Dear God,
Please show me how to believe, without needing to understand.
Please show me how to believe, without needing to understand.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Gone to Terminus
Don't even think of phoning or e-mailing or telegraphing or Pony Express-ing me for the next few hours. At least not until tonight's season premiere of The Walking Dead finishes.
(Okay, there are a few who I am expecting to call if they need to, but that's it...)
Looking forward to learning more about Terminus. It can't be that bad. Can it? Can it?
Will post some thoughts after the show.
EDIT 10:15 p.m. EST: Okay I guess Terminus is a bad place after all.
"No Sanctuary" was a solid opening for the fifth season. Although, I'm a bit confused as to the history of Terminus: was Lieutenant Tasha Yar and her friends all good guys before they got turned onto the other white meat?
Wait... I can't believe I just wrote that.
Carol must have pulled off the all-time greatest single-action zombie kill in the history of every media conceivable. She was all kinds of bad-a$$ in this one.
This was an episode that pulled the group back together (absent Beth, but after seeing the promo for next week I'd bet that we'll be seeing her again soon). It was an action piece designed to round up everybody and propel them into whatever's coming next. I will admit that the Terminus storyline (if this is the end of it... see what I did there?) was a bit of a letdown after all of that build-up. But if it was meant to be for sake of action and suspense as opposed to propelling the lore forward (though we did get a bit of that with what Scientist Dude said about the disease) then it served its purpose.
Next week: Father Gabriel Stokes!
Saturday, October 11, 2014
So, about what happened in North Carolina yesterday...
Celebrating
that one unaccountable man has redefined more than six thousand years
of tradition from across the width and breadth of human society with one
stroke of a single pen.
Seems more than a little ridiculous to me. To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon. Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love". I can't understand that. Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?
It's not same-gender marriage. Same-gender marriage is a contradiction. It's an oxymoron. It is something so illogical that it cannot exist. There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise. Especially legal. Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.
Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday. Marriage is something beyond human establishment. It's untouchable. Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.
Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One. For various reasons I am still against it. There are some things which are defined by something higher than man. Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries. I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.
And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday. But where does this end? Will polygamy be next? Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?
How far does this now go?
I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.
Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other? Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person. I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's. Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in? There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages. Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes. Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs? It is already happening.
If two people want to express their love for each other, fine. Let them do it. Knock themselves out. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement. I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.
I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define. Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster. Perhaps not today, but eventually.
For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday. It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not). The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else. One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive. Doing so will in time destroy that work. And that is what happened here. It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.
There are many who would be wise to learn from this.
Seems more than a little ridiculous to me. To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon. Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love". I can't understand that. Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?
It's not same-gender marriage. Same-gender marriage is a contradiction. It's an oxymoron. It is something so illogical that it cannot exist. There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise. Especially legal. Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.
Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday. Marriage is something beyond human establishment. It's untouchable. Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.
Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One. For various reasons I am still against it. There are some things which are defined by something higher than man. Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries. I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.
And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday. But where does this end? Will polygamy be next? Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?
How far does this now go?
I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.
Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other? Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person. I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's. Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in? There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages. Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes. Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs? It is already happening.
If two people want to express their love for each other, fine. Let them do it. Knock themselves out. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement. I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.
I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define. Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster. Perhaps not today, but eventually.
For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday. It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not). The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else. One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive. Doing so will in time destroy that work. And that is what happened here. It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.
There are many who would be wise to learn from this.
Friday, October 10, 2014
A Facebook post: My beliefs about politics, law enforcement (and other stuff)
Earlier this morning, following some comments on Facebook, I posted a status articulating some thoughts about politics, government, and my take on respecting law enforcement. Subsequently I've been feeling led to post it here as well. It could be because I really haven't written anything here for quite a while about my beliefs on some things.
Anyway, here it is...
There are some people on Facebook who the better angels of my nature are struggling to keep me from referring to as "blithering idiots". Specifically, the ones demanding to know if I am "left or right".
Those who know me best know that I'm neither, and that I have long been above such... at least what I consider to be... an immature, inaccurate and childish paradigm.
I may be fiscally conservative, but I'm not a be-all, end-all "conservative". Neither have I ever thought of myself as "liberal". "Libertarian" doesn't fit either. "Anarchist" certainly doesn't.
I am merely the person God made and meant for me to be... and I will NOT be pegged as "left" or "right" or anything else on the political "spectrum". I'm not on that spectrum. I'm above it. I believe in personal freedom with responsibility. Apparently that is too much for some to comprehend.
Neither do I appreciate the insinuation that I "defend" the "wrong people" because I expect more, and better, from those who have chosen to *serve* us in an official capacity. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. There is no tier system separating "us" from "them". Neither is trust or respect inordinately bestowed on those who have chosen to take up a mark of such service. That level of respect and trust must be *earned*. It doesn't come automatically with a badge or a uniform. That kind of unquestioning "respect" is ultimately what has led to tyranny throughout too much of history.
I don't "disrespect" anybody. But if someone wishes to bear a mark of distinction from others, then they'd damn well better LIVE UP to that with honor. I am an Eagle Scout. Every day I do my best to live up to what that means. I can't add to the honor of that, but I certainly can take away from it. I don't want to do that, because if I did that would bring the honor of a lot of people - who I consider better than I - into question. The same holds true for law enforcement, or anyone else who puts on a uniform. There are some among those who "get" that. There are too many who don't. And lately more than a few of them are taking away from the honor of those that do strive to live up to that honor.
Yet some have recently implied that I'm worse than "wrong" because I choose to question the honor of anyone at all.
We, each of us, are citizens of this country. It is the responsibility of each of us to respect the rights of others and to uphold the Constitution. There are some who have ostensibly chosen to make doing so a paid career of that. If so, then they SHOULD be held to a higher standard than other citizens. They SHOULD be held accountable for what they do with the power and authority entrusted them.
I don't say that out of disrespect toward anyone. But neither can I ascribe a "respect" that is synonymous with fear, toward those who believe they must be feared because of their chosen profession. I can't disrespect, but neither is my respect so cheaply gained. Neither should it be for anyone else.
I believe in accountability on the part of ALL of us, without partiality.
Just as I will not only NOT be branded as "left" or "right" or whatever, and in fact I loathe those who demand that of me.
I am simply what God has led me to be after much life and experience. I am what He would have me to be.
And if others don't have the capacity or the desire to understand that, then that's their problem, not mine.
Anyway, here it is...
There are some people on Facebook who the better angels of my nature are struggling to keep me from referring to as "blithering idiots". Specifically, the ones demanding to know if I am "left or right".
Those who know me best know that I'm neither, and that I have long been above such... at least what I consider to be... an immature, inaccurate and childish paradigm.
I may be fiscally conservative, but I'm not a be-all, end-all "conservative". Neither have I ever thought of myself as "liberal". "Libertarian" doesn't fit either. "Anarchist" certainly doesn't.
I am merely the person God made and meant for me to be... and I will NOT be pegged as "left" or "right" or anything else on the political "spectrum". I'm not on that spectrum. I'm above it. I believe in personal freedom with responsibility. Apparently that is too much for some to comprehend.
Neither do I appreciate the insinuation that I "defend" the "wrong people" because I expect more, and better, from those who have chosen to *serve* us in an official capacity. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. There is no tier system separating "us" from "them". Neither is trust or respect inordinately bestowed on those who have chosen to take up a mark of such service. That level of respect and trust must be *earned*. It doesn't come automatically with a badge or a uniform. That kind of unquestioning "respect" is ultimately what has led to tyranny throughout too much of history.
I don't "disrespect" anybody. But if someone wishes to bear a mark of distinction from others, then they'd damn well better LIVE UP to that with honor. I am an Eagle Scout. Every day I do my best to live up to what that means. I can't add to the honor of that, but I certainly can take away from it. I don't want to do that, because if I did that would bring the honor of a lot of people - who I consider better than I - into question. The same holds true for law enforcement, or anyone else who puts on a uniform. There are some among those who "get" that. There are too many who don't. And lately more than a few of them are taking away from the honor of those that do strive to live up to that honor.
Yet some have recently implied that I'm worse than "wrong" because I choose to question the honor of anyone at all.
We, each of us, are citizens of this country. It is the responsibility of each of us to respect the rights of others and to uphold the Constitution. There are some who have ostensibly chosen to make doing so a paid career of that. If so, then they SHOULD be held to a higher standard than other citizens. They SHOULD be held accountable for what they do with the power and authority entrusted them.
I don't say that out of disrespect toward anyone. But neither can I ascribe a "respect" that is synonymous with fear, toward those who believe they must be feared because of their chosen profession. I can't disrespect, but neither is my respect so cheaply gained. Neither should it be for anyone else.
I believe in accountability on the part of ALL of us, without partiality.
Just as I will not only NOT be branded as "left" or "right" or whatever, and in fact I loathe those who demand that of me.
I am simply what God has led me to be after much life and experience. I am what He would have me to be.
And if others don't have the capacity or the desire to understand that, then that's their problem, not mine.
Monday, October 06, 2014
That show you like is going to come back in style
It's happening. No joke. Right on time. Just as dream-Laura said to Dale Cooper.
Twin Peaks, arguably the most influential television show of all time, is coming back. We will see it again 25 years after that final episode of its second season in 1991.
Not a remake. Not a relaunch. It's going to be an honest to goodness continuation of the ground-shattering series. With creators David Lynch and Mark Frost writing the episodes and Lynch himself directing every one.
The nine episodes of Season 3 (jeez did I really just write that?) will run on premium cable channel Showtime in 2016.
Earlier today Kyle MacLachlan tweeted that he would be returning as FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper. The last time we saw him in 1991, "Coop" had been taken over by the ultra-malevolent spirit Killer BOB, smashing his own head into the bathroom mirror and screaming in mock rage about Dale's girlfriend. Except it was strongly implied that the real Cooper was still trapped in the Black Lodge (sort-of a Hell dressed up to look like a French bordello, and everyone in it talks backwards).
Deadline Hollywood has tons more about Twin Peaks' return as does The Telegraph.
Look! Official announcement video from Showtime!
This is a big, big deal. That cannot be stressed nearly enough. I was intending on being in "radio silence" on the Internet for this coming week as I finish up writing the third part of my book. This news totally jerked me out of that.
Or maybe there was something more amiss. During the weekend I came across my CD of the Twin Peaks soundtrack, composed by Angelo Badalementi. It was released in September of 1990 and I bought it that first week. I was thinking of putting it on my iPad for listening while I work. No question about that now.
2016. Plenty of time to get some damn fine cherry pie and clean out the percolator...
Friday, October 03, 2014
Just watched the premiere of STAR WARS REBELS
I had heard only insanely good things about Star Wars Rebels: the latest animated series taking place in that galaxy far, far away. It's also the first real Star Wars production since Disney took over the franchise. And additionally, it's the first installment of Star Wars since the new canon policy was announced earlier this past spring. The gist of that being: anything that Disney does with Star Wars from now on is canonical so far as the lore goes.
Tonight was the premiere episode, an hour-long special titled "Spark of Rebellion".
What did I think of it?
Star Wars Rebels is already the most fun, the most unadulterated, the most mature, and purest Star Wars experience that I've enjoyed in a very, very, very long time.
I can't think of a single thing that I didn't like about this. Where the prequels failed, Star Wars Rebels is already succeeding. Eventually it didn't register with me that I was watching a computer-animated series. This is Star Wars the way it should always be.
It will be two years ago this month that the announcement came about Disney taking over Lucasfilm and its properties. A lot of people wondered then... and have since... what was going to become of this beloved saga now that it was at the Mouse House.
Based on what I saw tonight: be of good cheer, friends. Star Wars is in good hands. And it may be in the best shape that it's ever been in yet.
Tonight was the premiere episode, an hour-long special titled "Spark of Rebellion".
What did I think of it?
Star Wars Rebels is already the most fun, the most unadulterated, the most mature, and purest Star Wars experience that I've enjoyed in a very, very, very long time.
I can't think of a single thing that I didn't like about this. Where the prequels failed, Star Wars Rebels is already succeeding. Eventually it didn't register with me that I was watching a computer-animated series. This is Star Wars the way it should always be.
It will be two years ago this month that the announcement came about Disney taking over Lucasfilm and its properties. A lot of people wondered then... and have since... what was going to become of this beloved saga now that it was at the Mouse House.
Based on what I saw tonight: be of good cheer, friends. Star Wars is in good hands. And it may be in the best shape that it's ever been in yet.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
75,000 words!
As of today, the book project has officially smashed through the 75,000 words mark.
This is considered the minimum point of a memoir. And that's what this is (among other things).
That is enough material to quantify as being a book. But there is much work still to be done. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the "locked-down" chapters was re-written, and that's what I'm considering even now. One of the first chapters written is also now being taken apart piece-by-piece and those parts implemented in a chapter I've just started.
And based on input from a good friend, Robert Frost is no longer referenced in the prologue. Lord willing that this is published, you will probably correctly guess what was going on there.
Two chapters finished today and I'm at the point I was aiming for! Think I'll celebrate by watching this week's new episode of Doctor Who.
EDIT 08:27 p.m. EST 09/28/2014: For a few years now and especially since I began this project some friends have asked if I had ever done National Novel Writing Month in November. I haven't yet. And I'm going to be totally pooped after finishing this book up by the end of October (Lord willing). But maybe next year?
Writing (TITLE REDACTED) has become a far more amazing experience than I could have possibly anticipated. I don't know if I could have written a book until now. Just the way that my own mind has worked against me for all this time. It's like I'm being born again as a writer. Entire new vistas are opening up for me and this project was the first real step toward reaching those.
I do not doubt that this will not be the last time that Robert Christopher Knight writes something this big. National Novel Writing Month requires 50,000 words for a novel to qualify as being fulfilled. Not everything has to be done within the month of November: you can take however long you need to in order to outline your story. It's just the novel itself that has to be started and finished within those thirty days. If I have an outline to work with, I'm confident that I could easily reach 50,000 and maybe even 60,000 words within that window. And already I've a few ideas for stories.
NOT this year though, LOL! I'm not Stephen King after all. Then again I'm not George R.R. Martin either :-)
(Please Mr. Martin, don't hate me for saying that. Or hate away and kill me in the next book. I'd be down with that...)
This is considered the minimum point of a memoir. And that's what this is (among other things).
That is enough material to quantify as being a book. But there is much work still to be done. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the "locked-down" chapters was re-written, and that's what I'm considering even now. One of the first chapters written is also now being taken apart piece-by-piece and those parts implemented in a chapter I've just started.
And based on input from a good friend, Robert Frost is no longer referenced in the prologue. Lord willing that this is published, you will probably correctly guess what was going on there.
Two chapters finished today and I'm at the point I was aiming for! Think I'll celebrate by watching this week's new episode of Doctor Who.
EDIT 08:27 p.m. EST 09/28/2014: For a few years now and especially since I began this project some friends have asked if I had ever done National Novel Writing Month in November. I haven't yet. And I'm going to be totally pooped after finishing this book up by the end of October (Lord willing). But maybe next year?
Writing (TITLE REDACTED) has become a far more amazing experience than I could have possibly anticipated. I don't know if I could have written a book until now. Just the way that my own mind has worked against me for all this time. It's like I'm being born again as a writer. Entire new vistas are opening up for me and this project was the first real step toward reaching those.
I do not doubt that this will not be the last time that Robert Christopher Knight writes something this big. National Novel Writing Month requires 50,000 words for a novel to qualify as being fulfilled. Not everything has to be done within the month of November: you can take however long you need to in order to outline your story. It's just the novel itself that has to be started and finished within those thirty days. If I have an outline to work with, I'm confident that I could easily reach 50,000 and maybe even 60,000 words within that window. And already I've a few ideas for stories.
NOT this year though, LOL! I'm not Stephen King after all. Then again I'm not George R.R. Martin either :-)
(Please Mr. Martin, don't hate me for saying that. Or hate away and kill me in the next book. I'd be down with that...)
