Sea Power, Oscars, and suffering.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader took a few days off blogging to attend to some family business. The esteemed brother and sister-in-law of your Maximum Leader have been dealt a tough hand right now. And though they will come out of it better than they went into it, it is time to close ranks and support the family. Thus, your Maximum Leader hasn't had a lot of time to blog.

To mention a few noteworthy items...

First. Your Maximum Leader believes that the decline of the Royal Navy of Great Britain is a bad thing. He also thinks that the decline of the US Navy is a bad (and potentially much worse thing). So, if you think you would like to help grow the US Navy you might want to check out this site. The Sea Power Ambassador site is financed, in large part, by the shipbuilding industry. But that sponsorship does not discredit the aim of the group, which is good.

Second. Your Maximum Leader is happy for the cast and crew of "Return of the King." They got many well deserved Oscar nominations. Your Maximum Leader disagrees somewhat with the Air Marshal's last post. I think Sean Astin did kick it up a notch as Sam in ROTK, but the ensemble cast was so strong it is hard to pick one (or two) for an Oscar nod. And if Bill Murray wins for "Lost in Translation" then we can honestly say that only an Oscar-award winning actor could have pulled off the job of Carl Spackler.

Third. Your Maximum Leader feels he must nit-pick a small point from a recent post over on the Big Hominid's site. In the excerpt provided by the Hominid the good Rev. Mark Stanger said:

I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don't want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value.

While your Maximum Leader doesn't for a moment think that the suffering of a child or a land-mine victim, or a battered wife are miniscule; crucifixion is one of the most horrible ways to be killed. The victim doesn't die quickly, they often linger for many many days while they slowly drown in their own fluids. Because it is such a horrific way to go is why the Romans used the method with such frequency.

That said, your Maximum Leader (raised Catholic by the way) does believe that too much is made of Jesus' suffering and that causes the main point (resurrection and salvation) to be missed. In the end, your Maximum Leader just disliked the analogies.

And as a postscript to that last note... Notice how the good Rev. Stanger mentioned the suffering child. Is there any more cliched appeal to emotion than suffering children. Once again, the modification of the good Dr. Johnson must be invoked in this space. Patriotism, and the welfare of children, are the last refuges of a scoundrel.

Light blogging over the next few days my minions. Your Maximum Leader hopes that his loyal minister will be able to blog in the meanwhile.

Carry on.