Month: November 2017

Yesterday I successfully completed another week without NFL football, and it’s almost getting easier. I am no longer even aware of the night games on Thursday, Sunday, and Monday, but Sunday day is still tough. This past Sunday we decided to go to a movie. What to see? What to see? As it was my turn to choose,  I googled “movies San Diego” to see what was around. I basically knew which movie I wanted to see, so I scrolled Google. There were 51 films and “Let There Be Light” was number 50 on the list.

For those of you not familiar with this film, it is a faith based movie, produced by Sean Hannity, so right away, the reviews and the publicity for the film will be marginal at best. In our local throw-away neighborhood paper, The Reader, the reviewer of movie basically said, “Sean Hannity was involved with this       movie . . . nuff said!” I did find a review in the New Yorker, and as is possibly typical for the New Yorker, I had to look up two of the words in the title of the review! (“A Xenophobic Morality Tale As Cynical As It Is Saccharine”). Anyway the New York City “elitist” reviewer did not especially like it –  no surprise here. He even went out of his way to take a swipe at Trump, even though the movie was completed before the election, and Trump’s name is not mentioned or alluded to in the film.

What was interesting was that even though the film is set in and was filmed in New York City, in its opening week, none of the movie theaters in any of the five New York City boroughs was showing the movie. If you wanted to see it during its opening week, you had to go to New Jersey.

We did find the movie at four theaters in the San Diego area, and we went to the 11:50 a.m. Sunday showing. We expected to be able to have our pick of seats once in the theater, but to my surprise, the theater was about 90% full . . . and this was in California! We did get two seats together, and people kept coming in all throughout the previews. Why was this the case? It was not raining. We’re all of these people in the theater also protesting NFL football? Was this some sort of protest against Hollywood -i.e. by wanting to go to a movie but not wanting to see a movie coming out of the ‘West Coast swamp’? Was this demonstrative of a desire by ordinary folk to see a Christian film? Was this because of Sean Hannity?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that at noon on a beautiful San Diego day, the theater was practically full.

Anyway the film was okay, but not outstanding. With Sean Hannity’s name affiliated with the film, it could never be an Oscar nominee, but it is not Oscar quality anyway. The acting was okay. The plot was okay. It was a story of a world renowned atheist who had a life changing experience, and subsequently became a Christian. Without ruining it for you, I thought the ending was unexpected. There was humor and sadness sprinkled throughout, and at the conclusion of the film there was some applause from of the audience.

Am I glad I saw Let There Be Light  . . . Yes.

Did I survive another week without NFL football? . . . Yes!

 

 

What a great World Series! For those of you who don’t know, the Houston Astros defeated the Los Angels Dodgers in seven games. The games were exciting. The hitting was good on both sides (except for L.A. in the 7th game), and this was against some of the best pitchers in the game. Houston was the sentimental favorite because of all the recent destruction from  Hurricane Harvey. No one that I spoke to was for the Dodgers including people from the East Coast, and from both Northern California and Southern California outside of the L.A. area. I did not speak to anyone from the L.A. area, but I have to assume that they were for the Dodgers. This morning my wife asked me, “Why does everyone dislike the L.A. teams”? I do not know why this seems to be true. I was trying to think of a witty political reason for this . . . but I’ve got nothing.
Not only were the games good, but the singing of the National Anthem and the associated pomp was very good. The tribute to the flag by the fans as well as the players on both sides was touching. These are all professional athletes and many of the players are from outside of the continental U.S., yet I did not see any of the players show disrespect for the National Anthem.
Why would these professional baseball players act with respect during the National Anthem while professional football players are acting the opposite? Both make a lot of money. Both teams were from major U.S. cities. Both sports are being played before large audiences including those attending the live game as well as those watching on TV. There is a mixture of Blacks, Whites and Latinos in both sports, albeit with a significantly higher percentage of Blacks in the NFL and a significantly greater number of Latinos in MLB.
From my perspective there is only one logical answer as to why there is such a dramatic difference in behavior when it comes to the National Anthem – CTE!

Baseball players in general have very little head trauma, while football players have a lot of head trauma. A recent study of the brains deceased pro-football and college football players showed an unbelievably high incidence of CTE. About 99% of these brains demonstrated evidence of CTE on autopsy in this study. Now granted these brains were studied mostly because of some suspicion of possible CTE before death . . . but 99%!!! Therefore my postulate as to why these NFL football players are acting out with disrespect to the National Anthem, especially why they are acting out in a way that is detrimental to both their league and to themselves is that most of these players already have CTE. The only way to potentially prove this while the players are still alive would be by means of a blood test, which is not yet available.

I predict that once this blood test becomes available, there will be a new sport being shown on Sundays on TV. – NFL Flag Football!

Headline: “President Trump’s Travel Ban Rejected by Court”
Is this rejection in line with what has happened in the past with travel bans issued by past presidents?
Has there been a pattern?
President Carter in 1979 ordered federal officials to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
(hmmm – a ban of citizens of a Moslem country imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

During WWII President Roosevelt limited the number of incoming Jewish refugees fearing that Nazi spies could be among these refugees.
(hmmm – a ban against foreign citizens of a specific religion imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

In 2011 Obama’s State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugees for 6 months after two al Queda terrorists were found living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
(hmmm – a ban on all refugees from a Moslem nation, imposed by the State Department of a Democratic president, because there were some terrorists in the U.S.A. from that particular nation)
As far as I can tell this ban was not found to be unconstitutional by courts.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?°
Perhaps, the pattern here is that all of these travel bans involved a Democratic president. Those on the left will rightfully say, “Not so fast! There have been some prior travel bans issued by a Republican presidents!”
True.

Chester Arthur in 1882 banned ” skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the U.S.A. – for 10 years during a time of high unemployment. Also Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the U.S.A. This after President McKinley was killed by an American anarchist, a son of Polish immigrants.
As far as I can tell these “Republican” bans were also not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

In the past the courts have not gotten involved when presidents have issued travel bans, even if the ban was against a Moslem nation (Iran & Iraq), a specific religion (Jews from Germany), or people of a specific foreign nationality (Chinese).

As William Stock, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said, “It is very clear that the president has been given the authority when the standard [of] national interest would be adversely affected.”

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent liberal professor emeritus from Harvard Law, stated, “Usually the judicial branch will defer to the executive branch in matters involving national security, unless there is a clear cut violation of the Constitution. In my opinion that high threshold has not been met in this case.”

When asked at the recent Circuit Court hearing, a lawyer from the ACLU said, when asked, that the ban would have been okay if it had been issued by “President Hillary Clinton” . . . and the 4th Circuit still ruled against President Trump!
Could it be that liberal judges of the 4th & 9th Circuit have ruled against President Trump’s recent travel ban only because President Trump issued it?

Are we seeing a pattern . . . now?