<blockquote>
Our church year begins today as we usher in the season of Advent. How fitting, now as we turn our attention to that expectant and watchful season, that we do so here in the U.S. on the heels of our season of Thanksgiving. While Thanksgiving is not a church calendar holiday, it is a good and right celebration when we gather with friends and family to give thanks for all our Lord has done for us. And while we are, of course, thankful for all things, especially during Advent we remember and are thankful for the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He took on flesh and blood for us, His people. As we enter Advent, the Book of Common Prayer has these words for us to use in our own prayers:
<blockquote>
ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Recall the words of Jesus from John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” And we now walk in the light because of the incarnation of the light of the world.
</blockquote>

SMRC Weekly Perspective Written by Yours Truly

Advent Begins

Christmas Tree 2022

<blockquote>
Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good!
For His mercy endures forever.
Oh, give thanks to the God of gods!
For His mercy endures forever.
Oh, give thanks to the Lord of lords!
For His mercy endures forever
</blockquote>
Today is a festive day of thanksgiving here in the U.S. I try not to let it go by without acknowledging just how much I have to give thanks for.
And what does it mean to "give thanks?" Giving thanks implies that you are thankful, grateful to someone else for something. I could be thankful to my wife for making our turkey this year. And she could be thankful that she has the skills to do it. And who gave her the abilty to get those skills? Ultimately, when you give thanks, for the Christian, the thanks ends up at God. God has provided for everything that we have, everything that I have. The good or the bad. But this year, like every year before it, there is much good that I am thankful for.
I am thankful for my wife, my children, my home, the good job I have, the food on our table, the neighborhood in which we live. I am thankful that despite the work of the enemy in our nation, and the Godless in places of authority, we still experience the grace and mercy of God in our land. We still experience the freedom to go where we please, to worship as we please.
I'm thankful for my church body and the influences of good and Godly people in my life and the lives of my family and the way they shape our life, thinking, and theology. I'm thankful for the good men and ministers in our denomination. I'm thankful for the church body we were previously members of before we moved to the town we live in now and the foundation that church lay in our family and in the lives of my children — most of whom were born and baptized in that church.
And though it may be cliché, I'm thankful for the Lord Jesus Christ and his work on the cross. For making me and my family a part of his family by paying the penalty for our sins. We often take this for granted as believers — or at least, I do. That's why it's good once in a while to stop and take stock of our lives and give thanks to God.
That's why I'm thankful even for a day of Thanksgiving. Praise the Lord for his goodness to us!

Giving Thanks

<blockquote>
Remember when all the noble people of the world stood up to denounce <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/opinion/joe-rogan-health-misinformation-solutions.html">The Covid Misinformation</a> perpetrated on Joe Rogan's podcast? It seems like ages ago, but in fact it was just this January! And okay, it also wasn't all the noble people. Mainly just a couple of old musicians, like <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/25/neil-young-gives-spotify-ultimatum-over-joe-rogan-disinformation/">Neil Young</a> and <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/29/joni-mitchell-removing-her-music-from-spotify-i-stand-with-neil-young/">Joni Mitchell</a>, who for a moment relived the glory days of the world's attention, as they hammered Spotify for their awful, awful decision to let a popular podcaster have outlawed conversations on outlawed topics. In defiance of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-covid-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say">The Science</a> and official consensus on Covid!!
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
…why is Spotify still trying to appease the likes of Young or Mitchell with these alarming blue warning bars pointing to information counter to that of health authorities in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?
Because Covid in America remains a political struggle rather than a medical one, of course. A flame that continues to attract partisan moths. Despite an absolute embarrassment of specific calls that were at one time or another held by The Consensus of The Science turning out to be bunk. Does anyone need a reminder?
</blockquote>
This has been such a huge problem. Covid, whatever it was or wasn't, however it started, whatever real, physical effects it has or had on people, it has become entirely political here in the U.S.
<blockquote>
Capitalizing The Science and turning it into a <a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/there-are-no-all-knowing-all-seeing-oracles-bc6ed1fc">consensus cult</a> has done more to undermine public trust in the House of Francis Bacon than even the atom bomb. It's cracked the reputation of scientists who turned dogmatists, and centers for disease control and prevention captured by political directives. It's brought eternal shame on musicians turned narrative cops, and the journalists that breathlessly backed the censorship protocol that was installed at the outset of this pandemic.
</blockquote>
This has been my problem for quite some time. Science makes a great servant but a terrible master. Covid became an inflection point where we have consistently been told to "trust the science" when the science suspiciously backs particular, partisan view points while bending over backward so far to accommodate those view points that it's a wonder "the science's" back doesn't break…

David Heinemeier Hansson: Why is Spotify still linking to the CDC?


DHH May Be Canceled, But He Makes Complete, Clear-Headed Sense

<blockquote>
Advocates of so-called Christian Nationalism now are mostly a part of a protest movement, even if they pretend otherwise. Secularists deny certain historical truths about America’s founding; the CN camp replies with excessive revisionism of its own. Secularists scream for the coerced removal of God from the public square; the CN camp replies with advocacy for some coercive notion of their own. Secularists scream that Christianity has no part of America’s identity; the CN camp seeks to merge Christian and American identities. I could go on and on. Things that ought to be acceptable at worst and commendable at best get taken to a place of authoritarianism or nativism out of a temper tantrum.
</blockquote>

The Shine Falls off Christian Nationalism

Bahnsen on Christian Nationalism

<blockquote>
What, dare we ask, are the allowable boundaries of respectable pluralism? In answering this question, David French is particularly unclear.
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
One of the most perplexing marks of our time is the defection of so many “conservatives” from the cause of conserving what Russell Kirk called “the permanent things.” If marriage is not conserved—if civil marriage is not conserved as a man-woman union—then nothing genuinely conservative can last, at least for long. Support for the Respect for Marriage Act is bad enough. The way David French frames his argument is worse. This is how conservatism dies, and this is how marriage is surrendered.
</blockquote>
My like of David French has come and gone during the time I was not publishing to this blog. But the fact is, I did like many things David French had to say during the Trump years and said so on my social media platforms. He was, quite frankly, a breath of fresh air much of the time. I, as another who, like David French, has never been able to support or vote for Trump, resonated with the things French was saying at the time. I agreed with French then and still believe Trump is a blight on Christian conservative's record, even though I believe God used Trump despite his wickedness to do one or two good things <a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>
I mark the sour turn with French as starting at the end of the (first?) Trump era. French allowed himself to be broken by Trump and he has turned on Conservatives, Christianity, and I would argue, on Christ.
Of course, Mohler notes that there were some problematic things from French earlier (in the 2004 era). I can't speak to those. I became aware of French and started loosely following his work just before the Trump era.
I have recently reviewed some things that French wrote or said during that era that I liked, linked to, or promoted on my various platforms, and I still largely agree with all of it, so I am not the one who has changed.
A friend of mine said this morning when I sent him a link to the tweet I'll embed below, that French is a great example of someone losing themselves to <a href="https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Audience_Capture">audience capture</a>.
<blockquote>"Millions of Americans have formed families and live their lives in deep reliance on Obergefell being good law. It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which they’ve ordered their lives." <a href="https://t.co/1dKjODsayq">https://t.co/1dKjODsayq</a>— David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1594426687885811712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote> 
<a href="https://twitter.com/aaron_renn">Aaron Renn</a> also <a href="https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/newsletter-70-why-you-should-be-careful">had some theories as to how this has happened to French</a>:
<blockquote>
All of us instinctively react against negative criticism. One of our most typical reactions is to double down, and to become hostile towards the person who criticized us.
I think this has played a key role in David French’s evolution since the Trump campaign. Imagine David French back in 2019. He’s minding his own business, standing in line for his caffe latte at Starbucks. His phone beeps and it’s a Google Alert, or perhaps a friend texting him to say “check this out.” The subject is an article in First Things, the leading conservative religious journal in the country, called “<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism">Against David French-ism</a>,” written by fellow conservative Sohrab Ahmari. Then thousands of people pile on saying how much they agree with Sohrab Ahmari about French and his approach being what’s wrong with the world.
</blockquote>
I realize that I'm just adding my voice to that negative feedback loop at this point, but it's gone so far with David French I don't know what else I could do.
The fact is, now, French is not someone I would ever link to or support in any way. But I would sure welcome a return of the 2015–2020 French.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Not the least of which was to establish decent, conservative, originalist judges on the Supreme Court. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Al Mohler and The parable of David French

French-ism

<blockquote>
You might ask why I would describe this paragraph on page 118 as the “end” of a 475-page book? Because the sentence that follows begins, “Having established these conclusions…” Since, as I will explain at length, Wolfe has in no way “established” these conclusions, everything that follows from page 118 to page 475 is essentially superfluous. There may be some material of interest—and some of it will elicit comment—but none of it reaches the heart of the matter.
</blockquote>
Brutal.
<blockquote>
Wolfe begins the book by exempting himself from the tasks of exegesis and biblical theology: “Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand that frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.”
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Wolfe’s ambivalence toward the Bible has deeper roots, however, than mere feigned ignorance about how to do biblical interpretation. The fact is rather that he doesn’t think he needs to do any biblical interpretation in the first place. The irrelevance of the Bible to the task at hand—political theory—is deeply embedded in his own understanding of reason and revelation, nature and grace.
</blockquote>
What I find fascinating is that Wolfe sees the Bible and Biblical interpretation as not interesting or important to what he's writing about. Yet his work is being promoted by those of my acquaintance or who's work I have liked or am familiar with, who cast themselves in the Van Tillian or Kyperian traditions. In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til (perhaps famously) says:
<blockquote>
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure how you can cast yourself in this tradition unless you are willing to apply the Bible and Biblical interpretation to everything, including the political realm.
Stephen Wolfe is also of a very two kingdoms persuasion. I do have friends of the two kingdoms persuasion. I would never say they weren't Christians. We can be friends and I even have some sympathy for some two kingdom thinking. Nevertheless, the primary influences in my life are not of two kingdom thought. Yet this book, which is clearly based on two kingdom theology, has taken my non-two kingdom influences by storm.
<blockquote>
If one consults, say, his academic Ph.D thesis looking for some deeper explanation, one finds more of the same: the crassest sort of dualism, with everything divvied up very neatly between “heavenly” things about metaphysics and salvation known by faith and “earthly” things like science and politics known by reason. In that work he even includes a flowchart dividing it all up that would get full marks from Professor Kant of Königsberg, who would then, of course, just tear the sheet of paper in half and throw the “heavenly” side into his fireplace.
</blockquote>
Because you like someone's conclusions (and I'm not saying I like all of Wolfe's conclusions, though I dare say I would fall in line with a great many of them) does not mean I agree with the means used to arrive there. Just because two opposed trajectories intersect, that is no reason to jump on the opposing train. If you jump off the train going in the right direction for the intersecting train going in the wrong direction, you will find yourself at the wrong destination.
And finally, somewhat relatedly, I made a meme, and Andrew Sandlin saw it somewhere and shared it 🙂.
<blockquote>I always knew Brian Mattson was a superhero. <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Square_Inch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@The_Square_Inch</a> <a href="https://t.co/AT5HAWEX2m">pic.twitter.com/AT5HAWEX2m</a>— DocSandlin (@DocSandlin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DocSandlin/status/1594182974840311808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote>

Brian Mattson

On Nationalism

In macOS 13 Ventura, Apple introduced something called, Stage Manager to macOS. I will be talking almost exclusively about Stage Manager on the Mac even though Apple introduced a very similar (but not identical) feature called Stage Manager on iPadOS.
Stage Manager is a great concept. In fact, as executed, it's almost good. Almost. If it was better executed, it would be great. As it stands now, it's a very frustrating experience.
<h2>The State of Window Management</h2>
For many years I've been annoyed with the state of Window management on the Mac. During the years of 2017—2020 I spent a lot of time working on Windows (10), and window management over on that side of the computing OS world has its own issues. Oh, Microsoft solves some of the problems that Apple doesn't seem to care to solve, but not many of them, and not to my satisfaction. Overall, my experience in modern Windows was that Microsoft has "caught up" to Apple in many ways, but I still prefer the Mac (and I'm back to using the Mac full time in case anyone is wondering).
The problem neither Microsoft nor Apple have been very interested in solving (up until Apple's Stage Manager) is the "window sets" problem. When I'm working on something, I tend to have multiple apps and multiple windows involved in that "something." And very often, I'll reach a point where I want or need to switch to something else for a while, but I want those window and app states preserved.
<h3>Multiple Desktops</h3>
For some time, Windows and macOS have both had a concept called "multiple desktops" (Apple calls it Spaces, but it's the same concept. The problem is, as implemented, neither option really solves the problems well<a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>.
With Spaces on macOS, each display gets its own space, and you can have many spaces per-display. When you open an app that wasn't previously open, it opens in the current space. The trouble is that it "bounces" around a lot. Let's say I open a Safari window in one of my spaces, then open a Safari window in another space. When I <code>cmd + tab</code> to Safari, it will switch to the space with the Safari window that was most recently active. It's not great. And the only way I can see or switch spaces is by activating mission control, or swiping from side to side in a linear fashion
<img src="/images/blog/2022/11/20/macos-spaces.jpg" alt="macOS Spaces">
With multiple desktops on Windows, each "desktop" spans all your displays, and (usually) each desktop acts like its own computer context. As far as that desktop knows, no other apps exist besides what's currently in that desktop. If you click a pinned app in the task bar, or open an app that may or may not be open in another space, it will also open an instance in your current desktop. I said "usually" because some apps seem incompatible with this. There's the occasional app that is limited to one window, and it will only ever open on one desktop. Which isn't great. I also found that, despite that fact that my Windows computer was very beefy, using two desktops made the computer feel a lot slower. Using three brought the computer to its knees.
<img src="/images/blog/2022/11/20/windows-10-multiple-desktops.jpg" alt="Windows 10 Multiple Desktops">
So as you can see, I've been a little nonplussed by that window grouping landscape.
<h2>Enter: Stage Manager</h2>
When Apple announced Stage Manager, and demoed its abilities, I was really thrilled and impressed with what I was seeing. It looked like, more or less, what I was looking for, conceptually. Windows can be arranged in sets, and you can switch back and forth between sets of windows arranged exactly the way you like them.
Well, the reality has been something of a glass of icy cold water in the face. When I first installed Ventura, I immediately enabled Stage Manager, and for a bit, maybe even a day, I really enjoyed it. But eventually, I had to turn it off. And even though I try it again once in a while, I eventually have to turn it off again.
Thankfully, disabling stage manager appears to return everything to the previous, long-running, tried and true window management behaviors. And while I may be frustrated with that status quo, I know how to navigate and get along with it very well.
<h3>Terminology</h3>
In order to talk about Stage Manager, I must define the terms I'll be using to talk about things. <a href="https://daringfireball.net/">John Gruber</a> observed on an episode of <a href="https://daringfireball.net/thetalkshow/">The Talk Show</a> (I don't remember which one so I can't link it directly, sorry) that the lack of clear terminology by Apple itself regarding Stage Manager may be an indication of what's gone wrong with Stage manager. I tend to agree.
Regardless, here's the terminology to understand:
<h4>Stage</h4>
A stage is where a window (or a group of windows) are.
<h4>Strip</h4>
<img src="/images/blog/2022/11/20/mac-stage-manager-strip.jpg" alt="Stage Manager Strip">
As far as I can tell, there is no official name for the thing on the left side of the screen(s) where the thumbnails/piles are visible. However, the common nomenclature bing used around the web seems to be strip so that's what I'll call it.
<h4>Thumbnails</h4>
In the strip, you see thumbnails.
In <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213315">Apple's official support document</a>, Apple refers to the things you see on the left side of the screen as "thumbnails." But when this document does so, it's only referring to a single app being present on each stage. The document does cover the ability to drag from the "thumbnails" to create groups of windows on your current stage and never re-labels the thumbnails in the strip on the side. However, the internet seems to be calling those…
<h4>Piles</h4>
A pile is a group of windows in the strip.
<h3>What are the issues?</h3>
<ol>
<li>It has a problem I would describe as "bouncy"</li>
</ol>
What I mean by this is, by default, every time you open a new app, it gets its own stage, which causes it to "bounce" to a new stage. Very often, most of the time in fact, I want an app to open in the current stage. There is currently no way to prompt this behavior. If you click on an app in the Dock, or <code>cmd + tab</code> to it, one of two things happens: 1. If the app is not running, a new stage is created and the app is placed in that stage, or 2. If the app is already running and has a window, the stage of the most recently active window for that app will be bounced to (sound familiar, Spaces users?)
And Finder has a problem whereby it might spawn a window for, say, decompressing a zip file. And guess what, that little bitty window gets its own stage, and that stage is brought to the fore for that tiny little window. Not fun.
Additionally, sometimes, for no discernible reason, the stage you're currently working in will "bounce" away and another stage will become active. This is almost certainly a bug, but it's a huge, frustrating one. And even if they fix this one bug, there's still the myriad other problems.
<ol start="2">
<li>It behaves a bit strangely on multiple displays</li>
</ol>
Actually, it behaves a lot strangely on multiple displays. That may be the primary reason I have disabled Stage Manager, actually.
Sometimes trying to drag a window from a pile or thumbnail in the strip on one display to a stage on another display results in that window disappearing entirely. Getting it back can be frustrating or impossible. Often I have to quit the app and open it again. Sometimes invoking Mission Control to show all Windows and clicking on the window will bring it back in a state where it's half-on one of the displays. Sometimes not.
Sometimes, when clicking on a pile to make it the active stage on one display, causes the stage to switch on another display too. That is never what you want.
Sometimes clicking on a thumbnail or pile does nothing. I put this issue here in the multiple displays section because I've never had it happen when using Stage Manager on a single display.
<ol start="3">
<li>It's nearly impossible to move a window of an app to a new stage if there are no other app's windows in the current stage</li>
</ol>
The problem is that Apple conceives of stages as being for an app. The idea that you could have multiple windows from various different apps grouped together seems almost an after-thought.
Let's use Safari as an example. Let's say I have Safari, and only Safari open in a stage. I click <code>cmd + n</code> for a new Safari Window and I want to put that window in a new stage by itself. Impossible. The "Remove from set" item in the "Window" menu is grayed out. Since Apple doesn't allow you to have empty stages, you can't go to an empty stage and drag that window's thumbnail to an empty stage. You simply cannot separate multiple windows of the same app into multiple stages. If you're working with one app, you must always be in the same context, according to Apple, I guess 🙄.
<ol start="4">
<li>Unplugging displays, then plugging them back in results in a HUGE MESS</li>
</ol>
I know <a href="https://hypercritical.co/">John Siracusa</a> frowns on this whole idea of using a laptop as your primary computer, plugged into displays sometimes, other times not. But I think the entire reason he objects to the concept so much is because Apple is SO BAD at remembering multiple display state. And Apple has not departed from the status quo here. If you are using multiple displays at your desk with stage manager turned on and arranged just the way you want it, and you leave your desk and disconnect your computer from the display(s), when you plug back in in 1 second, 5 seconds, or 1 day, your piles will be a completely scattered disaster. Assuming Apple will never fix this issue, because Apple has always had problems of this nature with multiple displays, it would be nice if you could drag piles from one display to another, but…
<ol start="5">
<li>Stages/Thumbnails/Piles can't be dragged to different displays</li>
</ol>
Like, seriously, what the heck? Such a basic, basic, basic feature. Non-existent. Because no one ever wants to use a group of windows an a different display, right?
<ol start="6">
<li>There's no way to see all the piles you have if they don't fit in the strip</li>
</ol>
So, if you have 7 piles, but only 4 fit on your display, tough noogies.
<ol start="7">
<li>Thumbnails/piles cannot be labeled</li>
</ol>
This, by the way, has been a long standing complaint of mine with Spaces/Multiple Desktop as well. And Apple has carried that baffling decision forward. And why not? No one knows, I suppose.
<h2>So, What Now?</h2>
I don't know where we go from here. Apple has a long history of shipping partially baked window management features on the Mac, then never returning to them to polish them up or make them work properly. Stage Manager has a lot of promise. It's so close to doing what I want and need it to do. Quite frankly, it's baffling that it's shipped in the state it's in. My list of complaints here can be considered a wish list of things I want Apple to address or fix. Will they? Who knows?
Funnily enough, many of these issues don't exist with Stage manager for iPadOS<a href="#user-content-fn-2" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-2" aria-describedby="footnote-label">2</a>. It's not "bouncy" on iPad, multiple displays currently aren't supported by iPadOS, so no worry about dragging piles between displays, and moving apps into and out of stages is quite easy on iPad.
If Apple can work out these issues that I've outlined, I'd love to return to Stage Manager. I pine for a solution to the issues Stage Manager is trying to address.
Help us, Apple-wan Kenobi, you're our only hope.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Microsoft's implementation of multiples desktop's, I do find to be a little better than Apple's. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-2">
Of course, Stage Manager on iPad OS has it's own set of issues. <a href="#user-content-fnref-2" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Stage Manager on the Mac

I know this is way random, but a friend of mine was picking my brain about Twitter and trying to get my opinion on various Star Trek things. I ended the writing portion of MovieByte so it feels a little weird to write a single random article there again. So I'm writing this here to answer the questions put to me.
<h2>A ranking of various Star Trek incarnations</h2>
<h3>The Original Series (TOS)</h3>
TOS has some very good episodes, some in each season — though season 3 has the least I think — even though it is certainly very much a product of its time and has many '60s tropes. The HD re-mastering has helped it out a lot and I enjoy watching my favorite episodes that much more.
<h4>Some favorite TOS episodes</h4>
<ul>
<li>Dagger of the Mind (S1E9)</li>
<li>The Corbomite Maneuver (S1E10)</li>
<li>The Conscience of the King (S1E13)</li>
<li>Balance of Terror (S1E14)</li>
<li>The Galileo Seven (S1E16)</li>
<li>The Squire of Gothos (S1E17)</li>
<li>Arena (S1E18)</li>
<li>Tomorrow is Yesterday (S1E19)</li>
<li>Space Seed (S1E22)</li>
<li>A Taste of Armageddon (S1E23)</li>
<li>This Side of Paradise (S1E24)</li>
<li>The Devil in the Dark (S1E25)</li>
<li>Errand of Mercy (S1E26)</li>
<li>The City on the Edge of Forever (S1E28)</li>
<li>Operation -- Annihilate! (S1E29)</li>
<li>Amok Time (S2E1)</li>
<li>Mirror, Mirror (S2E4)</li>
<li>The Doomsday Machine (S2E6)</li>
<li>Journey to Babel (S2E10)</li>
<li>Friday's Child (S2E11)</li>
<li>A Piece of the Action (S2E17)</li>
<li>Patterns of Force (S2E21)</li>
<li>By Any Other Name (S2E22)</li>
<li>Bread and Circuses (S2E25)</li>
<li>Assignment: Earth (S2E26)</li>
<li>The Enterprise Incident (S3E2)</li>
<li>For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (S3E8)</li>
<li>Wink of an Eye (S3E11)</li>
<li>Whom Gods Destroy (S3E14)</li>
<li>Requiem for Methuselah (S3E19)</li>
</ul>
<h3>The Next Generation (TNG)</h3>
I always having a hard time deciding whether I like TNG or DS9 more (stop asking me to chose favorite children!). Ultimately it comes down to this: TNG has great characters and many amazing stories. But all those stories are one off episodes. DS9 is more arc based — particularly when the Dominion War starts. DS9 also has great characters. I like both shows.
Also note that the HD re-master is fantastic!
The list of favorite episodes is going to be long because there are A LOT of favorites. I recently just went through and watching all my favorite episodes so I remember more easily which ones are. I will not be able to do that with DS9 because it’s been about 4 years since I watched it. I’ve actually just started re-watching.
<h4>Some favorite TNG episodes</h4>
<ul>
<li>The Battle (S1E8)</li>
<li>Hide and Q (S1E9)</li>
<li>Datalore (S1E12)</li>
<li>11001001 (S1E14)</li>
<li>Too Short a Season (S1E15)</li>
<li>Home Soil (S1E17)</li>
<li>Symbiosis (S1E21)</li>
<li>We'll Always Have Paris (S1E23)</li>
<li>Conspiracy (S1E24)</li>
<li>The Neutral Zone (S1E25)</li>
<li>Where Silence Has Lease (S2E2)</li>
<li>Unnatural Selection (S2E7)</li>
<li>The Measure of a Man (S2E9)</li>
<li>Contagion (S2E11)</li>
<li>Q Who? (S2E16)</li>
<li>The Emissary (S2E20)</li>
<li>Peak Performance (S2E21)</li>
<li>The Ensigns of Command (S3E2)</li>
<li>The Survivors (S3E3)</li>
<li>Booby Trap (S3E6)</li>
<li>The Enemy (S3E7)</li>
<li>The Vengeance Factor (S3E9)</li>
<li>The Defector (S3E10)</li>
<li>The High Ground (S3E12)</li>
<li>Déjà Q (S3E13)</li>
<li>A Matter of Perspective (S3E14)</li>
<li>Yesterday's Enterprise (S3E15)</li>
<li>The Offspring (S3E16)</li>
<li>Sins of the Father (S3E17)</li>
<li>Allegiance (S3E18)</li>
<li>Captain's Holiday (S3E19)</li>
<li>Hollow Pursuits (S3E21)</li>
<li>The Most Toys (S3E22)</li>
<li>Sarek (S3E23)</li>
<li>The Best of Both Worlds (S3E26, S4E1)</li>
<li>Family (S4E2)</li>
<li>Reunion (S4E8)</li>
<li>Future Imperfect (S4E8)</li>
<li>Final Mission (S4E9)</li>
<li>Data's Day (S4E12)</li>
<li>The Wounded (S4E12)</li>
<li>Devil's Due (S4E13)</li>
<li>Clues (S4E14)</li>
<li>First Contact (S4E15)</li>
<li>Galaxy's Child (S4E16)</li>
<li>The Drumhead (S4E21)</li>
<li>The Mind's Eye (S4E24)</li>
<li>Redemption (S4E26, S5E1)</li>
<li>Ensign Ro (S5E3)</li>
<li>Disaster (S5E5)</li>
<li>The Game (S5E6)</li>
<li>Unification (S5E7, S5E8)</li>
<li>A Matter of Time (S5E9)</li>
<li>Conundrum (S5E14)</li>
<li>Ethics (S5E16)</li>
<li>Cause and Effect (S5E18)</li>
<li>The First Duty (S5E19)</li>
<li>I Borg (S5E23)</li>
<li>The Next Phase (S5E24)</li>
<li>The Inner Light (S5E25)</li>
<li>Time's Arrow (S4E26, S6E1)</li>
<li>Realm of Fear (S6E2)</li>
<li>Relics (S6E3)</li>
<li>Rascals (S6E7)</li>
<li>Chain of Command (S6E11)</li>
<li>Ship in a Bottle (S6E12)</li>
<li>Face of the Enemy (S6E14)</li>
<li>Tapestry (S6E15)</li>
<li>Birthright (S6E16, S6E17)</li>
<li>Starship Mine (S6E18)</li>
<li>Lessons (S6E19)</li>
<li>The Chase (S6E20)</li>
<li>Rightful Heir (S6E23)</li>
<li>Second Chances (S6E24)</li>
<li>Timescape (S6E25)</li>
<li>Descent (S6E26, S7E1)</li>
<li>Gambit (S7E5, S7E6)</li>
<li>Attached (S7E8)</li>
<li>Inheritance (S7E10)</li>
<li>Parallels (S7E11)</li>
<li>The Pegasus (S7E12)</li>
<li>Lower Decks (S7E15)</li>
<li>All Good Things (S7E25)</li>
</ul>
<h3>Voyager</h3>
Voyager was not as good as it's predecessors, but it wasn't a bad show. I particularly always enjoyed The Doctor. I believe he had the best arc on the show without contest.
<h3>Enterprise</h3>
Enterprise Seasons 1 &#x26; 2 are some of the most consistently worst Star Trek ever made — boring, dull, lifeless — with a very occasional decent episode thrown in there. Also, that theme song. Can I just say WORST EVER?!? Seasons 3 and 4 are actually somewhat decent with some really great episodes. Unfortunately I think most people had quit watching the show by the time it recovered from seasons 1 and 2.
<h3>The Movies</h3>
The only bad Star Trek movies are The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier. The reboot has obviously breathed new life into the franchise. I was very much opposed to it when the first reboot film was in the works — and I still think it would have been better to move forward — but I was quite happy with Into Darkness even though the film had its annoyances.
<h4>A ranking of Star Trek films</h4>
<ul>
<li>The Wrath of Khan (2): 5 stars</li>
<li>The Undiscovered Country (6): 4.5 stars</li>
<li>First Contact (8): 4.5 stars</li>
<li>Into Darkness (12): 4 stars</li>
<li>The Voyage Home (4): 4 stars</li>
<li>Insurrection (9): 3.5 stars</li>
<li>Nemesis (10): 3.5 stars</li>
<li>Star Trek (2009) (11): 3.5 stars</li>
<li>The Search for Spock (3): 3.5 stars</li>
<li>Generations (7): 3.5 stars</li>
<li>The Motion Picture (1): 3 stars</li>
<li>The Final Frontier (5): 2.5 stars</li>
</ul>
<h4>A ranking of Star Trek Music</h4>
Ranking of Film scores:
<ol>
<li>The Motion Picture
Jerry Goldsmith really brought ST to the next level and established themes and motifs that still live on. While the film is kind of terrible, the score if FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC.</li>
<li>The Wrath of Khan
This is basically James Horner’s great take on what Goldsmith did before him with a tone that matches the more action filled and much less boring film in question. And it feels like it has the heart of the original series.</li>
<li>Into Darkness
Michael Giacchino did some fantastic work here with a major update to his 2009 Star Trek score, introducing new and touching themes and motifs. I enjoy this one a lot.</li>
<li>The Final Frontier
Goldsmith returned to build upon his original work while establishing themes and motifs that would continue to carry the franchise. Again, the film was the worst in the series, which some of the best music — truly frustrating.</li>
<li>The Undiscovered Country
Cliff Eidelman’s score didn’t sound very "Star Treky" in some ways, but a lot of interesting is going on in his score and I always enjoy listening to it and it fits the film very well.</li>
<li>First Contact
Goldsmith is always fantastic and he always finds a way to build on his previous work in a way that references it but doesn’t feel like a completely re-use.</li>
<li>The Search for Spock
Mostly a more melancholy re-hash of Wrath of Khan with an added new Klingon theme that would go on to be heavily borrowed from in his Aliens score.</li>
<li>Insurrection
I think Jerry Goldsmith added some really nice and touching bits to build upon his previous work.</li>
<li>Nemesis
This is my least favorite work from Goldsmith in this franchise. It felt kind of tired, and he was experimenting with some sort of sound that I do not favor. That said, there are some great no motifs and awesome tracks here.</li>
<li>Star Trek (2009)
While I think Into Darkness takes the score to a whole new level that is much better, I don't think the original film is Giacchino's best work and feels a little like it ignores Star Trek’s legacy. I enjoy some of the tracks in this score, but overall a bit of a miss.</li>
<li>Generations
While I have enjoyed Denis McCarthy’s work on the various series (the first episode of Deep Space Nine is phenomenal), I don’t feel like he hit this one out of the park. Nevertheless, I do listen to the soundtrack sometimes. It’s okay, just not great.</li>
<li>The Voyage Home
Perhaps the worst misstep in the Star Trek movie franchise. Some of it works, some of it is mediocre, and much of it is terrible.</li>
</ol>
The Shows:
My favorite theme is probably the original Deep Space Nine theme. Also, the score for the first episode of Deep Space Nine is on Apple Music and I highly recommend it.
I also quite enjoy the main theme of The Next Generation. Goldsmith’s Voyager theme is top notch, but not my favorite.
Overall, starting in season 3 of TNG the scoring of each episode was usually good. The first 2 seasons of The Next Generation — while always composed and not canned music, felt way to synthesized and icky. Though the synthesized sound was sometimes still present in TNG's music from time to time in Season 3, it largely began to go away and was replaced by the symphonic sound we think of with Star Trek nowadays.
The only music I really don't enjoy that much is pretty much the entirety of TOS. I'm not a fan of the theme, and most of the music is canned and reused throughout all three seasons. They basically wrote some various Star Trek mood motifs and reuse them all throughout. That was kind of the thing to do at the time.

Star Trek Rankings

<blockquote>
Even Christians’ advocacy for laws against gay marriage is problematic because it rests on the assumption that the power of government can be harnessed in order to impose one group’s opinions on the rest of society. While Christians should have been defending their rights to make their own determinations on these issues, they instead tried to leverage the strong arm of government to enforce their point of view.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Clumsy, inarticulate pieces of legislation like that in Indiana will do nothing in the long run to achieve this goal.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In doing this, Christians will have to come to grips with the reality that this means they will no longer be able to use government to stop people from making poor moral decisions. They must realize that they cannot continue to try to use laws to control other people and then be surprised when the government decides to control them.
</blockquote>
These are just some choice quotes that I enjoyed, but all of this is highly recommended and I completley agree.

Why Christians Should Immediately Become Libertarians — Ben Lewis

Christians Should Be Libertarians

(by the way, the post image I used above makes me sick to my stomach)
When it comes to immigration, why do conservatives suddenly start using liberal logic and liberals start using conservative logic? Liberals argue that immigrants strengthen the economy by adding value to our workforce. Conservatives argue that we're adding competitors to the workforce in an economy where it's already hard to find a job.
It's so weird because it's like liberals suddenly understand how the economy actually works and conservatives suddenly get belligerent (well, moreso than normal) and decide that the economy does in fact work the way liberals normally say it does. They suddenly view wealth and resources as fixed, and that we are giving away that wealth and those resources to the immigrants. But that is never how any economy has ever functioned. Wealth is not a fixed resource, and work is not a fixed resource. They are fluid resources, expanding and contracting. More people in the workforce makes for a stronger economy. There's more people working, there's more people buying, there are more people selling, there are more people creating wealth.
We normally view competition as a good thing. But suddenly, with immigration, we view it as bad because they might come in and undercut us. But have you stopped to think that maybe you just need to up your game? I am not too worried about an immigrant taking my job. Why? Because I try to be the best at what I do. I'm paid fair wages for what I do. And if my job is taken by an immigrant, or anyone else, then I need to examine myself, my abilities, and the job that I am doing. It's possible that an immigrant (or anyone else) could come in an undercut me, and do a poor job and ruin the company, and/or the company would wish they had not replaced me with a lower wage worker who could not do the job. But that's all part of doing business.
Now, there is a problem with illegal immigrants in this country. It is a pre-existing problem though. I said that more people makes the workforce and economy stronger. I also said that there are more people creating wealth. In general, when the government is not involved, that's true. But the fact is, the government is involved and creating problems. Illegal immigrants and legal immigrants have access to resources no one should, and they take advantage of it. Instead of creating wealth, they come and drain the economy by sucking tax funded benefits. You don't have to be an immigrant to do that, so the issue is not immigration. So the answer to the problem is neither conservative nor liberal. It is an issue of free market and government interference. As in almost all things, I believe we would have a stronger economy, and a stronger nation if we would get the government out of the immigration business.
The founding fathers never envisioned the government having the right to restrict immigration, and Biblically, I cannot come up with a single reason why an expansive federal government should have any say over the free movement of peoples of any race or region. So the idea of "illegal immigration" is not even one we should entertain in the first place. Instead, let's get the government to quit providing benefits that drain the economy. Let's stop regulation immigration so that we only attract criminals. Let’s cut the red tape from the process and make immigration something free and clear so that others may come and strengthen the economy. Let's stop being liberal or conservative, and instead make this country free again. Let's remember to have compassion on people of other countries and races. Let's stop being stupid on both sides of the aisle.

Conservative and Liberal Immigration Logic

Here are the things I’ve been talking and writing about over at <a href="http://moviebyte.com/">MovieByte</a>.
<h2>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1</h2>
Last week, the focus was The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1. I quite liked the film. Fizz joined me on the podcast since Joe needed to take a week off, and he didn't like it as much as I did.
I wrote a review as well:
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/mbpodcast/114">The MovieByte Podcast #114: Anti-Captain America »</a>
<blockquote>
TJ and Fizz discuss what’s good and bad about ‘The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1’. As ever, they don’t always see eye to eye, but that will give you, dear listeners, some fun things to chew on. They also discuss the redesign of the MovieByte website, Disney’s live action ‘Cinderella’ trailer (no, really, it’s a thing), the Russos possibly directing ‘Avengers: Infinity War’ parts one and two as opposed to Joss Whedon — which leads to a lot of discussion — and of course what theaters will have the ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ trailer.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/entry/2014/11/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-1">The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 — Review »</a>
<blockquote>
Don’t let the critics fool you. They are such a fickle lot. The <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games_mockingjay_part_1">Rotten Tomatoes Critic Consensus</a> says that the film comes up short on the action. As if the critics think action is the end all and be all — what a joke. I found the film to be compelling, it did in fact have some action which I deemed to be enough for me, I liked the pacing and much of the acting, the story is improved upon from the book, and I quite enjoyed watching the film in the theater.
</blockquote>
<h2>Star Wars: The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer</h2>
Last week, Disney and Lucas Film released the first teaser trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Despite some misgivings, I'm super excited!
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/entry/2014/11/star-wars-vii-teaser-trailer">The ‘Star Wars VII’ Teaser Trailer is HERE!!!! »</a>
<blockquote>
Overall, I’d say this teaser is trying to strike a balance between making us feel nostalgia for the old Star Wars (and I certainly don’t mean any of the prequels), and making us feel like this is something altogether new and interesting and different.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/mbpodcast/115">The MovieByte Podcast #115: Bonus Episode - ‘The Force Awakens’ Teaser Trailer »</a>
<blockquote>
It’s a special bonus episode of The MovieByte Podcast where TJ, Joe, and Clark talk about — actually dissect might be a better word — the first new teaser trailer for ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’. There’s no shortage of opinions, fun, and just generally geeking out. You won’t want to miss this!
</blockquote>
<h2>Birdman</h2>
Joe and I had intended to review The Immitation Game on The MovieByte Podcast this week, but it turns out that film is in an extremely limited release at the moment. We didn't feel like driving a few thousand miles to see it. So we decided to see Birdman and talk about it instead.
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/mbpodcast/116">The MovieByte Podcast #116: It Felt Purposeless »</a>
<blockquote>
TJ and Joe didn’t get to watch the movie they wanted to watch because it was in limited release, so they watched ‘Birdman’ instead. And they are glad they did. There’s a lot to chew on with Birdman and TJ and Joe relish in the analysis. Also don’t miss some follow up on ‘The Force Awakens’ trailer, news of the ‘House of Cards’ season 3 premiere date, and Batman vs. Darth Vader. It’s most impressive!
</blockquote>
<a href="http://moviebyte.com/entry/2014/12/birdman">Birdman — Review »</a>
<blockquote>
This film is filled with fantastic performances, not the least of which is, of course, Michael Keaton. There is hardly a moment when the film leaves his headspace. He plays someone who has become quite the odd-ball.
</blockquote>
So if any of that interests you, be sure to check out MovieByte!

Posts from the blog