Wind Your Watch and "WATCH!"

.

.

END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE

by David Haggith

published: 1999

.

Simply stated, DAVID HAGGITH has written the most exhaustive and Spiritually mature book on eschatology that I have encountered. About five years ago, a gentleman who owned a mobile bookstore expressed his appreciation for me by insisting that I select any item from his stock. I had not heard of David Haggith, but because of my deep interest in Bible study, his tome 'END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE' caught my eye. I can tell you without hesitation that I would have been every bit as pleased with my choice even if I had paid full price.

.

The first question that will be raised by people Biblically aware, but a bit naive is: Why study the Last Days when Jesus said that they will arrive like a thief in the night; no one knows the day or the hour of their coming, and they could be far into the future? 

.

There are several ideas to take into consideration here. First -- Jesus said, "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven." (Matt. 24:36) Note that He spoke specifically of days and hours, not necessarily decades or years. HAGGITH says on page 121 that looking at it this way is "being hyperliteral".  I don't think so. Jesus chose His words carefully. 

.

Furthermore, what might have been unforeseeable two thousand years ago, may be quite perceivable now. Also, if it was still going to be unpredictable even when the age was nearly upon us, why did Jesus bother giving His closest apostles clues to watch for? In Matthew 24 & Mark 13, The Master tells Peter, James, John and Andrew the signs (situations) that will be prevalent on the Earth and related to the end of the world (AS WE KNOW IT!) and His imminent return. Why did He go to the trouble to elucidate the scenario if NO ONE would be capable of discerning the time? And He even concluded with the admonition, "What I say to you, I say to all: Watch!"

.

Significantly, the Old Testament book of Daniel (also concerned with eschatology) closes with another indication that as the time draws near, at least some of God's people will have foreknowledge of the timing of Tribulation events: And the angel said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified... and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand." (Dan. 12:9,10 - NKJV) 

.

It makes sense then to study this subject, especially since several Biblical prophecies concerned with the timing of these momentous events indicate that we are about to enter into the age in question. (Even if Mr. Haggith does not overtly make such a bold statement.

.

There are many books on the market that address this subject and most all of them in a more sensationalistic manner. But HAGGITH's approach is very sensible and evinces a highly developed Spiritual understanding. His respect for God's Word and his humility is evident throughout the book. For example, on page 408 he states, "Judgment, as St. John's Gospel emphasizes, is going on all the time throughout our earthly existence." That would appear to be a basic premise, but one you will find eluding many of the more well-known Christian commentators! 

.

On page 450, Haggith observes that, "Humility comes from confidence in the goodness and justice and love of God." There is much wisdom in his writing that goes beyond a strict adherence to the book's primary theme. His equating the patterns of Biblical truth and prophecies with fractals, and his observation that "Jesus never did a miracle that wasn't a metaphor for spiritual truth" are just two more examples of his great insight, no doubt derived from a warm association with The Holy Spirit. END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE also has a wonderfully extensive index that will make it easy for the reader to refer back to certain topics at a later date.

.

DAVID HAGGITH also understands the necessity to refrain from inflexible positions when exploring the nature of Biblical prophecy. This idea, and his personal humility, shine through in this excerpt from page 459:

.

"Simply linking passages as I've done in this book can distort meaning if the wrong links are forged. If the reader sees a more natural fit for any prophecy than where it has been placed, he or she should explore that connection. ... It's best to keep one's opinions about God's revelation fluid and allow the God who makes all things new to shape one's opinions over time and to reshape oneself in the process. A dogmatic stance on words the Bible, itself, describes as ultimate mysteries belittles the greatness of God. It presumptuously assumes that the human mind can fully comprehend God's mysteries."

.

END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE is a very thorough, thought-provoking, open-minded, and scholarly study. As far as I know, it is the best book of its kind. If you are very serious about exploring the Bible and seek publications that will help you to develop the capacity to examine theological concepts from a variety of perspectives, this book will surely be a welcome addition to your personal library. Other than Salvation, it's the best thing that I ever got for free!

.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

.

BASICALLY WORTH UP TO $3. IF IT’S FOR A CUTE CHEERLEADER

.

.
BASIC FOOTBALL
narrated by Burt Reynolds
released: 1994
.
The day after Superbowl XLI, I received an E-mail from my friend PAL AMY. She wrote: “Go, Colts! I was actually excited. ... I watched the game far more than I thought I would. Of course, I still didn’t have the slightest idea what was going on most of the time -- even with the color commentary.”
.
Today, in my grocery store, I passed a large bin filled with cheesy DVDs selling for one dollar each, but sitting right on top, and catching my eye, was BASIC FOOTBALL, narrated by BURT REYNOLDS. (A lot of people don’t realize that Burt was a rather accomplished Runningback for the Florida State Seminoles in the mid-1950s.) Pictured on the cover was Burt in his Mean Machine jersey from the original 'THE LONGEST YARD' (1974) -- the best football movie ever. I thought: How bad could this DVD be? And: So what if I lose a buck? It’s not like losing a fumble!
.
Well, turns out it ain’t TOO bad. Ain’t too good either. I’d say it’s a stalemate at the fifty yard line. It promises that it... “Explains the game in a fast-paced, funny and very entertaining way. … Using state-of-the-art graphics and animation, football clips and story-like segments, BASIC FOOTBALL will turn any football novice into an educated game-loving fan in less than an hour. Men and women of all ages will love BASIC FOOTBALL!” Fast-paced? Yep. Funny? Oh, there are a few amusing moments, and Burt delivers a couple of good lines. State-of-the-art graphics? Fifteen yard penalty for “roughing the truth”. Men and women of all ages will love it? Well, Pal Amy is a woman, but NOT of “all ages.” (Somewhere between “Old enough to know better” and “Young enough to do it anyway.”) I’ll let ya know what kind of feedback I get from her.
.
Will BASIC FOOTBALL turn you into an “educated” fan? Hardly. When it says “Basic”, it means the most rudimentary aspects of the game. But you WILL know enough to be able to comprehend the gridiron skirmish and actually enjoy a game on the tube. There is an awful lot of football knowledge left out of this 40-minute program that I would still consider basic. For example, you will not learn what the “Red Zone” is. You won’t learn the meanings of the terms “Play-Action Pass”; “Quarterback Option”; “Quarterback Sneak”; or “Onside Kick”. You’ll see, but not hear, what a “Lateral” is. Same with “Scrambling”. You won’t learn where a “Nose Tackle” is situated on the line of scrimmage. But yes, in just a little over half an hour, you’ll understand the “BASIC” action on the field of play. Football will no longer look like just a bunch of big pigs falling on a pigskin.
.
The clips from the college and NFL games used to illustrate certain points are old and the image transfers are grainy. The sound isn’t great, and the scenarios (most quite goofy) utilize amateur or inexperienced actors and actresses who can be embarrassing to watch at times. (You know, the exaggerated facial expressions and vocal inflections. Think Infomercial “actors.”)
.
{*2017 Update: Better yet, think "Government Crisis Actors".}
.
Yet still, there is some value in seeing a concept presented in live action, as opposed to merely printed on a page. And a couple of the segments are a bit clever in the way they get the information across. Notably, the Field Goal Kicker and Punter “Inquisition”, where these players must justify their inclusion on the team to three overbearing women who don’t understand the game. Pretty funny since kickers have always been the “odd men out” on every NFL team. I enjoyed the Oprah Winfrey spoof with the Offensive Linemen, too. And you’ll learn how important these most unsung players are to the success of a team. (Something the Airheadzona Cardinals organization still hasn’t figured out in 19 years.)
.
BASIC FOOTBALL treats the viewer to that scene in 'THE LONGEST YARD' where Burt Reynolds drops back to pass and Bogdansky (the great Ray Nitschke) catches the football in the ... uhm ... that place where you don’t want to catch a football. After which he suffers from a highly illegal Mean Machine dog pile. And there’s a quick shot of that classic moment in Superbowl VII (1973), when after recovering his blocked field goal attempt, Miami Dolphins (this reviewer’s team of choice) kicker, Garo Yepremian, attempts a pass. Ha! I once saw an intoxicated Sailor on a 3-day AWOL binge in a strip joint make a better pass at a one-armed Go-Go Dancer.
.
The one REALLY egregious moment in this DVD comes during the DEFENSIVE FOOTBALL 101 class, when the (not-so-heterosexual-looking) instructor informs his swooning female students that, “Mostly it’s the Defensive Line who blocks the Offensive Line”. Well, one of us has that very wrong. And something tells me that while I was playing the game of football, this instructor was leading an “alternative” team: the cheerleading team.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

“F” Stands For: FANTASTICALLY FAR-FETCHED FEMINIST FANTASY FLICK

.
[*This review was originally published at Amazon.com 
on Thurs. Jan. 18th, 2007*]
.

.
GIRLFIGHT
directed by Karyn Kusama
released: 2000
.
Karyn Kusama’s GIRLFIGHT is nothing more than a strident misandrist pleasuring herself on film!
.
Ordinarily, I would never consider wasting my valuable time watching this type of movie, much less bothering to write anything about it, but because I recently wrote a series of reviews for some mostly older anti-Feminism books, it was suggested to me that I should also “weigh in” on GIRLFIGHT, which I had previously never even heard of.
.
Written and directed by then-newcomer Kusama, the title, GIRLFIGHT, is simply a rather pedestrian substitution for “Woman’s Struggle”, that is, “Feminism.” Her title displays the same sort of “heavy-handed” touch that she exhibits throughout the movie. As a filmmaker, Kusama has all the subtlety of a Great White Shark in a feeding frenzy. The movie consists of one “ham-fisted” symbol after another, decrying all of the usual exaggerated and simplistic contentions regarding men that radical Feminists have been screeching about for over forty years; illustrating the feminist anthems; and portraying resolutions dreamed up in their wishful fantasies.
.
It should come as no surprise to any educated person that GIRLFIGHT won a couple of awards at Robert “Red” Redford’s Sundance Film Festival in 2000; the incestuous relationship between Marxism and Feminism has long been established, and GIRLFIGHT was bound to be enthusiastically embraced at Sundance, and promoted as another vehicle for further conditioning the masses -- particularly young women -- toward the Socialistic goals of hard-core feminism. (If you want to turn off your TV one day and read a nonfiction book, The Gender Agenda by Dale O’Leary, or The Privilege Of Being A Woman by Alice von Hildebrand, would be a smashing place to begin.) It was, after all, no less a Communist than Vladimir Lenin himself who stated in 1920, “We must create a powerful international women’s movement.” (Was keeping the spectators seated and talking during the singing of The Star-Spangled Banner before GIRLFIGHT’s climactic bout a Marxist “jab” at America?)
.
* Although I will not be discussing anything that the majority of the previous reviewers have not already revealed, be advised that this review will examine the major plot points and the ending of GIRLFIGHT. If you don’t want to know how this movie ends, you should discontinue reading this review.
.
Ostensibly, the story is about a high school girl, Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez), who, prone to violent outbursts, redirects her aggression by taking up boxing and ultimately confronts her emotionally abusive dad, and then later, her boyfriend in the ring. The entire movie is simply a kaleidoscope of embarrassingly overt visual metaphors meant to convey the concept of Patriarchy getting pummeled to a pulp by Womanhood, and the castration of perceived masculine power. (Diana or Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, is portrayed in mythology as having killed various men and male gods.)
.
Early on, we get a barely veiled glimpse of Diana’s (writer/director Kusama’s mouthpiece) disdain for the traditional role of women in society when she stares out of her 11th story bedroom window at a mother pushing a baby carriage with a crying toddler in tow. That she’s “looking down on Motherhood” couldn’t have been more obvious.
.
There are three “types” of one-dimensional men (or malignancies) in this movie. (The “father”, the “son”, and the “emasculated ghost”?)...
.
#1) The domineering, emotionally and physically abusive male determined to “keep women in their place.” This type of man is represented by Diana’s drunken dad, and in a typical exhibition of Kusama’s over-the-top symbolism, he is knocked around and nearly strangled to death by Diana in the family’s kitchen (after she has received some boxing training). Get it? A woman’s place is in the kitchen, but only if that’s the location she chooses for bloodying the Patriarchy! “You belong to me now! ... All these years you just looked right through me”, Diana says to her beaten dad on behalf of women everywhere.
.
#2) The unfaithful romancer who refuses to accept women on equal terms in every single facet of social endeavor. He is represented by Diana’s love interest, Adrian, who dreams of “winning” his way out of the projects with a successful boxing career. Giving him the name of Rocky Balboa’s wife was an obvious slap at the character and at men in general who express their manhood through a fascination with sports and sports movies. That slap becomes a punch, however, when 18-year-old Diana, with perhaps two months worth of training, defeats 19-year-old Adrian in the ring -- despite the fact that he’s been training for nearly a year, and supposedly has true professional boxing potential. (In a sorry display of how far Kusama was willing to go to get the most “punch for the buck”, she wants us to believe that these two characters would be fighting in the same weight class. Never mind that Adrian is obviously 6” taller than Diana and appears to outweigh her by about 40 pounds. It simply wouldn’t do to have the Feminist hero defeat a man merely her own size!)
.
#3) Diana’s brother, Tiny, is the way men ought to be in Kusama’s warped world. He is artistic, sensitive, effeminate, satisfactorily de-masculinized already. He is tolerable because he is pathetic, as he can do nothing but stand back, wring his hands, and plead for his dad’s life, while the “new” man (Diana GuzMAN -- get it?) strangles the “old” man in the kitchen and usurps his authority (i.e., transforms the Patriarchal family unit into a Matriarchy). 
.
But in an ironic twist, Kusama also reveals her revulsion at the feminine man as well, by naming him TINY. Diana’s brother is neither excessively large or small for his age, so we must assume that the name hints at something else: His unmanly “endowments” literally or figuratively; his diminished social status in the imagined new Matriarchy; or simply Kusama’s personal view of such effete men?
.
GIRLFIGHT begins with one of the silliest opening shots ever conceived. (Diana Guzman looks up and glares directly at the camera, i.e., at “you”, the viewer. Why? Uh, well, because Kusama told her to.) And it ends with one of the most improbable scenes ever filmed: After losing to her in the ring -- bringing his dream of a boxing career to an end -- Adrian practically begs Diana not to break up with him. This shows just how out-of-touch with reality and Male Psychology these extreme Feminists really are. If such a scenario as presented in this movie were even truly possible, does Kusama and her Feminist horde actually believe that a “man” in this situation would REALLY want to retain his romantic relationship with his female conqueror? That he would be willing to take a licking and keep on kissing?) GIRLFIGHT is indeed a Feminist fantasy from the opening bell to the final round.
.
It does, however, contain a few positive ingredients: Technically, the screenplay is competently constructed and well-paced, and some of the cinematography is imaginative. The score nicely compliments the images and adds an exotic tone. Herb Lovelle as Cal is good in a very small part, and Jaime Tirelli in the role of Diana’s trainer, Hector, delivers a fine, multi-layered performance. However, having read the script, no self-respecting “man” would have consented to appear in this propaganda piece. (But divesting men of their self-respect has been a goal for Feminists for over forty years now, and they’ve been largely successful.) Otherwise, the acting was uneven across-the-board. This was Rodriguez’s first role, and it sometimes showed.
.
I could excoriate the artificial dialogue, the nonstop profanity, and the sloppy editing in GIRLFIGHT, but that would be like criticizing a dead dog for being lazy. Instead, let me give you one small dose of reality: Men generally possess nearly 50% more muscle mass than women, and testosterone (a steroid hormone which studies have linked to enhanced aggressiveness and increased muscle formation) is approximately thirty times more prevalent in the adult male body than it is in the adult female. (That’s 30 times, not 30%!) In other words, there are genuine physiological reasons why women trained in boxing are never going to be serious competition for men trained in boxing -- Karyn Kusama’s fantasy notwithstanding. (Don’t blame me; blame God. But your arms are too short to box with Him.) 
.
Lucia Rijker is universally regarded as the best fighter in the history of female boxing; she has had 54 fights with women and won them all -- most by knockout. In earnest competition, she stepped into a ring only once with a man: In 1995, she fought Muay Thai boxer Somchai Jaidee, who was far from being a world elite fighter in the men’s competition. Rijker managed to survive the first round but in the second round, she was laid out on the canvas, unconscious for several minutes. (If she didn’t have a clue about Women Vs. Men in Boxing when she climbed into that ring, I’m sure she had one when she woke up in it!)
.
What disturbs me is not that a misandrist would put her neurosis on film (wrong, Cyndi -- these days, “Girls Just Want To Be Boys”), but that anyone would tout this fiction as some kind of inspiring movie to be shown to youngsters -- THAT'S what bothers me! As if Diana Guzman represents some viable means to conflict resolution in the real world. My heart goes out to any child of a rigor mortis-brained parent who believes that “fighting” -- even in a square “ring” -- is the best way to channel aggressive behavior. 
.
When my Brother (nicknamed “Napoleon”) was only about 12 years old, a professional trainer recognized that he possessed a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Rushmore and an almost freakish, innate aptitude for fighting. This man offered to prepare my Brother for a professional boxing career. Being an Irish-American fighting in sub-Middleweight divisions, and being as proficient in physical destruction as he is, Napoleon would have made many millions of dollars as a successful boxer. But even at that young an age, he was intelligent enough to recognize the senselessness of making a living knocking other guys senseless, and so he turned down the trainer’s offer. Instead, he was able to sublimate his anger without needing to unleash it on others in any harmful form. With his fiery energy redirected into more constructive activities, he eventually grew into a very good and caring man (who could still decapitate any one of us with either fist, though he would never do so).
.
That anyone would show GIRLFIGHT to a young person as motivation for anything, and would hold up this fictional character as a role model for young women to emulate in any way, is deplorable and irresponsible! GIRLFIGHT is not just a Feminist cartoon fantasy masquerading as a gritty, urban tale -- it’s a bad cartoon with bad language and a bad agenda, and that’s a bad “combination.” This crappy movie is out for the count!
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.