Author: jh staff

The Treasure Chest of Values in the TV of Old

“Frasier” and “Monk,” two popular TV shows of the past, have recently been brought back to life.

The original “Frasier” series ran from 1993 to 2004, earning 37 Emmys in its run.

In October of 2023, a “Frasier” reboot made its debut on Paramount+, featuring the same character as seen in the original, i.e., the one and only Frasier Crane, who this time is dealing with life while in his sixties.

The producers were able to snag much of the original cast, with six-time Emmy winner Kelsey Grammer in the title role, along with Jane Leeves playing Daphne Moon, Peri Gilpin portraying Roz Doyle, David Hyde Pierce reprising Niles Crane, and Bebe Neuwirth as Lilith Sternin.

The reboot has been met with great success. The first two episodes of the show were the most-watched original series premiere on Paramount+, and as a result the new “Frasier” has been renewed for a second season.

Meanwhile Emmy winner Tony Shalhoub can soon be seen in a new upcoming feature film, “Mr. Monk’s Last Case: A Monk Movie,” which premieres December 8 on Peacock.

Shalhoub portrays Adrian Monk, the same loveable neurotic savant detective character that he played in the original TV series. The show ran for eight great seasons on the USA Network.

In addition to Shalhoub, “Mr. Monk’s Last Case” includes many of the actors that appeared in the original series, including Traylor Howard playing Natalie Teeger, Ted Levine as Leland Stottlemeyer, and Jason Gray-Stanford as Randy Disher.

Peacock’s movie reboot comes almost fourteen years after the final episode of the original “Monk” series aired, which in its run took home eight Emmys, including three for Shalhoub for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series.

Reboots are part of a current Hollywood trend of reaching back in time to find material to produce.

A few examples include a sequel to the original Full House called “Fuller House,” a revival of the original series “Gilmore Girls” titled “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life,” a reboot of the original “Roseanne” with the same title, and a spin-off of the original “Roseanne” called “The Connors.”

Television shows of bygone eras actually comprise a significant portion of today’s entertainment programming, and the public’s interest itself seems to be on the rise.

Networks such as MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, Uptv, Encore Classic, Encore Black, and TV Land are dedicated to serving up classic fare to their respective audiences.

Nick at Nite, TBS, TNT, AMC, and the Hallmark Channel have reserved spots in their lineups for TV shows of old as well.

And not to be left out, services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime are also streaming the classics.

Why would there be such a demand to see shows that were produced decades ago?

Here’s my theory.

These are tough times we are living through in many ways. The changes we have experienced have occurred more rapidly than we could even process.

It is a truism that a common set of values is what holds a society together. The unspoken bond.

What were some of the values that in the past we collectively held as ideals? Ones to which we agreed that we would all strive to uphold?

Honesty, fairness, kindness, loyalty, perseverance, courage, and respect to name a few.

Something happened to that vessel of shared values. Cracks appeared.

Some values eroded. Some were supplanted. And some were merely lost in the fog of the culture war.

Classic TV at its finest had our common set of values embedded within its story lines, and within the minds and hearts of the characters that were living out the comedies and dramas.

While these television shows may have been set in a bygone era, the values contained within them are timeless.

Here’s to the people who cling to their favorite shows and to the values that are worth their weight in gold.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s American Values

Mike Johnson is under attack for the religious and cultural beliefs that he holds.

In an appearance on a recent weekend news program, the newly-elected Speaker of the House made the following comments regarding the barrage of negativity that he is having to endure:

“There are entire industries built on taking down, tearing down people like me. I understand that comes with the territory and we’re not fazed by it,” he said.

From the moment he took possession of the Speaker’s gavel, enemies within the media have joined forces with partisan operatives in an attempt to pigeonhole him as an extremist.

Appearing to take things in stride, he stated, “I’ve been labeled all kinds of stuff, but these people don’t know me.”

Johnson is currently serving a fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, having secured Louisiana’s fourth congressional district seat with the largest regional margin of victory in over fifty years.

Arriving at his new post with almost 20 years of constitutional law experience under his belt, in his practice he routinely safeguarded the fundamental rights of individuals and businesses.

He characterized his legal career as one that placed him in the position of “defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and biblical values…”

Highly respected by his colleagues, a deeply divided Republican caucus actually came together and succeeded in electing him as new House Speaker.

Even prior to his Speaker post he was held in high esteem by his colleagues. He was one of the most well-liked members of the GOP leadership.

Back in 2022, he had been unanimously elected vice chair of the House Republican Conference for a second time.

The favorable reputation was due in large part to the way in which he comported himself, humble in his demeanor yet true to his principles.

He hadn’t really aspired to the Speaker’s office or ever actually contacted anyone about the position. Rather, his colleagues were the ones that reached out to him and encouraged him to seek the nomination.

He has described himself first and foremost as a Christian, stating the following when he first ran for Congress:

“I’m a committed Christian and my faith informs everything I do.”

A number of journalists appear to be heavily triggered by Johnson’s expressions of faith.

During a 2022 technology panel, which took place at his church in Louisiana, Johnson spoke about a subscription-based computer program that he and his teenage son were using at the time to monitor questionable content.

Media outlets, including Rolling Stone and The New Republic, apparently unearthed the remarks. Attacks were then leveled at the Speaker for his commitment against pornography.

While talking to reporters at the Capitol, he described the negative media blitz as “just the latest attack in a campaign by D.C. insiders on my faith.”

Walking the Christian walk, he explained, “If you truly believe in the Bible’s commands and seek to follow them, it’s impossible to be a hateful person because the greatest command in the Bible is that you love God with everything you have, and you love your neighbor as yourself.”

Those who are going after Johnson are perhaps unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally, forgetting that the beliefs he espouses are the same Judeo-Christian principles that served as foundational pillars during the initial formation of our country.

The Founders were heavily influenced by biblical teachings contained in the Old and New Testaments.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence the profound “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These words spring from the Judeo-Christian credo that all people are created in the image of God.

The Founders recognized Scripture as a prime source of moral and ethical wisdom and incorporated many of its precepts into the U.S. Constitution. The three branches of government, checks and balances on power, the freedom to worship, and equal treatment under the law are but a few.

It is through the application of these inherent values that Johnson desires to implement what he terms “principled governance.”

He summed up the application of his faith in the following manner:

“We’re going to continue to love all people. We’re going to continue to bless even those who persecute us because that’s our worldview and that’s how we operate.”

He added, “Everybody take a breath, give us a chance and you’ll see what principled governance looks like.”

Praying for Speaker Johnson’s success.

And a miracle for America.

Science Fiction Comes to Life in AI Executive Order

An executive order recently signed by the president centers on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its implementation in the “whole of government.”

The AI acronym itself has been absorbed into our national lexicon. And although it may sound as if we all share the same definitional understanding of the words, the truth is we actually don’t.

I begin this article with a clarification of terms in the hopes that it will serve to increase awareness of misunderstandings that are making the rounds.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” refers to computer algorithms being combined with data for the purpose of solving problems, addressing issues, or facilitating the creation of innovative ideas, products, etc.

An algorithm is basically a list of instructions for specific actions to be carried out in step-by-step fashion by computer technology.

AI utilizes something called “machine learning,” which allows the computer technology to be educated, so to speak, and to advance further by adapting without having been given explicit instructions to do so.

The type of AI that most people are familiar with and that is currently in widespread use is designed to specialize in a single task.

Conducting a web search, determining the fastest route to a destination, and alerting the driver of a car to the presence of a vehicle in the car’s blind spot are just a few examples. This type of AI is often referred to as Specialized AI.

Specialized AI is starkly different from another type of AI called Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence is the kind of AI that can, and likely will, match and even exceed human intelligence capabilities.

The executive order recently signed by the president is voluminous, exceeding 100 pages. It is also massive in scope, directing the “whole of government” to strictly regulate Artificial Intelligence technology.

There are several items that should be of concern. However, one thing that is especially alarming is the repeated use of the word “equity.”

In the executive order, all federal agencies are directed to establish an annual “equity action plan” aimed at helping “underserved communities.”

In a section titled “Embedding Equity into Government-wide Processes,” the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is tasked “to support equitable decision-making, promote equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance, and assist agencies in advancing equity, as appropriate and wherever possible.”

The same section also states, “When designing, developing, acquiring, and using artificial intelligence and automated systems in the Federal Government, agencies shall do so…in a manner that advances equity.”

Again looking at definitional meaning, even though the words are often conflated, the meaning of “equity” is quite different from the meaning of “equality.”

The meaning of “equality” was iconically conveyed in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., when he urged that people “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Character is the essence of a person and is unique to the individual within whom it is found.

The meaning of “equity,” particularly within the context of the executive order, is something very different. It means treating each individual in a selective manner precisely because of skin color, gender identity, or myriad other designated categories.

The end result of such an overriding governmental policy may actually end up being the antithesis of true equality.

The executive order dictates that AI projects conform to prescribed equity principles.

Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo tweeted that the order has created “a national DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] bureaucracy” and has “a special mandate for woke AI.”

This may mean that woke algorithms could ultimately be incorporated into cell phones, electronic devices, automobiles, household appliances, etc.

Writing for Forbes, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute James Broughel did not mince words.

Broughel called the order “the biggest policy mistake of my lifetime.” He also emphasized the hazardous aspects of the executive order, stating that it “may prove one of the most dangerous government policies in years.”

To sum things up, Specialized Artificial Intelligence improved our lives in a lot of ways.

But when the inevitable happens and it evolves into a woke Artificial General Intelligence, under government control it has the very real potential to wreck our lives.

I find myself longing for the days when it was only science fiction.

Taylor Swift’s Movie Success Is More than Meets the Eye

Taylor Swift has an unusual entertainment tale to tell.

It’s a pretty sure bet there are plenty more chapters to her Hollywood story.

She’s already recognized the world over for her performance skills, songwriting ability, and business sense.

It is factors such as these that have procured her millions of devoted fans, the likes of which few celebrities have enjoyed.

The seasoned star has now added another notch to her celebrity belt.

She has taken a concert performance and plastered it on the big screen, where it has been met with blockbuster success.

Shortly after wrapping up a record-breaking concert tour, a film version of her live performance, titled “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour,” made its debut in theaters.

Unlike most past and present Hollywood films, Swift made the decision to bypass the studios and instead deal directly with movie theaters. The results have been remarkable.

The film has already grossed $140 million worldwide and $110 million domestically, making it the highest-grossing concert movie of all time. And it only cost $15 million to make.

Here’s some background on the celebrity herself.

Swift spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm that her stockbroker father had purchased from one of his clients.

She attended pre-school and kindergarten at a Montessori school, which was run by the Bernadine Franciscan Sisters.

As she grew, so did her music aspirations. Influenced by a documentary she had seen on Faith Hill, she felt drawn to Nashville, Tennessee.

The opportunity to visit Music City arrived at age eleven. Accompanied by her mother, demo tapes were pitched to various record labels, but the efforts were unsuccessful.

In order to help his daughter’s dreams materialize, Swift’s father sought a job transfer to an office located in Nashville. Fourteen year-old Taylor and family packed up their bags and moved to Tennessee, and the rest is music history.

Swift’s recent movie success has a lot to do with the unique manner in which she has structured her career.

She seems to have understood at a very young age that art has an intrinsic “mission.” It’s not enough to merely be created. It must be shared.

It is in the sharing that a relationship is formed. And it is in the relationship that mutual appreciation and admiration blossom.

Consistent with the artist’s mission, Swift dutifully placed her audience first. As a result, she acquired a highly dedicated fan base, many of whom continue to endure.

“Swifties,” as her devotees are called, feel a profound sense of connection with her, as she seemingly does with them.

The film provides a way for fans to come together in a communal interactive experience. Viewers sing, dance, and connect with the onscreen presence as well as with one another.

The movie features performances of songs from all of Swift’s “Eras,” taking viewers on a trip through her life from her country music beginnings to her current creations.

In addition to the varying musical and stylistic periods of her career, each era is represented by a distinct visual aesthetic, costume design, and set list.

Here’s an “Eras” sampling:

– The Country Era features Swift’s early hits about first love (“Tim McGraw,” “Our Song,” and “Love Story”).

– The Fearless Era focuses on love found and love lost (“You Belong with Me” and “White Horse”).

– The 1989 Era appears to be a significant turning point as Swift enters the world of pop and rap, and optimism turns to cynicism (“Shake It Off,” “Blank Space,” and “Bad Blood”).

– The Reputation Era moves significantly to the dark side both musically and lyrically (“…Ready for It?,” “Look What You Made Me Do,” and “Delicate”).

To me, Swift’s life story so far appears to be part fairy tale and part misfortune.

The lyrics to her songs across the eras give the impression that they emanate from personal understanding.

Her trademark first person perspective makes the listening experience highly relatable for audiences, meaning her story is our story.

Young Taylor initially wrote and performed songs that primarily focused on the search for the one with whom she could find true love.

As time passed, the music and lyrics changed, possibly a reflection of transitions occurring within her own life.

In any event, darkness, cynicism, and coldness, which are reflected in the melodies, lyrics, and video imagery of later eras, reveal a hardened heart.

Whether or not this is the case in Swift’s personal circumstance, it is important to keep in mind that along with fame comes responsibility.

This is because fans put the recipient of their admiration on a pedestal and are influenced by things said and done.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who is hoping for a Swift return to her songwriting roots.

And a resurrection of the artistic mission she was graced with at the start.

Skip ‘The Exorcist: Believer’ Remake and Opt for the Original

Hollywood heads are spinning over the poor box-office performance of “The Exorcist: Believer.”

The recent big-screen release is a remake of the original horror flick “The Exorcist,” which back in 1973 scared the wits out of its massive viewing audience.

Universal shelled out a whopping $400 million for the intellectual property rights and was actually planning on a franchise trilogy.

However, the remake, with a budget of $30 million, only managed to take in $26.5 million in its initial debut. It then fell almost 60% in its second weekend, with a paltry $11 million haul.

Critics and audiences were in agreement that the movie was simply a dud. Studios generally view a CinemaScore grade below “B” as a fail. This movie received a grade of “C.”

The film’s over reliance on jump scares and computer-generated effects are only part of why it bombed. Blame the rest on the movie’s inauthentic approach to a very real supernatural occurrence.

The truth is the rite of exorcism is steeped in biblical and religious history, and the original film gave the plot and characters their proper due. It was a huge financial and critical success.

It also legitimately lays claim to being one of the scariest films ever made.

One of the constructive consequences at the time of being terrified by the notion of demonic possession, albeit via film, was that many individuals were affected deeply enough to turn away from the evil that had seeped into their own personal lives.

Here’s a summary of the true story upon which the original film was based.

The real-life demonic possession of a young 14-year-old boy occurred in Maryland.

The youth began to exhibit eerie and peculiar behavior, including speaking aloud in foreign tongues, the levitation of his body, and a display of inordinate superhuman strength.

His family consulted a number of doctors and psychiatric professionals, but they were unable to help. Eventually, his parents turned to the Catholic Church for assistance.

A request was made of two priests, Fr. William S. Bowdern and Fr. Edward Hughes, to perform the rite of exorcism on the boy. The ritual took place over the course of more than two weeks, and there were occasions of extreme violence.

Curse words directed at the priests flowed from the boy’s mouth. His body levitated at times and his speaking became that of an unnatural entity. Eventually, the priests were able to successfully drive out the evil spirit, which allowed the boy to return to a normal life.

The exorcism story was widely reported in the media, and it caught the attention of a Catholic Christian student at Georgetown University named William Peter Blatty. He began to research the subject and eventually wrote a novel based on the supernatural occurrence and deliverance from evil.

Blatty’s novel, which was also titled “The Exorcist,” was published in 1971.

Back when he was still climbing the ladder of success, a young Blatty dressed up as a Saudi Arabian prince and appeared as a contestant on Groucho Marx’s game show “You Bet Your Life.” He won $10,000.

This gave him enough money to quit his job and write full-time. He eventually penned a film adaptation of his novel that bore the same name and in 1973 took home an Oscar.

Blatty was uniquely prepared by his faith to take on the subject. His parents were Lebanese immigrants. His dad Peter was a cloth cutter and mom Mary a devout Catholic Christian. Mary was also the niece of a bishop.

In his youth, he attended a Jesuit school, Brooklyn Preparatory, was the recipient of a scholarship, and graduated as class valedictorian. He once filed a canon law petition against his alma mater, Georgetown, for its promotion of anti-Christian ideas.

There is a reason why Catholic priests are routinely featured in films of this kind. The Catholic Church has a long history of analyzing and seeking to understand the theology of demonic possession.

The sequences, prayers, and sacramentals utilized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, along with the extensive preparation of the individual who is conducting the exorcist rite, have proven to be efficacious in the deliverance ministry.

The remake’s story is purportedly inspired by the real-world experiences of Fr. Gary Thomas, who is said to have participated in more than eighty exorcisms. But even though the film resembles the original in a few ways, it is markedly different in the ways that matter most.

The bottom line is that “The Exorcist: Believer” contorts the rite of exorcism to conform to the political, cultural, and theological sensibilities of today’s radical left.

In my humble opinion, the original film is the one to watch.

And in my lifespan of experience, the original teachings on demonic possession and deliverance from evil are the ones to be believed.

Actress Sharon Stone’s Hollywood Lesson

It was the 1990s and Sharon Stone was on top of the world.

She was one of the most popular movie stars of her times.

Her big breakthrough came when she landed a part in the 1990 science fiction action film “Total Recall.”

In 1992 she catapulted to international stardom when she appeared in the big-screen thriller “Basic Instinct.”

Later she would play a role in the 1995 epic crime drama “Casino,” which ended up delivering the best reviews of her career, along with an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress.

Numerous films would follow, cementing her position as a top Hollywood actress.

Her life was going exceptionally well with her career soaring, due in large part to the Oscar nomination, which credentialed her as a serious actress.

Her personal life was blossoming too. She and her then-husband adopted a child, experiencing the joy and fulfillment that new parenthood brings.

Unbeknownst to Stone, her world was about to turn upside down. Within a few months, life would take a sudden and tragic change for the worse.

She suffered a type of stroke in which a vertebral artery ruptures. For nine straight days bleeding was occurring in her brain, and she was given only a 1 percent chance of surviving.

Sadly, at a time when she needed them the most, her Hollywood friends and acquaintances all but abandoned her. The only person who really stood by her side in this most difficult time was her devoted Dad.

“My father was there for me, but I would say that was about it,” Stone shared.

After the terrible health crisis, she faced further personal and professional challenges. Her marriage disintegrated and the Hollywood phone eerily stopped ringing.

“I lost everything,” she said. “I lost all my money. I lost custody of my child. I lost my career. I lost all those things that you feel are your real identity and your life.”

Stone’s Hollywood experience provides the opportunity to examine the changes that have taken place in our cultural attitudes and behaviors with regard to celebrity.

Stone was a genuine movie star, the kind that in these continuing digital revolution times seems to have disappeared.

Lost, in large part, is the sense of mystique that Hollywood stars of the past possessed. Lost oftentimes, too, is the basis for admiration given.

So who are today’s stars? And has the arc of fame been irretrievably altered?

The answers to these questions seem to depend chiefly on the medium as well as the manner in which entertainment is presented to and consumed by an anticipated audience.

Over the last several years the changes that have taken place within the entertainment business have no doubt been profound. Movie theater attendance has significantly declined. And for lack of a better word, so have “conventional” movie stars.

At the same time there has been a rise in the actual number of celebrities as well as the types of venues in which fame can be attained.

We now have multiple categories of film stars, television stars, music stars, sports stars, political stars, preacher stars, internet stars, social media stars, etc., all of whom vie for the public’s attention and the varying levels of fame that accompany it.

The opportunity for people to achieve Andy Warhol moments has expanded exponentially. And so it is that anyone with a smart phone and an internet connection can potentially claim their 15 minutes of fame.

While there may be a lot more famous faces around, it is also much more difficult for those faces to maintain their celebrity status over time. In other words, fame seems to be even more fleeting than it was in the past. And the arc of fame seems to have been altered in length and breadth.

For an individual, life in the fame lane can take you from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows.

Stone has lived it.

She shares her story of survival and serves as an example of the triumph of the human spirit.

She does offer the following admonition, though. “If you want to live with solid citizens, don’t come to Hollywood.”

Don’t know if anyone is going to stop chasing fame, but it’s worth thinking about for at least an LA minute.

Upcoming Supreme Court Cases May Help Restore Free Speech on Social Media

The Supreme Court recently announced that it is going to hear two major cases relating to the right of free expression.

Both cases will examine the constitutionality of state laws that were created to prohibit tech companies from discriminating against social media platform users who are ideologically conservative.

At the heart of the cases is Big Tech’s pattern of targeting and eliminating select content.

The passage by state legislators in 2021 of the laws in question came in response to censorship of user-generated content, which was taking place on social media sites.

The Texas and Florida legislatures were acting on behalf of their constituents in using their lawmaking capabilities to try and restore freedom of expression to the portion of the digital world that was being impacted by selective censorship.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that the redacting of factual information, political ideology, faith expression, and the like, which frequently runs contrary to today’s progressive and/or radical narratives, is routine business for a majority of Big Tech companies.

The Texas and Florida legislators engaged in the appropriate processes in an effort to address the censorship problem.

Texas law H.B. 20 bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active users from blocking, removing, or demonetizing content based on a respective user’s point of view. Similar to phone companies, the law re-classifies social media platforms as “common carriers.”

Florida law S.B. 7072 forbids large social media platforms from censoring or banning political candidates and what the law refers to as a “journalistic enterprise.” The Florida bill also mandates that social media companies publish standards for the removal of content as well as for exercising consistency in the application of such standards.

Technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have challenged each of the state laws. Members of the groups include TikTok, X, formerly called Twitter, and the owners of Facebook and Google.

The Biden administration joined with the technology groups, arguing that social media platforms’ rights include those of censoring the content of customers.

Two appeals courts have given conflicting rulings over the two state laws. One of the appellate courts upheld the Texas law, but another struck down the Florida statute. In both cases, implementation of the state laws during appeals has been temporarily halted by federal courts.

In May of 2022, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 ruling) kept the Texas law on hold during the process of litigation.

Justice Samuel Alito was part of a dissenting opinion, which said that the law should be left in place and that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point. The justice wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Justice Alito added, “At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

The justice also expressed skepticism toward the argument that social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, such as the kind that newspapers and other traditional publishers enjoy.

The aforementioned tech trade groups, along with the Biden administration, are contending that the Constitution protects the social media platforms’ elimination of so-called disinformation.

Tech companies claim that taking away their unfettered right to censor will mean that their platforms will be filled with the vague categories they are claiming pose a danger, e.g. bullying, extremism, and hate speech.

However, the High Court will look closely at the carve-outs that state legislators placed in the laws to permit platforms to perform legitimate functions. These exceptions allow categories of content, such as pornography and foreign government speech, to be removed by the tech companies.

The above mentioned cases, which will be heard in the new nine-month term that recently began, will ultimately answer a single question of utmost importance: Do states have the ability to put a halt to speech discrimination by tech companies?

Social media platforms have become essential communication components of everyday life.

They allow us to connect and interact with individuals, organizations, educational institutions, governmental bodies, health agencies, etc.

Pray that the Supreme Court decides in favor of a free internet so free speech can live.