1. Habemus Papam!

Short hours ago, I would have taken it as axiomatic than an American Cardinal will never be elected Pope. We exert so much power and influence over the rest of the world that I took it for granted the Cardinals would never willingly give them the Papacy as well.

I have no comment or opinion on their choice. I will wait and see and my thoughts will most likely not appear here. Righteous name choice, though!

2. Meanwhile, I suspect President Trump is scrambling to add “Move the Papal Court to Miami” to his list of administrative objectives. Right after conquering Canada.

3. The Werner Herzog mindset:

“Ve are making a film in ze middle of ze jungle, vere ze heat is unbearable, ze locals hate us, and nothing is going according to plan. Every day is sheer agony. Zo I vill hire as my new lead actor ze man whose terrible personality transforms even ordinary film sets into living nightmares.

“BECAUSE EXISTENCE IS SUFFERING!!”

4. Also Herzog:

5. We often hear Liberals saying things like “here is a man who killed a king!” or “this is the land that killed their king!” As if it were an impressive or daring feat.

So what? Lots of people have killed kings. Kings aren’t hard to kill. Random archers on walls kill kings. That’s part of the point of a king; that he’s a mortal man, and killing a man is not hard. Go kill a bureaucracy and maybe then I’ll be impressed.

6. Reading some about Woodstock for my history class. Finding things like “defined a generation” or “one of the most important events in the history of music” or even “a milestone in the history of humanity.”

My own take is “It was three days of half-a-million people rolling about in the mud, smoking pot and sort-of listening to mostly-mediocre-at-best music that had been sponsored by record companies while telling themselves that it was somehow having a great impact on the world.”

I suppose that is pretty much an embodiment of the whole ’60s counter culture.

7. On that note, pay attention to how things are framed. From the Google AI summary of “Why Easy Rider was controversial:”

“Easy Rider” was controversial due to its depiction of drug use, violence, and countercultural themes, reflecting the turbulent social and political landscape of the 1960s. The film’s anti-establishment attitude, including its portrayal of nonconformity, drug use, and rebellion, resonated with a generation disillusioned by the status quo, but also alienated many viewers who found its message unsettling or unacceptable (emph. mine)

Note that people found it ‘unsettling’ or ‘unacceptable’ with the implication “Oh, this was just too much for some people to handle!”

Certainly not that they found it ‘stupid’ or ‘unconvincing’ or concluded “this was the shallow rambling of a bunch of stoned-out losers who have no idea what they are talking about” or anything like that.

Because the takes that Skynett here was using were written by people who approve of the film and who didn’t consider that the opposite view was worthy of consideration. That is always how such things are framed.

That’s not a slam on Easy Rider, by the way: I haven’t seen it. It’s only a slam on the framing of the controversy around the film.