YubNub Social YubNub Social
    Advanced Search
  • Login

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Jobs Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Jobs

YubNub News
YubNub News
1 y

Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, there are two items of broad consensus: First, that unrestricted late-term (up to the point of birth) abortion should not be legal, and, second, that…
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

J.D. Vance Says a War With Iran Is Not in the U.S. Interest
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

J.D. Vance Says a War With Iran Is Not in the U.S. Interest

Foreign Affairs J.D. Vance Says a War With Iran Is Not in the U.S. Interest The vice-presidential candidate’s comments are the latest evidence of the gravity of the GOP foreign policy realignment. Credit: Ive radin On October 26, J.D. Vance, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, marked a distance with Israel on the escalating situation in the Middle East. On the Tim Dillon Show, he acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself, but cautioned that “America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct [from Israel’s]. Sometimes we’re going to have overlapping interests, and sometimes we’re going to have distinct interests.” He clarified further that the U.S. interest “very much is in not going to war with Iran”. Such a war, Vance emphasized, “would be a huge distraction of resources; it would be massively expensive to our country”. These remarks are significant for several reasons. First, they are said in the midst of a tightly fought presidential election, with most polls suggesting the Harris–Trump showdown is a toss-up. When it comes to Israel, especially during an election, what most U.S. politicians typically offer is the boilerplate of platitudes on Washington’s “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security and efforts to out-hawk each other on the “pariah states” like Iran.  As Responsible Statecraft’s Kelley Vlahos noted, commenting on the debate between Vance and Governor Tim Walz, trying to outgun a Democratic opponent on Iran rhetoric is what a more hawkish Republican candidate, like Nikki Haley, would have done in Vance’s place.  It is true that Vance did sound some conventional lines in that debate, such as a need to stand by Israel, but what is noteworthy is that he did not seize on the opportunity to burnish his aggressive credentials, even though the CBS anchor Margaret Brennan made it easy for him to do so by framing the only foreign policy issue as a question of whether the candidates were ready to preemptively strike Iran (a nation, lest we forget, not at war with the U.S.). Vance did repeat allegations about the Biden-Harris administration easing some $100 billion to Iran; when reminded by his opponent of Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, however, he said that “diplomacy is not a dirty word,” suggesting a potential openness to talk to Tehran. Second, those skeptical of the Republican Party’s shift to a foreign policy restraint have often alleged that that shift is opportunistic and selective—namely, implying that the only war the Republicans did not like was the one in Ukraine, as it is seen as a Democrats’ war fought for “liberal” causes.  It is true that Vance lamented some “Americans leaders’” propensity to identify a “good guy” and a “bad guy” in that war, which led to a firestorm of accusations of cozying up to the Russia’s President Vladimir Putin—ignoring the fact that Vance did condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The point he was making, though, was that the war has exhausted both countries and it was now “time to stop killing.” Coming out against a war on Iran—a highly unpopular country in the U.S. (and for good reasons)—gives some credence to the notion that the GOP’s fresh restraint could be more than just an opportunistic partisanship. This impression is reinforced by statements of other influential Republicans like Elbridge Colby, the former high-ranking Pentagon official and a strong candidate to be the Trump II national security advisor, who has confessed himself to be an “‘iconoclast’ to the idea of a hyper-aggressive, wildly expansive foreign policy that would get us in to a lot of wars—and lose them.”    Conversely, neoconservative luminaries like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, who resigned from the board of the Washington Post over its failure to endorse Kamala Harris for presidency, are migrating to the Democratic party. Both Kristol and Kagan are unrepentant cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion some 20 years ago. And Harris found a common cause with a key architect of that war—the former vice president Dick Cheney and his hawkish daughter, the former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY).  None of that, of course, means that there is now a clear-cut divide between an ostensibly pro-restraint GOP and the pro-war Democrats. It’s more complicated than that. Some hawkish Republicans are reportedly being mulled for key national security positions in the hypothetical new Trump administration, such as Ric Grenell, the former ambassador to Germany and acting national intelligence director, Arkansas’s Senator Tom Cotton, and  Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state and now a lobbyist for a Ukrainian telecommunications firm. At the same time, there are pro-restraint Democrats, such as Vice-President Harris’s foreign policy adviser Philip Gordon, tagged for the top national security jobs should Harris win. Drawing from his own extensive executive experience, Gordon wrote a sensible book about the futility of regime change wars in the Middle East.  What matters, however, is the trajectory. That the influential ascendant Republicans like Vance and Colby (not to forget the self-styled Nixonian realist Vivek Ramaswamy) oppose “forever wars”, while the Democrats embrace hawkishness, is indicative of where both parties might be heading in terms of foreign policy.  That may make a difference after November 5. As the outgoing Biden administration put the THAAD anti-missile defense system in place in Israel and sent Americans to make it operational to deter possible Iranian attacks—without restraining Israel’s own escalatory actions—it is “gambling with American lives in a manner that may leave scores killed from retaliation by Iran or Iraqi militias,” warns Trita Parsi, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s executive vice-president. If the Trump-Vance ticket wins, it will have a chance to show leadership by following up on Vance’s remarks on Israel and Iran, and act to ensure that no U.S. soldiers are killed, as Parsi put it, “in a war they did not fight for America and that Congress never authorized”.  The post J.D. Vance Says a War With Iran Is Not in the U.S. Interest appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

Kamala’s “Freedom From Freedom” Hoax
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

Kamala’s “Freedom From Freedom” Hoax

Politics Kamala’s “Freedom From Freedom” Hoax Don’t be fooled—the Harris campaign promises old-fashioned government paternalism. In her closing spiel at the Ellipse on Tuesday night, Vice President Kamala Harris was flanked by giant banners with the word FREEDOM. Harris returned to her Democratic National Convention theme, along with the “joy” and “positive vibes” motifs that marked the launch of her campaign after President Joe Biden’s defenestration. Tuesday night’s theme echoed her website pitch: “Vice President Harris and Governor Walz are fighting for a New Way Forward that protects our fundamental freedoms…” But Harris is offering a vast expansion of federal power cloaked with a venerable ideal. Traditional American freedom rests upon the constitutional and legal rights of American citizens—rights that restrain government officials from domineering citizens’ lives. Kamala Freedom requires unlimited interventions to deliver whatever benefits politicians decree. Speaking almost in the shadow of the White House, Kamala again promised to give Americans “freedom from gun violence.” The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights pledged in perpetuity that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But Americans won’t have “freedom from gun violence” unless government controls every trigger in the land. Harris previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people’s homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Disarming Americans will leave them in total dependency on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place. In a speech last Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Harris promised to safeguard “freedom from fear, violence, and harm.” Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. People who sound the alarm about excessive government power will be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Would the Biden-Harris administration justify its false claims on a decrease in national violent crime rates to provide “freedom from fear”—even if it were a delusion?  Kamala Freedom depends on politicians having unlimited sway to decree who pays what—or who pays nothing. Harris bragged, “President Biden and I are removing obstacles to financial freedom. We have forgiven $167 billion in student loan debt for more than 4.7 million people.” Biden and Harris have trumpeted their contempt for rulings by the Supreme Court and other federal courts striking down the student debt forgiveness schemes as illegal. But fidelity to the Constitution is a paltry benefit compared to letting politicians scatter benefits and buy votes across the land.  Kamala will deliver “freedom from inequality” by seizing boundless sway to determine who gets what. Her Opportunity Economy will deliver “equity,” which Harris defines as equal results: “Some people need more so we all end up in the same place.” How much more? It’s a secret. Which groups receive more? You’ll find that out after you elect Harris. (No wonder she dodges interviews where she would be pressured to explain how she will use the power she seeks.) Harris endlessly proclaims: “I believe in the fundamental freedom of Americans to make decisions about their own bodies and not have the government tell them what to do.” Unless, of course, politicians want to forcibly inject citizens with experimental vaccines. Harris has shown no remorse for the vaccine mandate that Biden decreed after he falsely promised that the vaccines would prevent Americans from getting or transmitting Covid.  The key to Kamala Freedom is that government victims don’t count—they simply don’t exist for official scoring. Thousands of women were wrongfully fired for refusing to comply with Biden’s illegal vaccine mandate, which he issued in September 2021 and which the Supreme Court struck down in January 2022 (except for health care workers). But, unlike the women who oppose limits on abortion, those who lost their jobs due to illegal vaccine mandates have been totally ignored by Harris and other politicians.  A Harris campaign video promised to deliver “freedom from extremism.” In Washington, anyone who doesn’t worship government is considered an extremist. Distrusting the federal government is extremism at its worst. So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate. Harris is hellbent on giving Americans “freedom from misinformation,” regardless of how many people must be muzzled. In her first presidential campaign in 2019, Harris vowed to crack down on social media companies that refused to kowtow: “If you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.” Her Vice Presidential nominee, Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Walz, bluntly declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” But the First Amendment explicitly bans any federal Ministry of Truth. Harris effectively ignored the federal court decisions condemning the sweeping covert censorship by the Biden administration.  Harris has also promised Americans “the freedom to simply be.” Does she intend to provide new subsidies for psychobabble? Will Harris appoint a “Simply Be Czar”?  Harris promises liberty via unleashing Leviathan. And there is no danger to freedom because Harris is the best friend and protector that any citizen could want. Well, at least any good citizen—defined as people who submit and live as they are told. But how can doubtful citizens have “freedom from fear” that their rulers think they are garbage, as President Biden said of all Trump supporters on Tuesday night? Kamala Freedom is simply a new label for old-time paternalism. It presumes that citizens will be better off forced to rely on political promises rather than inviolable legal and constitutional rights. And if Kamala wins, any cavils about the wisdom of that switcheroo could vanish very quickly. The post Kamala’s “Freedom From Freedom” Hoax appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
1 y

Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Politics Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Even pro-abortion voters should be leery of the abortion referendum. Credit: image via Shutterstock No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, there are two items of broad consensus: First, that unrestricted late-term (up to the point of birth) abortion should not be legal, and, second, that parents of underage girls should be consulted and have the right to consent to their daughters’ obtaining of abortions. Florida’s proposed Amendment 4 up for vote on November 5 would both allow totally unrestricted abortion up to the point of birth and would remove parental rights around abortion. In just 39 words, this amendment legalizes late-term abortion, repeals parental consent for minors seeking abortion, and removes all safety regulations for abortion providers. Those in favor of unrestricted abortion might applaud the brevity, but this is no literary or legal masterpiece; its passage would be a tragedy and disaster. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is rarely the soul of legislation. The amendment’s vague language may make voters think they understand what they’re voting on, but the reality is this lack of clarity opens the door to dangerous consequences. The amendment states, “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability.” The question that must be asked is: What happens when you remove all penalties, delays, prohibitions, and restrictions on abortion? The answer is chilling. If this amendment passes, it will eliminate every single safeguard Florida currently has in place to protect women who choose abortions. Presently, abortions must be performed by licensed physicians. Amendment 4 would allow anyone to perform an abortion without licensing, training, or qualifications; that’s what happens when the government can’t “restrict” something. Under this new law, there would no longer be an ultrasound requirement before an abortion. Without an ultrasound, there is no sure way to know how far along the pregnancy is, or if the patient is even pregnant at all. Are you supposed to take the abortion provider’s word for it—that is, the word of the person profiting from the procedure? Since when does the healthcare system operate on the honor system?  What is the practical reason to remove these kinds of requirements? No one can claim with a straight face that it is to protect women’s health. We used to call abortions done by non-medical personnel without any training or licensing “back-alley abortions.” Under Amendment 4, we can start calling them constitutional abortions. This law makes women’s medical safety take a back seat to a radical pro-abortion agenda. Then there’s the matter of parental involvement. Under current law, parents must give permission for their minor child to have an abortion. Amendment 4 removes this consent requirement, replacing it with mere notification. Your 14-year-old daughter could be taken under coercion to an abortion clinic without your permission and all the clinic would have to do is notify you. You would have no power to prevent the procedure even after you are notified. Parental consent is erased entirely. If passed, this law will harm underage girls. The second part of the amendment is equally vague and dangerous. It allows abortion when “necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” But key terms like “health” and “healthcare provider” are left undefined. Could a massage therapist, for example, determine that an abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s mental health? The language is so broadly written that it invites this kind of interpretation. This vagueness opens the door for poorly regulated, late-term abortions—even dismemberment abortions—through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, with no clear legal boundaries. To recap: This 39-word wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing amendment would allow underage girls to have abortions without parental consent, open the door to unsafe, unregulated procedures, and permit painful, late-term, dismemberment abortions on fully viable unborn children. And none of this is necessary—Florida law already includes provisions to protect women’s health and allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, sex trafficking, maternal health, miscarriage care or severe fetal abnormalities. Amendment 4 would take Florida from being one of the more pro-life states to one of the most pro-abortion states in the country and would make Florida a destination for abortion tourism.  No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion—whether you’re pro-life, pro-choice, or somewhere in between—if you care about women’s health, the safety of underage girls, and the protection of full-term unborn babies, Floridians should vote “No” on Amendment 4. The post Why Florida’s Amendment 4 is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Beyond Bizarre
Beyond Bizarre
1 y ·Youtube Wild & Crazy

YouTube
Something Biblical Is Happening Right Now
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 y

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Israel on the Brink of Devastation in War Against Iran and Hezbollah!
Favicon 
api.bitchute.com

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Israel on the Brink of Devastation in War Against Iran and Hezbollah!

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Israel on the Brink of Devastation in War Against Iran and Hezbollah! - A RECENT ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR AND INSIDER INFORMATION ON OBSCURE FACTS - WILL THE US GOVERNMENT ENTER THE WAR? WILL IT TURN INTO WW3? - 106,605 views October 8, 2024 Dialogue Works - BOOKMARKS: Intro 0:00 Welcome 0:33 Genocide Commemoration 2:21 Netanyahu Speech 7:33 We Are Winning 10:18 Irans Response 12:30 Israels Economy 18:53 John Bolton manufactured rumors 25:36 Israels propaganda machine 25:56 General Mccristal 27:10 American Interest in Israel 29:36 Is Israel Running the Show 31:34 Is Obama Running the Show 38:49 Russia and Israel 41:52 Whats missing in Washington 45:54 - Col. (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). - Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired in 1997 and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs at the George Washington University. - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@dialogueworks01
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
1 y

WHO Chief Tedros Declares ‘Aggressive Action’ Needed Against Growing Anti-Vaccine Movement
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

WHO Chief Tedros Declares ‘Aggressive Action’ Needed Against Growing Anti-Vaccine Movement

from RAIR Foundation: Geneva, Switzerland – October 30, 2024: World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a Marxist revolutionary with well-documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has issued a bold warning against those opposing the global vaccine agenda, labeling them as a “serious challenge.” At the recent World Health Assembly in Geneva, Tedros […]
Like
Comment
Share
BlabberBuzz Feed
BlabberBuzz Feed
1 y

Caught In The Crossfire: Kamala Harris's 'Pro-Second Amendment' Claims Vs. Biden's Call To Ban Assault Weapons!
Favicon 
www.blabber.buzz

Caught In The Crossfire: Kamala Harris's 'Pro-Second Amendment' Claims Vs. Biden's Call To Ban Assault Weapons!

Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

We Need Sad Stories
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

We Need Sad Stories

Art shows us back to ourselves, and the best art doesn’t flinch or look away. It tells us our story, and what story doesn’t have some measure of sorrow? What great story doesn’t contain great sorrow? I’ve loved Vincent van Gogh since I was a kid. In those early years, I couldn’t have told you what drew me to his work, but now three decades later I know; it’s the mix of splendor and sorrow. His paintings aren’t mere pictures of rivers, sunflowers, or night skies; they’re his attempt to capture the wonder and struggle of being alive. Everything Van Gogh saw was full of beauty and sadness—an increasingly familiar tension for him. They were present even in the way he talked about the ordinary scenes he wanted to paint, like this description of a bridge in Arles, France: I have a view of the Rhône—the iron bridge at Trinquetaille, where the sky and the river are the colour of absinthe—the quays a lilac tone, the people leaning on the parapet almost black, the iron bridge an intense blue—with a bright orange note in the blue background and an intense Veronese green note. One more effort that’s far from finished—but I am trying to get at something utterly heartbroken and therefore utterly heartbreaking. Much of the world’s great art comes from places of sadness, and I believe that’s often why we connect with it. It isn’t that the works themselves are of a sorrowful subject matter; it’s that the artists bring their personal experience to their work to say something meaningful about the world to the viewer. Art Tells a Story We want what we say to matter. We want it to connect. We want it to help people. Much of the world’s great art comes from places of sadness. So artists create, not just to show us a picture of a bridge but to show us something of this world where bridges are needed and used by people to get from one bank to the other without going under. Some cross alone, while others walk hand in hand as the sun dances on the water and casts those leaning on the rail as silhouettes. But there we are, each living out our unfolding story filled with all kinds of joy and difficulty. Sad Stories’ Appeal Why are we so drawn to sad stories? Sorrow, grief, anger, futility, frustration, and distress are complicated yet universal realities, and to talk about them in any substantive manner is to do so by way of story. These emotions aren’t data points; they’re tales of heartache and woe, and they come for all of us. So we lean in when sad stories are told because they prepare us for what’s coming. Sad stories teach us about pain and suffering when we’re not personally going through those trials. They allow us to feel the feelings of grief and loss without the personal anxiety that accompanies them when that sorrow is uniquely our own. It’s a sign of emotional maturity to be able to feel competing emotions—like hope and sorrow—at the same time, and sad stories give us practice. They help us develop empathy and compassion. They tell us that these sorrows we experience, which can leave us feeling so isolated, are, in fact, well-traveled roads. Sad stories also teach us how to deal with the problem of evil in the world. G. K. Chesterton said of fairy tales, [They] do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of the bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of the bogey. The same is true of sad stories. They remind us not just that this world can wound us but that wounds can heal. They remind us to hope. Sad stories remind us to hope. Sad stories also remind us to lament. Lament is sorrow joined to prayer; it’s directed pain about which we ask, “How long, O Lord?” We often tell our saddest stories as a form of protest, as a way of saying, “Look at what beauty came from this wreck of a life, what faith was born from this spiral of despair, what hope rose up in this darkest night, what rescue crested the hill just when it seemed all was lost.” So much beauty is born out of suffering. We make some sense of brokenness and pain by looking at the beauty they produce. Art Connects Us This is where much of the world’s art is born—from struggle and sorrow. An artist looks for a story to tell, a message to convey, a point of connection between him and some unknown viewer. What do we as people have in common? Art doesn’t necessarily start a new conversation, but it picks up one already underway—the wonder and struggle of being alive in this world as we experience it. What makes these stories of wonder and struggle beautiful is how they remind us we’re not alone.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

3 New Films Offer Wisdom to Parents
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

3 New Films Offer Wisdom to Parents

Parenting often feels like a delicate balance. You want to protect your children from harm, but you don’t want to overprotect them in a way that can cause a different sort of long-term harm. You want to be on guard against dangers and corrupting influences, but not so on guard that your kids cannot explore, take risks, and learn valuable lessons. You want to cultivate an environment of safety without falling into safetyism. I’ve thought about this tension a lot recently, especially after reading Jonathan Haidt’s great book The Anxious Generation, where he helpfully describes the difference between “discover mode” and “defend mode.” Haidt argues that many kids today are spending more time in “defend mode” in part because of overanxious parents who prize safety above all. But these kids miss out on the developmental richness that comes in “discovery mode,” where they can navigate the world’s wonders (and dangers!) without constant parental supervision. I was reminded of Haidt’s common-grace parenting wisdom as I watched a few excellent movies this fall, now in theaters: Blitz, Lost on a Mountain in Maine, and The Wild Robot. In its own way, each of these films offers helpful wisdom about raising resilient kids in a harsh world. 1. Blitz Set in 1940 London, at the height of the terrifying aerial bombardment by the German Luftwaffe in WWII, Steve McQueen’s Blitz (rated PG-13) is more than just an intense, often haunting story of wartime survival. At its heart, Blitz is about human resilience: enduring horrific traumas and tragedies and still finding joy and purpose in life, making music even as the bombs fall (singing plays a prominent role throughout the film). Specifically, the film captures the hope-filled resilience of children, who sometimes surprise us adults with the fortitude, innocent wonder, and solidarity they can muster even under great duress. Blitz captures the hope-filled resilience of children, who sometimes surprise us adults with the fortitude, innocent wonder, and solidarity they can muster even under great duress. Blitz follows Rita (the great Saoirse Ronan), and her son George (newcomer Elliott Heffernan), who is sent away from London for safety in the British countryside. It’s the same program that famously sent children to stay with C. S. Lewis in Oxford, partially inspiring the Narnia stories. Young George jumps off the train, however, and tries to find his way back to his mom. His journey (think Dickens meets The Boxcar Children) is marked by beautiful moments of connection with strangers he helps or who help him, as well as frightful encounters with bad people and hellish warscapes. At every turn, George is confronted with death on the streets of London—a sometimes shocking depiction of a beloved Western city that less than a century ago, we easily forget, was a warzone where nearly 20,000 civilians were killed. George’s journey is also marked by a painful awareness of racial prejudice. As a mixed-race boy of a white mom and a Grenadian immigrant father, he often feels alien in his own city—even in moments of heightened national solidarity. Still, George doesn’t see himself as a victim and presses on despite the pain, whether physical or emotional. Aptly described by one character as a “scrapper,” George is determinedly hopeful even in the grimmest moments. And his hope—to be reunited with his mother and to build back a life from the rubble—is what keeps him alive. Compared with some of McQueen’s previous boundary-pushing films like Hunger (2008) or Shame (2011), Blitz might feel “old-fashioned” or “classic” in its storytelling. But while some critics see this as a fault (Variety called the film “almost shockingly conventional”), I see it as an asset. Blitz is an elegantly made, gripping narrative that celebrates familial love, the kindness of strangers, and the way loving community can fuel collective resilience. Against the backdrop of constant artistic transgression, “traditional” dramas like this are subversive in their own way. In a Western culture where technology has accelerated atomization and “song of myself” autonomy, Blitz argues we’re most alive when we’re living as God created us to live: within a web of loving relationships driven by serving one another rather than by solitary survival. 2. Lost on a Mountain in Maine Like Blitz, the just-released Lost on a Mountain in Maine (rated PG) is a harrowing story in which a young boy is separated from a parent and must survive a long, perilous journey on his own. The film dramatizes the true story of 12-year-old Donn Fendler (played by Luke David Blumm), who in the summer of 1939 survived nine days in the remote wilderness of northern Maine after getting separated from his brother and father on a hike. The film’s title comes from Fendler’s autobiographical novel about the ordeal, originally published in 1939, which became something of a young-adult adventure classic. Against the backdrop of constant artistic transgression, ‘traditional’ dramas like this are subversive in their own way. Produced by Sylvester Stallone and directed by Andrew Boodhoo Kightlinger, the film adaptation captures well the “outdoor survival/adventure” aspects of the story. But I most appreciate how the film captures the bond between fathers and sons, and the particular challenge a dad faces when it comes to balancing risk, protection, freedom, and responsibility. Paul Sparks plays Fendler’s father and does a great job expressing a range of fatherly emotions as he desperately searches for his lost son, bears immense guilt for losing him, and yet hopes the boy learned enough from his dad to survive in the wild world by himself. You could watch a harrowing story like this (or Blitz) as a parent and respond with a newfound commitment to “defense mode” with your child. But I left both films with a new commitment to preparing my kids to be gritty and courageous in a world whose scariness won’t be kept at bay forever. Sooner or later—and often in unsought ways—they’ll need to find safe passage through a storm of some sort. Sooner or later, they’ll encounter the world’s darkness in its many expressions, even if they don’t go looking for it. All I can do now is give them wisdom and bearings that—combined with their God-given instincts—will serve them well when those times come, helping them to be a light in the darkness and to follow the light home. 3. The Wild Robot Any parent who saw The Wild Robot (rated PG) this fall probably had a few moments of misty-eyed recognition. The gorgeously animated film, based on a best-selling youth novel—uses a sci-fi fantasy world to tell what’s essentially a parent-child saga. A robot named Roz (Lupita Nyong’o) becomes an adopted mother to an orphaned goose, Brightbill (Kit Connor). But if Brightbill is to survive in the wild, he must learn skills like swimming and (especially) flying. So Roz does whatever she can to set Brightbill up for success, including recruiting mentors and role models like Thunderbolt (Ving Rhames), Longneck (Bill Nighy), and Fink (Pedro Pascal) who can teach Brightbill essential survival skills. In Roz, we see that familiar parental tension between protecting a vulnerable child enough but not coddling them to the point that they grow up weak. She recognizes early how harsh the world is and how crucial it’ll be for Brightbill to be able to survive on his own and protect himself. Roz, after all, won’t always be there. She wisely recognizes she doesn’t have enough within herself to sufficiently train and strengthen Brightbill. Her “letting go” of solo authority by entrusting the young goose to other mentors and teachers is a key move that serves Brightbill well. Another bit of parenting wisdom evident in The Wild Robot (echoing a theme also present in Blitz) is the way Roz goes beyond mere survival in how she teaches Brightbill—suggesting to him that kindness and grace are also “survival skills.” As a robot programmed for mere utility and efficiency, Roz is inclined to focus on the survival component of her task to prepare Brightbill. But she starts to recognize that mere survival is no way to prepare a creature to live. Her realization is a good reminder to modern parents—perhaps especially Christian parents—that our task isn’t just to create successful survivors who do whatever’s necessary to evade threats and achieve greatness in the world. We also want to raise kids who are gracious and generous, who seek to serve others rather than just preserve themselves. How to Parent in a Perilous World If you’re a parent looking for a relatively wholesome film to watch in this month of Thanksgiving, these three are solid options. Thrilling and riveting in different ways, they’re full of wisdom about parenthood and childhood in a hostile world. At a time when many couples are having fewer kids—a choice sometimes justified by how “messed up” and scary the world is—these movies remind us that parenting has always played out in a wild world where perils are plentiful. But in generation after generation, by the grace of a God who wired us for family, parents tend to rise to the occasion and navigate the challenges. And when given the chance, so do their kids.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 5694 out of 56669
  • 5690
  • 5691
  • 5692
  • 5693
  • 5694
  • 5695
  • 5696
  • 5697
  • 5698
  • 5699
  • 5700
  • 5701
  • 5702
  • 5703
  • 5704
  • 5705
  • 5706
  • 5707
  • 5708
  • 5709

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund