Today I watched the 1962 Movie Sodom & Gomorrah staring Stewart Granger, Pier Angeli and Stanley Baker and noticed something that was rather amazing to me.
The movie is pretty good, a great battle scene a few excellent subplots and as you might guess a big finish. As as you might guess there are some liberties taken, the famous exchange between Abraham and God becomes an exchange between the imprisoned Lot and the two angels. Instead of only Lot and his daughters hundreds of Hebrews escape with him. This type of thing is not much of a surprise but there is one big thing missing.
There is plenty of licentiousness, torture, fornication and even a hint of lesbianism, but not a hint of the one thing that Sodom is known for: Sodomy.
Now in fairness this movie was made in 1962 and I would not expect a biblical epic of the time to do a whole lot with the subject, but just as the lesbianism was implied in the form of the queen and her “favorites” you might have thought at a movie about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would at least give the slightest him of what was going on in there.
And of course the movie ended with Lot’s wife (a 2nd wife who was once of Sodom) turned to salt for looking back and no hint that the next event in the bible was his two daughters getting him dead drunk and sleeping with him because there was in their mind no prospect of any other men around. Of course with hundreds of men escaping that whole rationale is out the window.
Now in an age when the Bible was itself still well known perhaps it wasn’t considered necessary to bother with this stuff, it was only a movie and people understood that liberties might be taken.
But if it was me, if I was going to make a movie like there would be at least some hint as to the sin that destroyed Sodom
Given the history of the next 60 years I think such a warning might have been worthwhile.
If you’ve never heard of a SCIF before this past week, you probably don’t work in government. SCIFs are Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities. If you want to read or work on a document that is classified Top Secret, you work in a SCIF. As you can see from a released set of specifications, SCIFs are fairly intensively constructed. Floors and ceilings are solid, wires are in buried conduits checked by the NSA’s TEMPEST program, and access is tightly controlled.
It’s not surprising that when Republican lawmakers go into the SCIF with cell phones, it causes alarm. And it should. Photography equipment isn’t allowed, nor is anything that can conduct two-way communication. Already you have people calling for removal of clearances. But is that appropriate?
In short, no. Congressional Representatives and Senators get access to classified information based on their position. While they are required to take an oath of secrecy, they don’t have to go through the SF86 process. By electing them to their office, the people of the United States (whether they realize it or not) have declared their comfort with that individual having access to classified access.
While some very sensitive information is only released to certain individuals, its pretty small. A Congressman visited a site I worked at before and had access to everything. Now, his staff members did not, and I had to keep them out of certain briefings, but the Congressman himself was good.
In short though, you can’t take away access, unless you kick them out of office.
However, there should be consequences for violating rules. All the Armed Services have harsh and effective ways of dealing with this. Cell phones brought into a SCIF are normally sent to NCIS to be scanned. With people having most of their lives on a phone, losing it for a week while NCIS painstakingly goes through every image and file tends to be good persuasion. The Marines in Iraq, in response to people plugging their personal devices into classified computers, simply confiscated the devices and nailed them to a wooden board outside the SCIF. After walking by a board with iPhones and tablets nailed and screwed to the wall, you get the message quickly.
Confiscate and scan some phones, and put a policy in place that repeat offenders lose their devices. After a few of those, you won’t have idiots bringing phones into a SCIF.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. The author kindly reminds you to keep your damn phone out of the SCIF!
When you work a repetitive job that doesn’t require a lot of mind, you have time to pray your rosary and occasionally have ideas for post pop into your head, you also get weird and silly things running through your head like this:
This scene from Blazing Saddles was in my mind lately:
It’s not a well known but a “do da day” is 21.779 hours long that’s why it’s much easier to do things “all the do da day”. I think it would be a lot of fun to put a bunch of college snowflakes in an auditorium and watch them go doing their best to hold back laughing while pretending to be “triggered”. Of course a few true believers would in fact be outraged.
Such people should be laughed at.
In the Big Bang Theory, Howard is supposedly a lapsed jew and Bernadette is supposedly a good Catholic Girl, does that mean their children were baptized? Was their wedding blessed or “Jewish” & “Catholic” just a word to be thrown out for a joke?
For some reason this scene from the Classic Bond Movie “The Man With the Golden Gun” came into my mind this week
That’s Clifton Webb as Louisianan Sheriff JW Pepper who Bond (Roger Moore) met in the previous movie “Live and Let Die” He might be there for comic relief but if you think about it this guy is actually pretty brave.
He suddenly finds himself, while on vacation, in a high speed car chase with a man he knows is a secret agent (what he’s doing shopping for cars half a world away is another question) and how does he react?
Does he insist on being let out, does he call for help. Nope, he goes all in. It’s true that he doesn’t know that the man he is now helping to chase can kill him with one shot and I suspect he wouldn’t have cared if he did. As far as he’s concerned the cold war is on, Bond is on our side and he’s ready to lay it all out there.
For some reason Siskel & Ebert has been coming up in my Youtube suggestions and I dug up an old review of theirs of Monty Python and the Life of Brian:
I watched them for a lot of years and preferred the old “Sneak Previews” vs the syndicated “At the Movies” and this is the only time I remember both of them laughing out loud at a scene in a movie.
Finally I know this doesn’t go here but if you, unlike me, subscribe to the idea that Tom Brady is leaving NE look for a team that has two things
a great receiving corps
An impenetrable offensive line
Brady has all the money he will ever need and if anyone thinks he is leaving New England for any time that doesn’t provide a group of people who can catch the ball along with a group of people who are going to keep him from getting killed, you’re out of your mind.
Me I think he stays in NE after winning the Superbowl this year to try to get a ring for every single finger. I suspect eight will be enough.
During the last presidential debate Senator Elizabeth Warren talked about her plan to punish those who are the most success in this country. Of course she did not use the word punish, preferring to use one of the usual progressive platitudes. I’m sure you can guess which one in a microsecond. Warren is not the only democratic presidential candidate pushing a wealth confiscation scheme, at least two others are.
This type of wealth confiscation has been tried in several
states and a great many countries with the same disastrous results. The Mises Institute article The
Problem with Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth-Tax Plan discusses Senator Warren’s
plan in great detail.
The central argument of Warren’s the wealth-tax proposal is this: through a progressive wealth tax system — which means those with more wealth will pay higher tax rates — the wealthiest people in America will pay their “fair share” and that fair share will enable the equal redistribution of wealth.
As you can see from the first component of her proposal, this is not just a tax increases of 2 percent on income, this is a tax on assets and wealth. Components two and three prove that this is just the beginning,
The proposed 2 percent tax on the wealthy will only fund a
tiny fraction of those new programs and there is no mention of the flagship
progressive pipe dream, Medicare for All.
A massive amount of federal bureaucracy and regulation will be needed to
ensure corporations pay their fair share.
This is discussed in the next quote.
The first consequence will be the significant expansion of federal authority over the economy. Even if, in theory, the Warren wealth-tax plan targets only the super wealthy at first, this does not mean that the middle-class is exempted from a potential rise in income tax. For Elizabeth Warren to fund all the programs that she wants to implement, taxing the billionaires — even at a very high level — won’t be enough. The middle-class will eventually be forced to contribute to the funding of these programs, which means that the plan, instead of alleviating the wealth gap, will reduce the purchasing power of the middle-class. This means that ordinary citizens will have a hard time saving for their retirement or to invest in business ventures. Moreover, the plan gives the federal government more extensive power and authority over the allocation of resources and the economy as a whole.
How bad will results of the plan be? Check out the next quote.
As a result, federal agencies will have far greater control over how resources will be allocated and invested throughout the broader economy. Yet, experience suggests government allocates resources inadequately and inefficiently, while distorting markets, and leading to bubbles and malinvestments.
The second consequence will be a great decrease in productivity for the economy overall. Indeed, those who already own large amounts of assets often own those assets because they have managed to put them to good use expanding the economy and increasing employment. The wealth tax, meanwhile, is built on the premise that government agents can convert that wealth into cash payments, and that the government knows better how to distribute it.
Mass exoduses of those who produce always occur when these wealth redistribution schemes are implemented which result in a large scale decrease in wealth and standard of living. This will happen here because:
The Warren wealth tax plan may confiscate the material wealth of wealthy persons and families. But those same people can take their know-how and move elsewhere. The impact on American productivity would not be positive.
At first the negative consequences of Senator Warren’s plan may only affect the wealthy. This won’t last long. Very quickly the negative effects will spread down to the middle class. This conclusion was reached by the author of the Mises article.
Senator Warren’s wealth tax plan, despite the well-intended programs that it will generate; will end up as merely a tool to increase the power of Washington policymakers. Over time, taxes will creep down the income scale as the income tax did, eventually hiking the tax burden for the middle class, while also cutting productivity which will drive down wages and wealth for everyone.
Very rapidly the negative consequences of the Warren wealth confiscation plan will ripple through the economy, eventually turning into a tidal wave of destruction. This has happened wherever this type of plan has been implemented.
Elijah Cummings death is causing a little slowdown in the schedule for impeachment but not for the reason you might think.
Yeah they’re going to go though the whole honoring him routine which is normal for a powerful congressman who served as long as he did, but if you really want to understand what this is taking as long as it is you have to remember the story I told you about Fishbait Miller the former doorman of the house as related in the autobiography of Tip O’Neil: Man of the House (a great book btw) and how it played during Obamacare
Tip told the story of a congressman who had promised legendary speaker of the house Sam Rayburn a vote because of a favor to a key constituent, but was getting killed at home over the highly unpopular issue. Once tip established that the man had given Rayburn his word he said his only option was to ask Rayburn’s permission to vote against it.
“…you gave me your word and I expect you to keep it. However I can certainly appreciate your situation, so here’s what I’ll do for you. On the day of the vote I want to see you in the front row. Keep your eye on the doorkeeper. If I don’t need your vote, Fishbait Miller will give you the sign and you’ll be free to vote your district.”… …when Leo took his seat in the front row, he looked around and saw thirteen other guys that Sam had in his pocket in case he needed them. It wasn’t just Leo. The entire front row was sitting there and waiting for the nod from Fishbait Miller.” This is the real question that we don’t know the answer to. Does Nancy Pelosi have the votes and is just deciding who sits in the front row or is she scrambling for votes? And if the media knows what the truth is will they tell us?
It turned out that for Obamacare thanks to the phony Stupak ammendment Nancy did have the votes.
Nancy Pelosi knows that Impeachment is the kiss of death for all those so called “moderates” in Trump districts who still think it’s worth pretending back to the voters at home that they are not the gun grabbing, church hating radicals who think Abortion and gay marriage are sacraments. So just as she did with Obamacare if she decides to take the plunge the idea is to get just enough votes to get impeachment over the finish line and allow every Democrat she can to vote “No”.
Elijah Cummings death means that there is one less vote for impeachment which means that there is one less Democrat that she has to force to jump off that impeachment bridge, incidentally why she is so anxious for GOP votes, it’s not just about the phony appearance of “bipartisanship” every single one she can nail is one Democrat in a swing state that doesn’t have to jump.
You can bet real money that there are a bunch of freshman democrats who want that safe Democrat seat filled ASAP. Their re-election hopes are tied to it.
Of course as you might remember that didn’t save Democrats the last time and I suspect won’t do so again.
…to the question: “Are you more Catholic than the Pope?” as I’m not big into Pagan idols in my church.
That so many people are shocked SHOCKED at the tossing of the idols in the Tiber is beyond me. I’m shocked that it took so long to happen.
Now in fairness it’s likely I would not have done this myself, choosing instead to do a holy hour of reparation or something, but that’s me.
That so many in the church are defending the idols is less amazing as there have always been plenty of folks who want their own version of the faith substituted for, the faith.
I think these two tweets sum it up nicely
The great Catholic missionary, Saint Boniface, chopped down a “sacred” oak tree idol that indigenous peoples worshipped and was a hero of the Faith for doing so. Not hate, but LOVE for truth and for indigenous peoples. https://t.co/UqVjvuhMXIpic.twitter.com/VQTUoZJzOV
One expresses the authentic faith of the church, one does not.
You the faithful get to make your choice, for the sake of your soul may you choose wisely.
Closing thought: All that being said this is in fact theft and destruction of private property and if the people involved are prosecuted it’s entirely proper and when brought before the judge they should answer as in Acts 5:29 and take the civil punishment as the apostles did.
Years ago. I made up the term “Coconut Treatment, ” but it never caught on; something I chalk up to my sometimes twisted way of applying metaphors to real-world things. Most of the time, I’m able to walk others along in exploration of my mental picture, but not always.
However, the term applies perfectly – at least to me – to what has been perpetrated upon California. To wit:
Take a coconut, slice it in half, scoop out the meat from both halves and toss the meat—the substance–into the garbage disposal. Then take a pile of dog manure that Fido deposited into your yard, fill both halves of the coconut shells with it and glue the halves back together. What do you have now?
Good and sweet things driven out, bad and smelly things in.
When I was a kid, a television show called Supermarket Sweep featured teams of middle Americans bolting through grocery store aisles and filling their carts with food, household products, and pet supplies. The show’s premise was that, for two minutes, the rule of law—in this case, the law against shoplifting—would be suspended. The team with the largest haul could take home their bounty of groceries, win prizes, and compete for the championship.
Today, in some West Coast cities, the Supermarket Sweep isn’t a game show—it’s a dark reality, fueled by addiction, crime, and bad public policy. From Seattle to Los Angeles, a “shoplifting boom” is hitting major retailers, which deal with thousands of thefts, drug overdoses, and assaults each year. Since 2010, thefts increased by 22 percent in Portland, 50 percent in San Francisco, and 61 percent in Los Angeles. In total, California, Oregon, and Washington reported 864,326 thefts to the FBI last year. The real figure is likely much higher, as many retailers have stopped reporting most shoplifting incidents to police.
Drug addiction is driving this shoplifting boom. In recent years, West Coast cities have witnessed an explosion in addiction rates for heroin, fentanyl, and meth; property crime helps feed the habit. According to federal data, adults with substance-abuse disorders make up just 2.6 percent of the total population but 72 percent of all jail inmates sentenced for property crimes. Addicts are 29 times more likely to commit property crimes than the average American. Furthermore, as the Bureau of Justice Statistics found, “[39 percent of jail inmates] held for property offenses said they committed the crime for money for drugs”—the most common single motivation for crime throughout the justice system. (…)
[T]he shoplifting boom has only accelerated because of decriminalization. California’s Proposition 47, approved by nearly 60 percent of voters statewide in 2014, reclassified many drug and property felonies as misdemeanors, effectively decriminalizing thefts of $1,000 or less. Many criminals now believe, justifiably, that they can steal with impunity.
This is a two-pronged tactic. Remember what I said about the homeless in this state: California’s Organized Left enables their less-that-savory habits – like thievery in support of drug usage — to drive out the middle class, of which business owners are a huge subclass.
Almost every business – large and small – in my LA neighborhood keeps personal items like deodorant, razors, soap, lotion, etc. in a locked case in order to prevent shoplifting of these items. In order to purchase an item, one must push a button to notify a clerk to come and unlock the case.
Some of these stores I don’t even bother with: not because of the case, but because I have waited up to 15 minutes for a clerk to arrive.
Who would want to own a business, especially a small one, under such conditions? Here’s what the state is shooting for: no one.
Two of history’s most pathetic losers made the news this past
weekend, mainly because of their bizarre antics.
Hillary Clinton decided to call out presidential wannabe Tulsi
Gabbard as a Russian agent.
Seriously? This attack comes from someone who has managed to cover
up all of her wrongdoings from Benghazi to Whitewater.
The evidence is scant, mainly an ill-informed visit to Syria and a
meeting with its butcher president.
The apparent reason for Clinton’s attack goes back to 2016 when Gabbard backed Bernie Sanders and the notion that Gabbard might run as a third-party candidate—something she has vowed not to do.
In her bitterness campaign after the election, Clinton blamed a
third-party candidate for her loss to Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, another loser, Mitt Romney, has jumped on the impeachment
In 2016, Romney denounced Trump as a “phony” and a “fraud,” and warned of the “trickle-down racism” that would accompany his election. After he won, Trump briefly considered tapping Romney as his secretary of state but decided not to do so. And in the years that have followed, the tension between the two men has gotten worse.
In an incredibly pathetic display, Romney apparently opened a
Twitter account under a pseudonym: Pierre Delecto.
If Trump pulled either of these stunts, the Democrats would be
adding another article to their impeachment campaign.
If two losers aren’t enough, it appears that Michael Bloomberg may
be considering joining the Democrat clown show because he’s worried about
Elizabeth Warren winning the nomination.
That means that Bloomberg, the old white guy who’s richer than Trump, would be 79 by the time he entered the White House in 2021.
I guess it’s not difficult to understand why this trio want to
remain in the limelight, but it’s time for someone to tell each of them how
bitter and silly they look.
“Guardian picture editor Fiona Shields explains why we are going to be using fewer polar bears and more people to illustrate our coverage of the climate emergency.”
That is because there are too many polar bears. An estimated 25,000 to 40,000 polar bears live in the Arctic — up from just 5,000 a half-century ago.
The Guardian was too dishonest to admit it.
But the Canadian Press reported last year, “There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn’t yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking.
This begs a question that I keep wondering that nobody sees to want to ask.
How many Polar Bears are the right amount?
Throughout history species have risen and fallen and I don’t understand why so called “environmentalists” seem to believe that they can decide which species can live and die, and in what quantities? What is the baseline of when you have the “right” amount of polar bears, or spotted owls or any other creature and why is a baseline based on say 1900 any more correct than one based on 1980, or 1880 or 1637, or 91BC?
How is any such decision on what to do with a species not playing god?
And more interestingly if man is not made in the image of God and just another creature, why is it any less the natural course of nature for mankind to serve it’s own purpose than any other creature? Furthermore why is whatever effect Man has on the natural world around him the “wrong” effect even if it doesn’t work out for a different animal. Is this not natural selection at work?
These are questions that nobody asks because the answers don’t serve the purposes of those advancing these agendas and because in the religion of liberalism, it is the liberal elite who are in fact god.