliff walk, and it is. There is an abundance of wildlife, sea creatures (that you can sometimes see from afar), and of course, breathtaking views of both the cliffs themselves which have been carved over time by the weather and the ocean into beautiful formations. The weather plays a huge factor in how much you can see, and perhaps, how far you can or are willing to walk. When we arrived, there was a fine –though steady– mist of rain, occasional winds, and a very grey overcast. The mist certainly aided in the overall atmosphere of haunting beauty. While most areas had fenced in paths, there were some places where you had to be very careful walking through. The weather certainly didn't help for that, as there were huge, mucky pools of mud. I kept worrying about slipping and falling over, and just as Alex was reassuring me that all would be well, some fool intent on getting his 'jumping shot' almost slipped off the muddy edge. Thank goodness he didn't, but I hope he and his friends got some sense jolted into them. Here's a picture showing a very long stretch with no railings: A beautiful spot where I would have liked to sit and have a picnic, had the weather been finer: We were (visually, at least) close to the end of the cliffs, but by this time, we had worked up very healthy appetites; I believe I clung to him at one point and dramatically announced that I was ravenous. So we turned around and doubled back, sank wearily into our seats and drove to Burren Smokehouse which was a few minutes away. How better to end a day spent by the Atlantic Ocean than having smoked salmon for one's evening meal? Burren Smokehouse is known for sourcing exclusively Irish, quality raw materials to produce smoked salmon and other types of fish in their award-winning artisan smokehouse. After looking around at their products and the place, we were torn between staying and having bite at their little eatery where you could order things like the smoked fish, sandwiches, etc., or having a proper sit-down and pub-like ambiance. The latter won out, so we walked to The Roadside Tavern which was only a few metres away. I truly (as in, not like the bag of macarons) did not take pictures of the tavern because I was too hungry to think of it, but it was a very tiny, quaint red building that has been serving since 1893.
We ordered Ballygowan sparkling water with lemon slices, and for the meal, the Cold Smoked Salmon which was described on the menu as: Burren Smoked Irish Organic Cold Smoked Salmon, red onion jam, mixed leaves, mini capers and mayonnaise on white homemade soda bread.
As Canadians, we're used to having access to some pretty amazing selections of smoked salmon, but oh my word. What we had here was ever so good. If it hadn't been for the soda bread filling us up, we would have been sorely tempted to order another plateful of 'just the salmon, please and thank you!' Afterwards, we decided to order dessert and was told apple pie was available. When it came, it was with a cake-like encasement, instead of the typical crust. This shocked me –I wondered if all apple pies in Ireland were as such. It wasn't quite what we wanted, but it was still warm and delicious.
🙂 It really was. We made it to the start of the fourth formation; would like to go back in future and complete the entire walk!
Hi May! 🙂 So nice of you to leave such a sweet comment. Yes, it was slightly sunny before we started our walk, but then the clouds and mist and all took over. I wish you were there! Maybe next time, we can take a trip together!


text:
C-track combats CO2 emissions
Despite the failure of delegates from 192 nations to formulate a global emissions control policy to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen summit held in December 2009 did highlight the need for urgent steps to be taken internationally to intensify control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2).
With the European Union (EU) and Japan leading the fight to prevent rapid climate change, China and the USA – the world's leading producers of greenhouse gas emissions – have been slow to embrace the notion of a universal emissions standard. Post-Copenhagen, it is therefore obvious that much needs to be done to plot a clear course in this regard.
While electricity power stations, oil refineries and heavy industry remain the primary culprits in releasing CO2 into the earth's atmosphere, global road transport contributes an estimated 14.6% of total GHG emissions by way of vehicle exhaust fumes. "This is a significant percentage, but one that can be easily reduced simply by driving more efficiently," says Mark Rousseau, managing director of international vehicle telematics company, DigiCore Fleet Management and C-track South Africa.
"Vehicle manufacturers in the EU and Japan are busy developing 'green' passenger and commercial vehicles designed to run on a host of alternative fuels, from ethanol to electricity and hydrogen. While this is all well and good for those who can afford such luxuries, the reality is that action needs to be taken now on a mass scale."
Driven by moral and business imperatives to help conserve our environment, DigiCore recently released a CO2 emissions reporting tool designed to work in conjunction with its vehicle fleet management system, C-track.
"Astoundingly, South Africa is the world's 13th highest emitter of CO2 with a relatively high per capita CO2 emissions rating of 8.59 metric tons. If South Africa is to remain competitive in the global economy, it will have to begin implementing stringent emission reduction strategies," Rousseau continues.
"C-track's new CO2 Emissions Report is a first for South African fleet owners and has already proved a great success in truck and bus fleets in Europe," says Rousseau. "Fleet operators looking to gain early-mover advantage on the 'green' front now have the perfect tool not only to proactively reduce their CO2 emissions, but also to generate reports quantifying their carbon footprint. This will assist them in gaining valuable contracts while receiving tax breaks from South African Revenue Services (SARS)."
"A vehicle group is created for each category of vehicle, including the make and model. Fuel consumption and emissions values, as stipulated by each vehicle manufacturer, are then entered into the C-track database. We then enter a CO2 grams-per-litre value, a CO2 grams-per-kilometre distance value and a corresponding CO2 grams-per-hour value. If we receive fuel consumption figures through the CANbus or through a fuel flow meter, the value according to grams-per-litre is displayed. If we do not receive a fuel consumption reading, we generate a grams-per-kilometre report. For equipment that logs hours rather than distance, we use the grams-per-hour value," DigiCore's technical director, Deon du Rand, explains.
The new C-track CO2 Report also boasts a 'green' dashboard, which graphically represents CO2 emissions as well as fleet CO2 emissions trends.
"With this vital information integrated with C-track's existing fleet management reporting on fuel consumption, speeding, over-revving, excessive idling and route deviations, fleet operators can quickly identify where CO2 is being unduly emitted and implement corrective measures. Through ongoing driver training and optimised route scheduling using C-track, fleet owners can 'go green' by saving fuel, thereby making a positive contribution towards slowing climate change. It's beyond debate: the future of good business is 'going green'," Rousseau concludes.
Focus on Transport	May 1, 2010
Prev	Kick-off to better public transport
Next	Industry icons honoured

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As unemployment claims from Americans were down to 364,000 last week, consumer confidence is on the rise.
There is something encouraging about the economy Thursday. The number of Americans filing for unemployment dropped to 364,000 last week -- the fewest since April of 2008 -- and consumer confidence is on the rise. CBS News correspondent Anthony Mason has been looking into all this.
The mood at the mall is brightening.
"I guess I'm more in the Christmas spirit this year," said shopper Vanessa Hartman.
This past Saturday, shoppers spent $26 billion -- a record for the last full Saturday before Christmas.
"I'm spending more on others and more on myself," said consumer Bobby Duffield. Shoppers like him are confirming what surveys show: that consumers are feeling better about the economy.
"This year people seem more confident about the future," said Duffield.
Employers are more confident too. Steve Tiffen, whose Long Island company makes filters for camera lenses, said: "I feel the U.S. economy is getting better."
"But are you hiring?" Mason asked him.
"We have taken an approach to increase our temporary staff," he said.
Tiffin has added 20 temporary workers this year -- a 10 percent increase. But he wants the situation in Europe and Washington to stabilize.
"Then we'll start putting more permanent people on," said Tiffin.
Weekly first-time unemployment claims have been falling steadily for the last month and are now well below 400,000.
"It looks like we're past the threat of another recession?" Mason asked economist Ellen Zentner, who predicts the economy will grow 2.3 percent next year.
"In terms of bringing down the unemployment rate, is that enough?"
"The economy really needs to get well beyond a 2.5 percent growth rate -- closer to 3, 3.5 percent in order to bring the unemployment rate down meaningfully," she said. "It's not really growth you can excited about, but it's better."
Better, but not good enough. That's why Zentner expects the unemployment rate will remain around 8.5 percent through next year.


Even before the opening credits, the action of Episode 6 picks up right where it left off in Episode 5. What is at stake here for Uhtred? First, he has to survive the desperate, lopsided battle he's fighting. Second, he has to re-capture Skade in order to break the curse she's placed on him. With Edward's help, he manages to live. But Haesten escapes with Skade, so the curse remains, and it leads to unrest among Uhtred's followers. Finan tries to act the peacemaker between Uhtred and Sihtric, but he fails. Sihtric's departure raises the possibility of more conflict to come.
Uhtred's brief meeting with Alfred after the battle at Benfleet (no bees, by the way) is once again a wonderful portrayal of the man who is this king—his obsession with the idea of an ENGLAND, his determination to rule by law, his painstaking preparations for what must happen after his death, and his pitilessness toward those he perceives as enemies. He lived in a brutal time, in a brutal world, when a God-fearing Christian king saw it as his duty to bring heathens to heel or to destruction. He tells Uhtred that he was tempted to delay giving the order that would prevent the slaughter of Uhtred and his men because "I would have seen victory without you, and it would have been all you deserved." Harsh.
Yet Alfred is still trying to bind Uhtred to Edward because he knows that Edward will need him.
Haesten arrives at the Danish camp with Skade in tow and the news that Alfred lives. Æthelwold, duped by the devious, double-crossing Cnut, is ordered to Wessex to beg forgiveness from Alfred for his treachery and while he's at it to murder Uhtred, thank you very much.
Magnus Bruun as Cnut. Uhtred calls him a weasel. He's much worse than that.
Æhelwold realizes he's been stupid to trust the Danes, but he has a plan. We do not know what it is, but his plans have not worked out very well in the past so it's hard to believe he'll do any better this time.
Meanwhile in Wessex, some of what Uhtred has said to Alfred has gotten through to the king. He gives Edward full credit for his actions at Benfleet—but with Alfred, nothing comes without strings. Plans for Edward's marriage are in place, and Edward, mollified by his father's approval, accedes to them.
Much of this episode is spent with Uhtred and Brida as they mourn Ragnar. Information shared between them leads to some thawing on Brida's part, but not quite forgiveness.
Uhtred and Brida (Emily Cox): an uneasy peace.
Both options unappealing, I'm thinking.
THE BURNING LAND ends with the battle at Benfleet, and things play out rather differently in the book than they do in this show. I suppose there are purists who want THE LAST KINGDOM to be exactly like the novels, but I'm not one of them. As long as the characters have the same motives, personalities and attitudes, I am happy to see the story line go in a direction that is somewhat different from the novels. As Episode 6 wraps up we are moving into the pages of DEATH OF KINGS, and from the title alone you must know what's going to happen. I'm already in mourning.
It's an interesting exercise to try to imagine how long it took for news to go from place to place in the early medieval period. For example, how long did it take for word of the death of a king to travel the length of England in the 9th century? Days, perhaps weeks. And when word of such a significant event spread, was it in fact true? In Episode 5 of THE LAST KINGDOM 3 the Danes learn that Alfred is dead, except that we've just seen him preparing for war. Someone is in for a surprise.
But the arrival of news of Alfred's death is immediately followed by the discovery of Ragnar's murder – a departure from the plot line of THE BURNING LAND. Emily Cox is wonderful as Brida, conveying grief, anger, fury, despair and suspicion all at once. Cnut has promised Æthelwold that he will protect him, but if Brida ever learns that he murdered Ragnar, the dweeb doesn't stand a chance and Cnut doesn't seem like the type who would expend much energy protecting a sniveling Saxon. The viking army stays together, though, despite Ragnar's death. Meantime Haesten is down in Benfleet trying to impress Skade and getting nowhere. They trade boasts, threats, and promises, and although Haesten is a brute Skade has no trouble keeping him off balance and wary of her. It's hard for us to know if she wants Haesten to kill Uhtred or the other way round. It seems what she really wants is the winner, and she doesn't much care who it is.
Æthelflaed, though, knows who she wants, and it's not her husband.
Uhtred is only unwilling to take what she is offering because he believes that Skade has power, that Skade will know if they become lovers, and that she will destroy anyone he cares for if he doesn't find a way to prevent her; and when Brida arrives with news of Ragnar's death Uhtred is even more convinced that Skade's malevolent power is responsible. Which means he has to go after her. But he needs men if he's going to attack Haesten at Benfleet. So at Æthelflaed's urging they go to Alfred – or rather, into a mare's nest.
Æthelred is there, and he'd just as soon see Uhtred and company dead; and Alfred, who is drawing on all his strength just to stand upright is unwaveringly hostile. He refuses Uhtred's request to mount an attack on Haesten.
And now we have another significant change from the novel, but it still works beautifully. Instead of Æthelflaed riding with Uhtred to defend Mercia by attacking Benfleet and Alfred later sending Edward with an army as in the novel, it is Edward who goes to Uhtred and promises him that he will have the men he needs. It is Edward who tells the king that he is not yet ready to defend Wessex against a massive Danish army. He needs more time. So Uhtred goes to Benfleet with a small company, although he has no way of knowing if Edward and a large army will follow as promised.
At this point we are given a couple of terrific images that foreshadow the future. The first is that moment when Æthelflaed and Edward stand together, watching as Alfred's troops cheer their king.
Anyone who knows the history knows that brother and sister will rid Wessex and Mercia of the Danish threat, that they will finish what their father has begun.
And then there is that moment when Alfred painfully reaches for his sword and raises it to the shouts of his warriors. It's a moving image that is a nod to the statue of the king that stands on Winchester's High Street today.
This entire series—its story, its haunting landscapes and dark, brooding interiors–seems to echo the stark, sad beauty of the poetry of the Anglo-Saxons.
So Uhtred leads his small band to Benfleet. There's some trash talking between Haesten and Uhtred, and anyone who has read the novel is asking, "Will there be bees???" And then we forget about the bees because Haesten attacks and Alfred, hidden with his army among the trees, watches in grim silence as Uhtred and his men are surrounded and the slaughter begins. Edward is protesting, and Alfred is unmoving until, at last, we perceive what Alfred is doing, except he seems to be taking things too far, and then—the credits roll.
On to Episode 6. And who knows? There may still be bees!
In Episode 4 scriptwriter Stephen Buchard takes all the elements of the plot of THE BURNING LAND and mixes them up to tell essentially the same story but in a way that will hold quite a few surprises for those who have read the novel. And that's all to the good! We like surprises.
This episode is rife with conflicts and shifting alliances. Uhtred's face-off against Bloodhair is the first and most visible conflict, but before long the Danish leaders are plotting against each other in secret just as Uhtred said they would. Cnut, who has just been itching to make trouble of some kind, allies with lickspittle Æthelwold—an unlikely pairing.
It leads to a savage and cruel act that certainly took me by surprise, especially considering the dweeb responsible for it. Listen close and you'll hear the Norns singing. And given how events play out by the end of the episode, we are sure to see the leaders of the Danish army exacting vengeance on each other before long.
On the Saxon side, Æthelred bows to Alfred's command to join him in defending the south against the Danes, but hopes that Alfred will stop malingering and die already. Uhtred arrives in southern Mercia and has his hands full, not just with Danish enemies but with 3 women—4 if you count the abbess of Winchcombe who wants no truck with pagan Danes. "I don't like you," she snarls at Uhtred, looking just like everybody's worst nun nightmare. That's just before the convent at Winchcombe becomes Battle Abbey.
There's some nice parallelism in the portrayal of Uhtred's interaction with Æthelflaed and then Skade, and I was glad to see how that played out. But poor Uhtred has been cursed again, and even worse, he's had to make a promise to Skade that, from where I'm sitting, sounds like a fate worse than death. With any luck he won't have to keep it, but he hasn't been terribly lucky of late and that curse is just hanging over his head like a naked sword.
The ætheling Edward does his best to rebel against his father, but he's outgunned. Dad pulls out the old "Do you think I wanted to be king when I was your age?" argument (we've all heard that one, right?) and Edward wilts. Matters of the heart are not important in royal Wessex; only duty. And in the blink of an eye, the old adage 'Like father, like son" is played out before our very eyes.
Edward's soon-to-be father-in-law Æthelhelm shows up, and because even Beocca thinks he's a prick we know he absolutely must be. But as if to offset the contemptuous, full-of-himself Æthelhelm, that rapscallion Welshman Fr. Pyrlig returns to Winchester, too. Hurrah!
Now, let's talk about the Danish camp. It's pretty darned luxurious. Way too luxurious to be believable. There is some grumbling among the warlords that the army is travelling too slowly, and it must be because of all the stuff they're dragging along with them. Tents, beds, tables, ale flagons…honestly, the vikings were really good at quickly raising fortified camps, but I don't think their camps were this lavish. Ragnar's tent looks practically like a big top. And did you notice the candle lanterns on the table?
Pretty stylish for vikings—they look like they're made of glass and metal, although in the 9th century they would have been made of horn and wood. They were an invention of…wait for it…Alfred the Great. Yeah, probably the Danish army didn't have candle lanterns on their tables. Or even tables. But the tents make a nice backdrop for the skullduggery going on in the camp that night. We have to wait until Episode 5, though, to see what comes of it.
Episode 3 begins at Dunholm, where Uhtred has been reunited with Ragnar and Brida. Along with Uhtred's companions is an old friend from Season 1, who is a wonderful stand-in for Uhtred's conscience, pricking him about who he is and what he is, and arguing on the side of Alfred and the Saxons.
Perhaps the most surprising reveal in this episode is the discovery that Æthelred's right hand man, Aldhelm, is actually a Mercian who loves Mercia, and who has realized that Æthelred is not the king Aldhelm had hoped he would be. Aldhelm is given the best line in this episode when Æthelred guts the messenger who brings him some bad news.
Alfred is busy with a scribe who is writing down the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I love it when the show refers to an actual historical item. Yes, Alfred was the one who commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles as they have come to be known, giving us a contemporary account of what was happening in England at that time. He had several copies made and sent to various monastic centers, and some of them kept updating the chronicle through the following decades. We have six different versions of it, in different lengths. One version continues into the 12th century.
The picture shown here is not, alas, copied from one of the Chronicles but from a 10th century manuscript describing the duties of kingship. Today it lives in the British Library.
There is a wonderful scene at Dunholm with Ragnar playing ringmaster at games pitting the Saxons against the Danes. Hilarity ensues until Hæsten, Bloodhair and Æthelwold show up to urge war against an ailing Alfred and the atmosphere gets immediately tense. As if Uhtred didn't have enough trouble from the shade haunting him, his conscience is goaded, unwittingly, by Æthelwold and Ragnar. "We are both traitors, but for a good cause," Æthelwold tells him. Later Ragnar tells him that they can form a great army and take Wessex, and "you have made it possible by abandoning Alfred." Poor Uhtred is miserable, and nobody else looks particularly happy at this gathering, either.
Meantime Skade has been trying to get inside Uhtred's head with promises of kingship. I like Stephen Buchard's move to have Uhtred kiss Skade merely for the purpose of spiting Bloodhair. I think I know where this is going, but I'm not saying and I could be wrong.
Down in Winchester poor Alfred is struggling against the disease that is killing him, and there is a tender scene with Ælswith that I found moving.
He is also troubled by his wayward son who has gone and wed some girl without permission. Just an fyi: the girl has twins, a son and a daughter. And that son, Athelstan, will grow up to be one of the greatest kings of England ever. But not in this season, or even next. Meantime, we have Episode 4 to watch.
In this second episode of THE LAST KINGDOM 3, screen writer Stephen Butchard veers significantly from the plot line of the book, choosing to focus on the major conflict that Uhtred faces: is he a Saxon or a Dane? And Butchard emphasizes as well the increasing tension between Uhtred and King Alfred as the king tries to ensure that his dream of an Englaland will be realized after his death by forcing Uhtred to give his oath to young Edward.
It's a good decision by Butchard to go that route, but has he gone a little too far with the Alfred/Uhtred conflict? In one extremely taut scene Uhtred physically abuses the king—something that the Uhtred of the novels never does.
It's difficult for me to see how Butchard is going to give Uhtred a way back to Alfred after that, and I'm very curious to see how he does it. Or if he does it. We cannot really tell what Alfred is thinking and feeling at the end of that scene, seated on his throne, his eyes misting with tears and his face stricken. Is he thinking he has failed England? His son? Or is he regretting pushing Uhtred so hard? Stay tuned!
Meantime, the new plot line that follows an injured Uhtred north is terrific. His inner conflict about his betrayal of the king is portrayed wonderfully in a way that will make fans of the show sit up and screech with excitement. Well, I did, anyway. And once Uhtred reaches Durham, it was another brilliant stroke to flash back to the first season, and the moment that Uhtred first met Brida (Emily Cox). Ragnar's (Tobias Santalmann) jubilation at having Uhtred back—as a Dane, not a Saxon—is in stark contrast to Finan's misgivings about what Uhtred intends regarding Wessex, and it all stokes Uhtred's continuing inner conflict.
I like the way the show has taken a single line in the novel about Skade and Brida, and really run with it. "…the two women had recognized their similarity and had immediately bridled with hostility." They are hostile, all right. Not only that, Brida out-sorceresses the sorceress, beautifully setting up plot developments we're going to see further along. Well, maybe much further along.
We have not yet been given any hint of Skade's back story which is laid out in the novel: she has a wealthy husband in Frisia who wants her back. Will our story line go there, as Uhtred does in the novel? Maybe. Maybe not. I think the husband might be ignored in order to give Cnut (Magnus Bruun) and Bloodhair (Ola Rapace) bigger roles to play, but we'll have to wait and see.
There are a lot of plot lines to follow. Æthelwold was at the bottom of getting Uhtred out of Wessex; he's conniving with Æthelred against Æthelflaed, and with Bloodhair and Hæsten against the king. He's always been a weasel's turd, but up until now his efforts at skullduggery have been unsuccessful. Maybe this will be his season!
Hild and Finan get some of the best lines in this episode; Aelswith is annoying, as ever (that eye roll!). Poor Beocca has to once again choose between the young man and the king, both of whom he loves; and boy, does he let Uhtred have it at one point. Fine acting by the entire cast.
Do you ever wonder about the fact that all these characters look so young? The actors' diets are probably much better than anyone could have had in the 9th century, for one thing. But they are young—or at least, I think so. Tobias Santalmann who plays Ragnar is 38; Alexander Dreymon (Uhtred) is 35; Henry McEntire (Æthelwold) is 28. I haven't been able to find the age of the actor who plays the Ætheling Edward, but in 998 the real Edward would have been in his early 20's. It was a young man's world back then. Alfred the Great's brothers probably all died in their 20's. And in 1066, William the Conqueror was only 38 when he won that battle at Hastings.
Now, let's see which characters survive the next episode.
The full ten episodes – yes, 10!! – of the third season of THE LAST KINGDOM are streaming now on Netflix. The season will cover book 5, THE BURNING LAND and book 6, DEATH OF KINGS of Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Tales series. Historically, it covers events that took place in England in the final decade of the 9th century.
This first episode begins with a sorceress's vision of a battle and concludes with the battle itself. And now I'm afraid I have to plead a bit of disappointment at the casting of the actress who plays the sorceress Skade (whose prophecies, by the way, may or may not be true). In the novels Skade has a regal beauty. She is tall and lithe, with hair the color of Odin's ravens. She is unquestionably evil and cruel and creepy. Theo Sofie Loch Næs, who plays Skade in the series, while she does a terrific job in the role and seethes with gruesome, nasty cruelty, simply cannot change the fact that she is a winsome blonde.
Time has skipped forward a bit. Alfred's son Edward (Timothy Innes) is now a young man and joins the royal family. Many familiar and favorite faces are back, though. Ælswith (Eliza Butterworth) is still tight-lipped and disapproving of all things Uhtred. Æthelflaed (Millie Brady) has a baby daughter now and her husband Æthelred (Toby Regbo) the pathetic coward knows it's not his. Alfred's nephew Æthelwold (Henry McEntire) is as smarmy and smart mouthed as ever, and Steapa (Adrian Bouchet) is still Alfred's giant supporter and Uhtred's friend. Gisela (Peri Baumeister) is pregnant again and teasing Uhtred about it, with Hild (Eva Birthistle) and Thyra (Julia Bache-wig) attending her. Uhtred's retainers Finan (Mark Rowley), Sihtric (Arnas Fedaravicius), and Osferth (Ewan Mitchell) bring a bit of comic relief, thank goodness. I loved the bit that series writer Stephen Butchard added about the meaning of the word 'smite'.
King Alfred (the remarkable David Dawson) seems to have aged the most of all the characters, and he cannot control his trembling when his illness gets the better of him. He knows that his days must be numbered. His moments of self-doubt and concern for what will happen to his kingdom when he is gone are wonderfully moving.
Constant war was rough on kings, but Alfred managed to rule an embattled Wessex for 29 years.
In fact, I found this episode more visually violent than in earlier seasons. There is more gore, so be prepared. Some of that has to do with portraying Skade's horribly cruel acts in order to reinforce just how terrible she is, not to mention slightly mad.
The plot varies from the book somewhat in the details, but in the main it is true to Cornwell's novel. As the hour ended, the action had covered a little more than one third of THE BURNING LAND. If you are like me, you will want to immediately move on to Episode 2.
Cnut the Great, England's Viking king, died on Wednesday, 12 November, 1035. Cnut's birth date was not recorded, but it was likely some time in the 990's, so he was probably in his early to mid-forties when he died at Shaftesbury Abbey, a foundation favored by the king.
Shaftesbury was the burial place of a previous, Anglo-Saxon king of England, Edward the Martyr, and it is tempting to think that Cnut might have been at the abbey because he was ill and he wanted to pray for the intercession of the sainted king (who by all accounts was no saint, but that's another story.) Shaftesbury was an abbey of nuns, so it's also possible that he was there to be tended by the sisters in hopes of recovering from whatever was ailing him. According to Cnut's biographer Timothy Bolton, Cnut would have been surrounded by members of his court and his huscarles. I imagine that his queen, Emma, was with him as well. We cannot be certain of any of that, but kings of that period rarely went anywhere alone.
Although he was a viking, Cnut was a Christian. His mother, a Polish princess, would certainly have insisted that her children be baptized; Cnut's baptismal name was Lambert. During his reign as England's king he made a pilgrimage to Rome where he not only took part in the coronation ceremony of the Holy Roman Emperor but made visits to every sanctuary he could find in the city. It would have kept him busy, to be sure, but he also spent a good deal of his time there negotiating diplomatic and trade agreements for the benefit of the English.
Queen Emma & King Cnut. New Minster Liber Vitae, 1031. British Library, Stowe 944, fol.6.
Cnut was buried in the minster at Winchester, although his remains are currently undergoing examination along with those of Queen Emma and several other royals whose bones are all mixed together in the same mortuary chest.
The examiners at the University of Bristol hope to identify and separate the remains, and determine the physical characteristics of each through DNA testing. When the findings are complete, we may know a great deal more about the appearance, and perhaps even the cause of death, of England's Viking king.
And all the nobility of the English nation was there undone!
On the 18th day of October in the year 1016 a great battle was fought between the forces of the English king Edmund Ironside and the Danish prince Cnut, younger son of Swein Forkbeard. According to the 12th century chronicler William of Malmesbury, Cnut had sailed to England in 1015 at the head of a massive fleet with the intention of either capturing the English throne or dying in the attempt.
Over the course of the next year the two war leaders met in battle four times, with Cnut unable to secure either the decisive victory he so desired or the death that Edmund Ironside would so willingly have granted him. Not until that fateful day in October would the rivalry for the English throne be decided on a down in Essex called Assandun.
Today, the site of that battle is claimed by both Ashingdon in southeast Essex and Ashdon, about 50 miles farther north. In a paper published in 1993, archaeologist Warwick Rodwell carefully considered both sites, but hesitated to definitively state that one or the other was Assandun. Nevertheless, Rodwell's careful review of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC) account and its tactical implications, along with his boots-on-the-ground research convinced me that the northern site, at Ashdon, is where the battle was fought.
So, how did that happen? The earliest account, the ASC, puts the blame for Edmund's defeat squarely on the shoulders of the villainous Eadric Streona, who "first began the flight and so betrayed his natural lord". Eadric had allied with Cnut in 1015 but had deserted him for Edmund when the Danes appeared to be on the losing side in the weeks before this battle. In using the term betrayed, the ASC seems to imply something more sinister than mere cowardice.
The encomiast claimed that the battle lasted all day—a very long time for a battle in this period—and that although the English had more men, they lost more men, too, than the Danes. It seemed to the English that the Danes were not so much fighting as raging (berserkers?), and that the Danes were determined to die before they would withdraw. When night fell, the English, weary and disheartened, retreated and Cnut was left master of the slaughter field.
It seems clear that whether Eadric Streona fled before the battle began or retreated in the midst of the fray, he betrayed his king and directly impacted the outcome of the battle. Cnut's collusion with him is somewhat less certain; made even more so by the fact that within a year he executed Eadric 'most justly' for his betrayals.
Edmund, apparently not yet willing to concede defeat, fled across England with the remnant of his army to Gloucester, with Cnut on his heels. There, the treacherous Eadric, who had a foot in both camps, brokered a settlement between them that divided England, with Edmund keeping the southern shires of Wessex and Cnut taking Mercia and the north, including the mercantile powerhouse that was London.
At this point, according to the Encomium, God stepped in: within a month Edmund was dead, likely from wounds or from an illness he suffered in the aftermath of Assandun. Soon after, Cnut was proclaimed king of England.
The Battle of Assandun, which put a Dane upon the English throne, is not as well known as that other battle that was fought exactly fifty years later at Hastings and resulted in a Norman takeover. There is no Tapestry that depicts the battle of 1016. But in Denmark, in the King's Corridor of Frederiksborg Castle, both events are commemorated, for both Cnut and William came from Danish stock. On one wall is a hand-painted photographic copy of the Bayeux Tapestry. Facing it is a series of 19th century paintings documenting the 11th century Danish conquest of England, with several depictions of Cnut's great victory at the Battle of Assandun prominent among them.
Where has the horse gone? Where is the rider? Where is the giver of gold?
Where are the seats of the feast? Where are the joys of the hall?
O the bright cup! O the brave warrior!
Most fans of J.R.R.Tolkien know that he was not just the author of one of the greatest works of fantasy ever written, but that he was a professor of English at Oxford and, for many years, the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon. He was, essentially, steeped in the language, history and poetry of Anglo-Saxon England.
So it is no surprise that even the title of the trilogy that brought him fame, The Lord of the Rings, is a reference to Anglo-Saxon kings who were warriors, lords, and ring-givers.
The name of that place is Edoras, from, I can only guess, the Old English word edor, which means 'a place enclosed by a hedge', just as Legolas describes it. Indeed, the very concept of a great hall comes from the cultures of the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse. And of course there are words like shire (OE:scire—precinct), orc (god of the infernal regions), ent (giant), Mordor (OE: morþor—great wickedness), Deagol (secret), or Isengard (Iron fortress).
Many scholars, in particular Nancy Marie Brown in her recent book Song of the Vikings have written about the Norse/Icelandic elements in Tolkien's novels; but it seems to me that Rohan is more Anglo-Saxon than Norse – although, admittedly, both societies sprang from common Germanic roots. The name Eowyn, for example, is strikingly similar to the Old English theowen, meaning hand-maiden. And because I cannot read about Eowyn's exploits in The Lord of the Rings without thinking about Æthelflæd, 10th century Anglo-Saxon warrior queen and Lady of the Mercians, I have to wonder if Tolkien had Æthelflæd in mind when he imagined Eowyn.
The 12th century historian John of Worcester describes King Æthelred as "…elegant in his manners, handsome in visage, glorious in appearance." But by the beginning of the 11th century Æthelred is elderly, like Theoden, and has been long upon the throne. His kingdom is being ravaged by vikings as Theoden's is under attack by orcs. As Theoden huddles in his great hall, unwilling to face the turmoil in his land or lead men to battle, so Æthelred earned a reputation as indecisive, cowardly, and indolent. And like Theoden, he placed his trust in a singularly bad advisor.
Tolkien gives Theoden a counselor named Grima (OE: mask) whose nickname is Wormtongue (OE: wyrm-tunge). A wyrm is a serpent or even a dragon, and Grima is a master at twisting words to persuade Theoden to do his bidding. He is a liar and false counselor who is unmasked by Gandalf.
Æthelred, too, has a false counselor, one Eadric, whom he trusted more than anyone else and whose nickname is Streona (the acquisitor). 12th century historians suggest that Eadric was able to gain advancement by his persuasive speech, and he acquired a reputation for deceit, treachery and murder. It is only when Æthelred is driven out of England to exile in Normandy and presumably no longer under the spell of Eadric that, like Theoden, he finds his courage again and returns to England to lead his armies against his enemies.
He was referring specifically to theories connecting the wars in Middle Earth to World Wars I and II; but I think his comment can apply to anything that an author experiences – books read, languages learned, emotions experienced. Everything goes into the mind and one never knows what will re-appear, whether intentionally or not, in a manuscript.
My own historical novels, while based on my study of the reign of Æthelred, are very much a product of my own imagination and experience, but I am certain that they owe something as well to my dog-eared copy of The Lord of the Rings.
The charming town of Bayeux near the coast of Normandy is perhaps best known for its remarkable Tapestry, a very long length of embroidered linen that portrays events surrounding the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
A few years ago I wrote about the Tapestry and its history on this blog, (you can review that here, if you like), but I had not yet visited Bayeux myself. I had been to Normandy – to Rouen, Fecamp, the Abbeys of Jumieges and Wandrille, to Caen and even the island and abbey of Mont Saint-Michele, but I had missed Bayeux in my several trips to Normandy over the years. Last month, though, I spent a few days there, absorbing the Tapestry and its story with some help from the audio tour that, interestingly, tells the story from the French point of view. Which, as you may guess, differs in certain crucial details, from the English version of what happened.
But today's post is not about the Tapestry. No, it is about what I discovered unexpectedly as I wandered about the city of Bayeux: a direct link between Bayeux and Emma of Normandy, queen of England.
But long before that, in about 960, Richard I—Emma's father and the first Duke of Normandy—built a castle on what is now Place Charles de Gaulle. Bayeux Castle was still standing until the latter part of the 18th century, and it's entirely possible that way back in the late 10th century, Emma may have visited the castle with her family. Like all royals of that time, Richard's court was peripatetic. It moved from estate to estate, or fortification to fortification, dispensing ducal justice and living off of local food rents. And hunting. And feasting. And probably sorting whatever problems had come up since the duke's last visit.
Bayeux Castle had a fortified gate to the west that allowed direct access from outside the city. It had another gate to the east, that overlooked the city and was equipped with a drawbridge over the defensive moat that surrounded it. It had a lodge for the castle commander, a chapel, barracks for the garrison, and a manor house. It looks pretty impressive in the drawing below, but my guess is that the first fortification, built by Richard, was much, much simpler. Moat, drawbridge, manor and all those towers you can see were likely added centuries later. Still, it was a ducal estate, and Emma might well have spent time there as a child.
So. Who, exactly, was Poppa and why did she land on that fountain honoring the Norman dukes?
Rollo in VIKINGS; played by actor Clive Standen. Photo: The History Channel.
And if Rollo actually looked like that, the beautiful Poppa may have been smitten because Dudo goes on to report that Poppa became Rollo's concubine. It's just as likely that Poppa had no say in the matter whatever, and Rollo would later set Poppa aside to marry Gisela, the daughter of King Charles the Simple. Marriage in the 10th century was all about political alliances, not personal preference. Gisela, though, was childless, and she fell into disgrace for insulting her husband and for entertaining Frankish men on the sly. Apparently she preferred Franks to vikings, or maybe Rollo hadn't put Poppa as far aside as Dudo would have us believe. Because when Gisela died, Rollo took up with Poppa again, and it was Poppa who was the mother of Rollo's heir William Longsword, who was in turn the father of Richard I, who was in turn the father of Emma. So that makes Emma the great-granddaughter of Rollo and Poppa.
Note: The tv show VIKINGS would have you believe that Gisela was the mum of Rollo's children. Not so. It was the beautiful Poppa, Berenger's daughter–at least, according to Dudo. And he was there.
Bordering the park and within sight of the fountain is the Hotel Particulier Poppa. Hotel particulier is the French name for luxurious city mansions. This one was built in the 19th century and now it is an actual hotel—something I did not realize until after I left Bayeux. It seems that I might just have to return there one day—to visit the Tapestry again and to stay in the lovely hotel named after Emma's great-grandmother.


text:
Reverend's Reviews: Oh. My. God.
Lent is underway and it has brought no less than God Almighty to the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles for an understandably limited engagement. To be more precise, God has adopted the body of Will & Grace star Sean Hayes temporarily to present ten new commandments via humorist David Javerbaum's An Act of God. The play is having its west coast premiere now through March 13th following a hugely successful run last year in New York, where God assumed the personage of The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons.
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who receives a rebuke here from the big guy, and other conservative (especially anti-gay) Christians are likely to be the only potential audience members who would be offended by this generally good natured romp. The only brief but genuinely uncomfortable moment opening night — which was, appropriately enough, Ash Wednesday — occurred when God professed his admiration of the classic musical Cabaret and took issue with Jews and others who question why God allowed the Holocaust to happen. "No Holocaust, no Cabaret," Hayes deadpanned to both gasps and stunned silence.
Javerbaum (who won an impressive 13 Emmys as head writer on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) lobs grenades at expected targets such as right-wing politicians, biblical fundamentalists and Hollywood celebs, the latter of whom God/Hayes referred to as "my true chosen people" and were dutifully in abundance among the opening night audience. What surprised and impressed me though is how genuinely respectful An Act of God is toward legitimate (i.e. open minded) theological study as well as the towering scriptural duo of Abraham and Jesus. Hayes brings an unexpected sincerity and gravitas to God's genuine admiration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, in obedience to God's test of faith. Likewise, Javerbaum and Hayes treat Jesus seriously in his desire to sacrifice himself on behalf of humankind, a notion that Jesus' father as depicted here didn't take kindly to initially.
Most of God's new ten commandments are humorous upon their revelation Jeopardy-style on a giant overhead tablet, but they end up making more than a little serious sense. Who can contest "Though shalt not kill others in my name" in our jihad-riddled world, or "Thou shalt not tell others whom to fornicate"? (Yes, God as played by the openly gay Hayes is decidedly pro-LGBT.) The most controversial of God's new commandments may be "Thou shalt not have a personal relationship with me," especially as he confesses he doesn't really like human beings with the exception of the aforementioned Abraham. Before he returns to Heaven, however, God can't help but lovingly profess humankind to be his greatest creation and affirm our ability to guide our own destiny.
Hayes is naturally delightful in the role, even if some of his initial schtick referencing Jack from Will & Grace is predictable and kind of dated. He hit his stride about 15 minutes in once he settled into the character of God, omnipotence, omniscience and all. David Josefsberg as the archangel Michael, humanity's defender, and James Gleason as the archangel Gabriel are the only other characters in what is essentially a 90-minute monologue. The best thing about Tony Award winner Joe Mantello's direction is that it lets Hayes do his thing. Most impressive is Scott Pask's scenic design, an apparent mashup of gleaming heavenly architecture and Hayes' own living room, frequently augmented by spectacular lighting and video effects. If you're in LA or San Francisco, where An Act of God will be moving next, don't miss this divine theatrical opportunity.
For Catholics and many other Christians, Lent is our annual, deadly-serious time to strive to atone for our sins. Most do so by "giving up" some kind of vice, at least temporarily, or sacrificing an everyday indulgence such as candy, coffee or alcohol. The woefully misguided priests featured in the new movie The Club (opening today at Landmark's Nuart Theatre in LA), on the other hand, have committed severe crimes for which they are offering seemingly endless penance.
Fathers Vidal, Ortega, Silva and Ramirez live together in a house of prayer on a secluded hill overlooking the Chilean coast. They are not allowed to be apart from one another for long periods or to venture into town unaccompanied except in the early morning or evening when the streets are largely deserted. The quartet is supervised by kindly but no-nonsense Sister Monica.
Their seemingly peaceful idyll is interrupted one day by a new arrival, Fr. Matias, who ends up killing himself once a former victim discovers him there. The Vatican subsequently sends a psychologist/spiritual director by the name of Fr. Garcia to assess the priests' mental condition as well as their moral development since being removed from ministry for a variety of offenses. Suffice to say things don't go quite the way Fr. Garcia or the Vatican intended.
The Club, directed and co-written by Pablo Larrain (who previously helmed 2012's acclaimed No), was one of this year's Golden Globe nominees for Best Foreign Language Film and won the 2015 Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize at the Berlin Film Festival. It is a potent, topical movie, well acted and beautifully shot by Sergio Armstrong, that also makes a great companion piece to current Academy Award nominee Spotlight, about Boston's history of clerical sexual abuse. But The Club is even more uncomfortable to watch as its religious characters increasingly prove themselves unable to be liberated from a vicious circle of deception and, therefore, beyond redemption. God help them and the real-life ministers like them.
An Act of God: B+
The Club: B-
Labels: From Screen to Stage, Latest in Theaters, Reverend's Reviews


text:
Beto O'Rourke Uses Leftover Campaign Funds to Open Zumiez Franchise
By David Tyler
AUSTIN, Texas — Former Democratic Presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke announced in a press conference today that he'll use the remainder of his campaign funds to…
I Couldn't Get Harmony Korine for an Interview, so I Asked the 32 Year Old Cashier at Zumiez to Huff Glue and Talk About Movies
By Brandon Kratkoczki
Harmony Korine is one of the most interesting directors of his generation. His films are bizarre, uncomfortable trips into unexpected places. I thought it'd be…


Web pharmacies are an incredibly attractive solution, especially in case you're after some extra secrecy or if you need to cut your costs. Have you ever took into consideration implied ramifications? Have you took into consideration that you might end with a serious case of side-effects? Let's focus on a few matters that you need to understand prior to ordering medicine online.
Most importantly, you have to realize that, yeah, you will get a cheaper deal, and occasionally they are too good to be true. Doesn't it look suspicious to you? Every shop out there is striving to make a huge revenue to stay up, then why are they offering their drugs for such a low price? There're a lot of possibilities: they're forged, they are outdated, inadequate, obsolete or straight-up made from the cheapest additives under the sun. Indeed, there's still a chance that these pills are valid. Are you ready to bank your well-being on it, however? You need to find a way to make sure of your safety and safeness when ordering medication over the internet.
That is the reason why you really should use medicine-rx.com. It's the most suitable service that gives you an opportunity to read a trustworthy onlinepharmaciescanada.com review and learn the truth behind a website's standing. Every detail is analyzed: its region, user reviews, percentage of fraudulent user reviews, precise amount of suspicious orders, its life span and the list goes on and on. We came up with the perfect way to ensure the drugs you buy are not going to create severe damage. Your physical health is is vital and you can not gamble on it over a too-good-to-be-true cut or a iffy flash sale. Be reasonable and assure your safety with our aid.
Pharmacy description: Online Pharmacies Canada is a fully certified canadian pharmacy that offers discount on prescriptions to american citizens.
There has been a ton of talk currently about unsafe web drugstores. They attract customers by suggesting cheap health care products and drugs. Sometimes you don't actually need a recipe, ain't that amazing?
You can not sugarcoat it: these sites are sure-fire shams. You either never get a thing you paid for or you'll receive a thing that is below par. Let us explain: even though these sites are made to look like legitimate wholesalers, they don't think or care about your physical health. The medications they're selling are fraudulent. Some will not help to relieve your pain and will not heal your illness and some of them are not produced under decontaminated conditions. Do not even try to imagine the conditions they have in their "caches". If a medicine was perfectly stored before, it is doomed to get tarnished when getting repackaged. There are so many red flags: no phone numbers, no mail addresses, a a large variety of "be-all end-all" snake oil medicine.
The main thing is that now those double-dealers got intelligent. You can not really tell if an internet-based pharma is just a ruse by looking at it. Unfortunately, those defrauders learn from their mistakes, now there's a way to make sure you stay free from harm during your purchasing experience.
Our site offers you a unpaid thorough onlinepharmaciescanada.com review. We want to confirm that you make secure online acquisitions. You can use our methods to check to see whether the online pharmacy is trusted or not, you also can verify the legitimacy of any and all medication they're selling.
Easy site, I am not the most PC avvy guy out there and even I had no issues with their purchasing system.


text:
Panorpa concolor är en näbbsländeart som beskrevs av Peter Esben-Petersen 1915.

Panorpa concolor ingår i släktet Panorpa och familjen skorpionsländor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Externa länkar

Skorpionsländor
concolor

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia