Becky and I watch more television than we did before retirement. Credit fewer evening meetings and the advent of streaming. Being in charge of what, when, and how much, plus no commercials makes for a much better viewing experience than the old once-a-week-on network-TV model.

Having streamed our share of programs, we’ve come to the conclusion that British series tend to be better than their American counterparts. Old-school American series, think “NCIS” or “Law and Order,” typically run 22 or more 45-minute episodes per season.  (So, yeah, you miss 15 minutes of commercials by streaming rather than watching over the air.) The British tend toward six-episode series, and the episodes are more likely to be a full 60 minutes, sometimes 90.

We like whodunits and spy stories. In the American series, a crime is solved or a war averted in every episode. 45 minutes to set the stage and apprehend the criminal or thwart the terrorist conspiracy. Not much time for character development or a nuanced plot. The British series are more likely to spend 6 to 9 hours telling a single story – time for false leads and plots twists; characters are developed and motives explored. The British are even willing to kill off a key character for the sake of a good story,* Continue reading →

There’s a lot of talk in the political world about being too old. We complain that senators and members of congress, the president and his chief rival, are too old to be doing what they are doing. Some think there ought to be a law against people who are too old running for elected office. I am not much for another law, but I get the point.

I had a birthday this week and am now two years past what the polls say is the most preferred upper age limit for candidates. Assuming no law passes before then, feel free to vote for me in next year’s presidential election, but I should warn you that I will decline to serve if elected. It’s not so much that I think I am too old to be president (I am), as it is that I am in the wrong season of life to be president. Or member of congress or senator or highway department commissioner. Continue reading →

The word “pundit” comes into its contemporary English usage from Sanskrit via the British Raj in colonial India.  According to the Wikipedia, “the term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit, meaning “knowledge owner” or “learned man”. It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects…”

We refer to a pundit as someone who self-identifies as wise or knowledgeable and who shares his or her wisdom and knowledge with the world through newspaper columns, blogs, podcasts, or broadcast commentaries.  The Wikipedia article lists Al Franken, Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Lou Dobbs, Rosie O’Donnell, and Rush Limbaugh as examples of pundits, which doesn’t make me want to trust pundits.

Anyway, the pundits, whoever they are, say that next year’s presidential election is most likely to pit the current incumbent against the most recent previous incumbent.  Not that we should believe all the pundits say, but if what they say is right, I have it easy.  My vote is already decided. No to both. Never the one and never the other. Continue reading →

I suppose it is a variation on the tree falling in a forest question, and I have to ask it of myself:  If I don’t post a photo of it on social media, is the sunrise still beautiful?  If you follow me on social media, you know that many of my posts consist of various photos of the sun rising over our neighborhood when I am out for a morning walk.  The method behind my sunrise madness has something to do with providing an alternative to secondhand opinions left and right or Baby Boom nostalgia (yes, I remember when phones had dials and Mick Jagger was young).

But I also post those morning photos because the sunrises really are beautiful and the extrovert in me needs to let somebody know.

I thought I showed remarkable restraint when I did not post a photo of the sunrise earlier this week.  Not as spectacular as some, nevertheless it was beautiful, and, besides, now I get to post it here.  It would have been a beautiful sunrise even if I never posted a photo of it.

You can google the tree in the forest question and find more answers than you want. Scientists tend toward the “yes” side of things, so long as they can define “sound,” and philosophers seem to gravitate toward “maybe.” Continue reading →

First an apology to any non-Baby Boom readers who don’t recognize Sgt. Joe Friday of the LAPD or my play on his famous line.

In fact, Sgt. Friday asked for “Just the facts, Ma’am” and in every episode of the 50s TV show Dragnet he used those facts to prove who dunnit, whatever it was.

I thought of Dragnet and just the facts when I saw an ad for a set of free videos offered by a well-known Christian organization. We were encouraged to accept the offer and “get equipped with the facts and history that prove the Bible is true.”

Apparently, the presenter in the video series is a former police detective who uses his investigative skills to “prove” the truth of the Bible. Except that you can’t. Facts don’t prove the truth of the Bible. You know, that stuff about the conviction of things not seen.

Apologetics is a branch of theology that seeks to defend and explain Christian faith and its basic tenets as reasonable and reliable. Early apologists include Origen and Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo. We might add C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul and Tim Keller from our time to the list. Continue reading →