https://azirona.com/ hi there en-us "Akira" Back in college, some 15+ years ago, I watched Akira. My great anime sampling period. I watched it, really enjoyed the animation, assumed it was pretty standard for high-end anime films, but was put off by how weird and confusing the story was. My wife and I watched it this week. She came to the same conclusion: excellent animation, glad she experienced it, content to never touch it again. On the scale of 1 to Gross, this is about a 4.5. There's plenty of violence and mild gore up until the great transformation, where it becomes just freaking WEIRD. More unnerving, less discomfiting. It's a classic. One of those you want to say you've seen without devoting the time and mental energy to see it. It's important historically. Fortunately, the animation is so good that that part alone makes the experience enjoyable. So yes. I do recommend Akira. Once. Sat, 18 Apr 2026 03:13:49 GMT telegram-post-45 "Contentment" I'm reading "The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment" to the fam at dinner every night. We're only in chapter 2 and already my wife is seeing and applying the wisdom from it all over the place. This will be the... I think 4th time I'm going through it. Various versions exist; the audiobook narration is fairly archaic. There is an "original" version I gave someone and I regret that immensely. For our household, I got an updated English version. It is fairly literal in its translation, sticks to the rails of the original book, more like a copy-paste for every instance of "state" with "situation," that sort of thing. In any case, it's an excellent book, 10/10, would recommend to all and everyone. Every Christian would benefit from it. Wed, 15 Apr 2026 03:40:27 GMT telegram-post-44 "Two Weeks to End the War" Six years ago, the world was told two weeks would stop the spread. Now we're getting told that this war has been won and re-won several times already. It really feels like the Iranian Navy got completely annihilated, 5 times now. Unbelievable. I know Trump has 60 + 30 days to complete his "special operation" according to the War Powers Act, but I really hope it doesn't take that long. I also recently learned how much of a raging attitude Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz have for supporting Israel. Over their own constituents. What's wrong with you guys. Come back. Three months is already too long to be over there. I will be MIGHTY pissed if it goes on every day after that. Thu, 02 Apr 2026 04:15:46 GMT telegram-post-43 "Obligatory Unnecessaries" It has not been "too long" that I've been putting off this topic. Rather, it's that I waited till I had the right amount of time to get this all out in one, big go. (I'll still get interrupted here and there, oh well) How required is it of any piece of media to include a scene of excessive violence, gratuitous gore, non-stop swearing, extended sexuality, and detailed nudity? Is a movie no longer objectively good because the sex scene got taken out? Does a book need to include tons of curse words every page? What volume of blood is allowed per simulated killing? Which upskirts are okay? Which ones are not? At the risk of avoiding the question, I'm going to answer with a conditional statement: It depends on the audience. What's allowed for 5-year-olds should be very, very limited. What's allowed for a veteran is in many ways not at all limited, although PTSD may make certain content inappropriate for them too. What's allowed for a stable guy of mid-30s age should probably be just about unlimited. I suppose that does avoid the question. Sorry. That said, I think it's very important, and still pertinent. I would never show my kids Top Gun: Maverick. They drop the F-bomb at a clear and obvious point in the story. I would never play DOOM 2016 in front of them. They don't need to see that. And yet in my opinion both of those are 10/10's. So objectively good... for whom? There are some out there who are grossness-agnostic. Anything goes, doesn't matter to them. But what I find is that the more vocal proponents of hyper-gross material (Spine of Night, Heavy Metal) appear insistent on having the objectionable material in. Suggest they take it out? They will revert to the grossness-agnostic ("Why not? What's YOUR problem?"), but the truth is they argue it HAS to be in there. Because "It's just not the same without that part." Why not? Why is it suddenly different? Lesser? Chesterton's fence analogy comes to mind. The grossness-advocate may want to claim it applies to them, but the truth is it applies to the more moderate, more chaste, more prudent (prudish?) party. Before we include the ojbectionable content, we must recognize that it will break some fences. So before we remove those fences, we must understand the reason that fence was originally installed. Besides audience, we come back to objectivity. How much is too much? Well, that depends on what the "much" is and how it applies to the story and themes. Is it a war movie and meant to be super accurate? Expect language and violence. Is it set in feudal Japan? Prepare for some really weird kinks. So authenticity to the time period is acceptable. If there's absolutely no relation to the setting, then that should be an obvious omission. But say there's something objectionable yet applicable. I would say it's time to go back to the question of audience. Somehow, The Passion of the Christ invariably receives a free pass to all this discussion. N.D. Wilson says that when you reach the point in a movie or book where you actively think "God doesn't like this, He is displeased by this," that is when and where you should turn it off and put it away. Regardless of worldview, this is good advice. Don't engage in "vice tourism," as he puts it. What is the purpose of the objectionable content? All too often, it is not used as a supplement to the story or characters; rather, it is used to shock the audience. Artists love to do this. Same reason we ride roller coasters or watch anything horror-related. I have friends who review video games. They go through a lot of objectionable material in these titles. The purpose is to inform others before they make their own decision. Perhaps it's not strictly necessary that these reviewers exist, but it certainly benefits others. Mon, 30 Mar 2026 05:01:48 GMT telegram-post-41 My wife knew an attorney who had a case where he and a woman had to watch a movie frame by frame to collect evidence of really, REALLY bad crimes. He was actively seeking it out. But why? To get a bad guy off the street. Any investiagtor has to deal with objectionable material all the time, for one of the most noble purposes out there. Where does this leave me? I think I want to start a series where I take out all the really awful stuff, the material I don't think is necessary, the grossness I believe is meant to shock and that's it, then see how well the film or book or game holds up. I would hope that consumers would pursue better media choices, and reject gratuitous grossness when it's encountered. In the meantime, as average consumers, I'd ask us to know our audience. Especially ourselves. Have a good idea of what constitutes "too far" for us individually. If we don't know ourselves, how can we expect someone else to know and abide by those sensibilities? If you're a creator, ask yourself: Why add this or that scene to your short film? Why include a verbal picture that lands outside of the societal "fence" built around it? It's commonly for a good reason why it's there in the first place. Mon, 30 Mar 2026 05:01:48 GMT telegram-post-42 "Megalopolis" Megalopolis is better than The Godfather at 1.5x speed, which is better than The Godfather at normal speed, which is better than Apocalypse Now. I have only those three films of Coppola's to work with, but I'm content to say that much at least. I tried watching Godfather and couldn't get past 10 minutes. Decided to actually get through it, and when accelerated, it's actually pretty good. Apocalypse Now is due a rewatch if I'm gonna judge it fairly, but I was severely unimpressed when I checked it out after Full Metal Jacket. The Godfather represents one of those pieces of media that basically everyone you know says they've watched several times, probably had, and each time re-cemented their conclusion that it's one of the peaks of cinema. I'm sorry but it sounds like a lot of people ought to climb some more movie mountains. Get out of this little mafia hamlet of theirs and explore the surrounding cinematic countryside. Mount Godfather is not the only hill in the range. I make it a point to learn what popular standard has been set, then deliberately deviate away from it. If it doesn't work, I admit that the hype is right, and I course-correct. But too often, I find myself justified in veering away. So my wife pitched Megalopolis, telling me it was poorly-received by most of the public, and unavailable from pretty much every legal means (something we later learned was Coppola's doing as much as the film's unpopularity contributed to). Once again, we feel vindidacted for branching off. The film is visually stunning, each scene like a comic book panel from a fever dream Coppola had, which got recorded, retold, and recreated perfectly. It is intentionally weird, whereas other "true art" passion projects simply end up weirdly intentional. The pacing doesn't let up; over 2 hours and it still held our attention. Performances from all the cast of characters are stellar. Learning this was funded from Coppola's own wealth, this could have devolved into the kind of B-rate flick that Uwe Boll is known for (I vaguely remember a Medieval fantasy title - oh yeah, In The Name of The King - where the only one appearing to have a good time is Jason Statham, a credit to his unflappability). No, this is more like Drive: a high-caliber cast on a low-... budget set? Is that low-budget? It kinda looks like it. What's the opposite of "blockbuster?" Indie? Anyhow, Megalopolis is closer to Drive than to the other kind. Adam Driver and Shia LaBeouf in particular are directed impeccably, and they give their all for their roles. No one performed half-heartedly, like they didn't belong. We had read that this film felt more like a play than a movie. I actually disagree, though I get where they're coming from. There are cues and clues here and there which suggest a playwright, but it didn't hit me as blatantly as something like Fences. The story is very difficult to follow. It'll require a second and third watching for me to really understand it. It appears to wrap up very neatly at the end. As in Everything Everywhere All At Once, I very much appreciate the dedication to answering the central questions that the film asks. No "director ex machina" here, stuff happens, good guys win, doesn't elaborate, roll credits. No, Megalopolis concludes completely and definitively. I am grateful for that. The conclusions, however, I do find bothersome. Coppola doesn't appear to be an atheist. He grew up Catholic and has fallen away; his nuns are to blame. Possibly, he believes in a vague idea of spirituality. Without spoiling the very ending, it is a clear call to embrace a secular humanist future. (I'm sure the atheists will have to correct me on that; can't seem to ever get anything right according to them) And I don't mind appealing to clarity here because the very last shot is completely unambiguous in purpose. It is atheist and specifically secular humanist because it has no mention of God, no verbal recognition of Abrahamic religions ("Saturnalia" is used in a scene). Humanity is flying on its own fuel here. Sun, 29 Mar 2026 14:02:26 GMT telegram-post-39 These are my own theories, subject to correction. Coppola is evaluating moral choices that are absent a God-fearing foundation or explanation. The humanism is secular. The fascism is absent the church. The corporatism is all personal, and interpersonal as it relates to the rest of humanity, not glory to God. I'm not judging it for these things, these are just observations and my theories running off of them. What I am judging it for is the fact that it's all so meaningless. Imagine Ecclesiastes, without the ending chapter. "Boy, that's my favorite book in the Bible, but then the author takes a weird, sharp turn right back into 'obey God.'" Megalopolis offers the great triumph of humanity over humanity. And yet I find myself unsatisfied. For me anyways, it will make life more comfortable, but no less fleeting. The generational range of the characters is 3, perhaps 4. What about all the people before great-grandparents? Lost in the river of time already. Their memories... No, the memories of them are standstill photos that got burned up by oblivion. The film seems to suggest, "Whatever we've done, wherever we've come from, we can do better." Better to what end? The idyllic imaginary future atheists meme about had the Dark Ages never occurred? Enthralling. Please don't tell me more, just go do it. There are people to feed right now, please remember. Megalopolis pinpoints many societal ills, and many shortcomings of man, then confidently offers a pointed solution. I still personally find the solution fleeting and falling short of true peace and contentment. The popular score on IMDb is 4.7 at time of this writing. Godfather sits at 9.2. Insane to me. Megalopolis is 7.5. Godfather is a 3 unless you speed it up, then it's a 6. "Megalopolis" is just about impossible to find through legal means. Coppola insisted the movie should be viewed in a theater. Since it's no longer showing, that pretty much guarantees you won't see it. You couldn't watch it anywhere else, now you just can't watch it, haha. If I can find a licensed phyiscal copy, I will purchase it, then forward the link here on this blog. Coppola should be lauded for self-funding this ambitious piece. I would argue it's a good film on top of that. If we're tired of the typical mediocre and uninspired content out there, we should support the truly talented and ambitious stuff. Sun, 29 Mar 2026 14:02:26 GMT telegram-post-40 "War + Debates" Looks like the US is in fact at war with Iran. Sigh. Ugh. Think I've heard for the fifth time that the Iranian Navy has been COMPLETELY DESTROYED. Don't know if that means it happened once and the news won't shut up about it, or there's at least 5 Navies under Iranian control. In any case, it's only been two weeks, but... it's been two weeks since we started hearing "It's over." I'll withhold my perturbations until the month milestone has passed. We watched The Great Debaters, featuring (of course) Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker (awesome), and Denzel Whitaker (wait, what). Denzel W. is... wait a minute, I can't even use the initial for the last name. Agh. So, come to find out that, yes, D. Whitaker is named Denzel due to D. Washington. And no, D. Whitaker has no blood relation to Mr. Forest Whitaker. In a hilarious bit of irony, my wife remarked, "It's amazing how they managed to find a child actor who looks exactly like a young Forest Whitaker." I honestly believed they were really father-son. No such coincidence. Glen Powell is in here, at the very end. He looks largely unrecognizeable. All the main actors did incredible jobs, and the cinematography is honestly very good. Pacing is appropriate. Dialogue is spot-on. It's Remember The Titans but 1930s and debate rather than football. Overall, very good movie. Fairly clean too. Small note on modern debates: I don't watch many. I don't like how well they resemble bloodsport. Some sick and twisted portion of my brain wants that, but the rest just stares on in silent, abject disapproval. I'd no idea this type of competition was such a big deal back in the day. Thinking about it more makes it make more sense. The style of "debate" I participate in is honestly just a Fortnite lobby where the bullets are slick one-liners. It's fun in the sense of a verbal barfight. At its best, it's as respectful as metropolitan speed chess. Moving on, we don't have a whole lot of Denzel Washington movies to peruse left. Man On Fire is supposed to be a big deal. Remember The Titans is a movie I remember watching... 20 years ago or something. Bunch of smaller, shorter, older flicks where he played a role in early on in his career. And he's still alive and in the business: Gladiator II recently came out, and Highest 2 Lowest is going to be his next "Spike Lee joint." Age is showing in his movements and speech. He needs to get his acting genius and devout behavior to get more actors into peroforming better. I pray he does. Sat, 14 Mar 2026 06:06:32 GMT telegram-post-38 "Iran" Please let's not go to war with Iran. That's it. Send Tweet. Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:01:57 GMT telegram-post-37 "BAFTA 2026 - words only" Man in the audience of the British version of movie awards has a heated gamer moment, dropping a nuclear during a presentation by Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo. (is this obscure enough? i sure hope not) People were definitely upset at the outrageous interruption. Not people on the internet, just the people who report tabloid news. It was quickly discovered that the outbursting individual suffers from Tourette's syndrome. The man claims he couldn't stop himself, he couldn't help it, and it was completely involuntary. By and large, the reaction from common commenters is "Very unfortunate, very understandable." This reaction I find quite welcome, actually. Instead of immediately concluding that this was an unapologetic racist epithet, people took a moment to survey the circumstances before judging. Perhaps the incredulity of the event was enough to make everyone pump the brakes. Great, hope we can apply that elsewhere too, please. For the record, no, I don't condone using the word. It was wrong to say here. Period. I just want to get that out there and out of the way. Jordan and Lindo didn't engage the outburst, just kept trucking with their planned speech. Bless 'em. The best thing to happen about this is that hopefully a few more people check out SINNERS, great movie, enjoyed it. Lemme give an example of this event from a different perspective, for those of you unable to sympathize for the outburster: Suppose you are pulled over by a cop. You don't know why. You've done nothing wrong, to your knowledge. There's no illegal items in your car. Your insurance and registration are up to date. You're pretty sure your lights are all working. You even feel confident you didn't speed. All of those reasonable conclusions don't matter because you're sweating your butt off and your nerves are a wreck. The officer approaches, notices you're a nervous wreck, and do you think that makes him or her feel BETTER? No, it heightens their awareness too. Now you've got two parties that are nervous, at least one of which is armed with deadly force, and neither is certain they can safely deescalate. Look, there's no reason to freak out, to feel fear, to act all defensive, etc. But the mind doesn't respond all that rationally. Panic is deadly because it spreads, first in you, then in others. You're not trying to make the cop nervous in this hypothetical situation, but your attempts to reduce your nerves only amplify them, and that in turn amplifies the cop's nerves. Unjustified or not, your response and the reasons for it have contributed to the problem. So I understand why this moment got past the filters in the man's mind and left his mouth audbily for all to hear. His mind brought it up as a suggestion (brains are dumb), his mental filters said "No," his mind pressed on anyways, his nerves got tested and failed, and the suggestion only gained power. I find it perfectly reasonable to conclude that the man backed himself into the corner. An apology is necessary, but not the kind about being the racist that he isn't. The real scandal here is it didn't get edited out. The scene was prerecorded. It could have been edited out. Some people may have noticed the difference (and now I must newly wonder if this has been done before) and gone searching for wild geese, but that's a really small price to pay for not editing out the word that spells literal doom for white people who say it. Unconfirmed to me was the "free Palestine" messaging getting edited out. If true, then these awards care more about public image than films. Incredibly ironic if that's the case. Anways, don't say the word. Go watch SINNERS instead. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 05:54:32 GMT telegram-post-36 "BAFTA 2026" Article to follow. I just love this screenshot. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 05:25:01 GMT telegram-post-35 "Music" Years ago, my dad relented that the best classical music coming out these days came from soundtracks. This wasn't easy for him to do, I don't think. I grew up on his albums of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Rossini, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak. We both love and appreciate classical music, and we both agree that around the turn of the 20th century, classical music fell off a cliff. I came to this conclusion about soundtracks first. I play more games and... maybe watch more movies and TV. Not so sure anymore. (it's his turn to catch up now that he's retired and I've got the little ones to raise) I'll be posting soundtracks that evoke similar beauty, competence, and reverence that classical music imbues. Actually, it was around 7th grade that I came to this conclusion, now that I'm thinking about it. My band teacher laughed at the notion that video game music could be counted as "real music." I'll say this: more people have heard Skyrim than played Skyrim. And the playerbase for that game is already in the millions. A coworker had Spotify play random music and immediately recognized "Secunda." He didn't know it was from a game. Didn't need to know it was from a game. It's just dang good music. Anyhow, here's Farthest Frontier's soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkIMeAiYKE4&list=PLzkMK0tRV0VZzkytFNQPbV9pID9-FqhTK YouTube Farthest Frontier OST - 01 Main Theme Farthest Frontier Original Soundtrack - 01 Main Theme Available on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1044720/Farthest_Frontier/ https://www.farthestfrontier.com/ Composed by: Steve Pardo and SkewSound 1 viewAlek Miller, 03:20 Wed, 25 Feb 2026 03:20:30 GMT telegram-post-34 "That's Great, But..." This thought has been gaining traction in my head. It only just dawned on me what it should be called, what it looks like, and why it's important. When arguing with someone who you think is on a bad path but doing quite well for themselves, the most wildly ineffective argument you could make is "Man, that's great, that's fine and all, I'm really happy for you, but actually..." The first part of this statement admits there is no reason for the person to leave where they're at. There's no push out of their current position. He can just stand there, and you've just agreed that that's acceptable. The second part completely undermines the first. "But..." undoes any winning you may have done during the discussion. It implies there is a pull motivation that will surely yank the other into your desired zone. But if there's no reason to move, then there's no reason to move. Christians will swap factions because of the push of being in disobedience to God, and the pull of closer and more complete truth of God. So if I, as a Protestant, don't feel I am in disobedience to God, that I am already saved by grace through faith, and believe I have the complete truth of God (in this case, Jesus's Gospel message), then I have neither push out of Protestantism nor pull towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Most Catholics and Orthodox are very pastoral in this matter. They wouldn't dare answer for God whether I'm truly saved or not. They fall into this ineffectual argument of "Well that's great, but you're not part of the One True Holy Church, and that's a problem, so why don't you see that and fix it?" I admire the gentility. It's obviously very effective with a lot of people. For me, however, it feels like gently hug-boxing me in to the group of their own choosing. People like me are sensitive to that and reject it categorically. There are some Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, and other Protestants who will unequivocally state something quite reasonably conclusive like "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." I don't like these people with their often prideful attitude, but I absolutely respect them for their tenacity to their beliefs. They have the brutal honesty to admit that what I believe is "Not great." There is no "But..." on the other side. When I find someone who is on fire for his or her particular faction, I test them by leaning in to the accusation. "That's why us Protestants aren't saved. Aren't true Christians." The first type will say "Well no, actually,..." and do their best to make up. The second type will say "Well, yeah, actually." The first type want to gently corral you into their space. The second type have the guts to say you're out-of-bounds, so YOU move. This applies much more importantly to non-believers. Atheists who have grown comfortable in the modern era with current-age niceties (A/C, plumbing, medicine, reliable transportation, speedy communication, nutritional availability, dietary variety) is someone who isn't worried about hell after death. He's content to eat, drink, and be merry in the here and now. Tomorrow be darned. He can party till 2 AM with fancy vodka, gourmet morsels, and dance with sophisticated and stimulating individuals. Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:05:07 GMT telegram-post-32 We've all seen conversion stories of people who turned to Christ after all that obvious Eccelsiastical meaninglessness. But we have yet to see the people who stay there. The folks who are content in that space have no push away and no pull to yoink them out. When they ask us why they should join our faction, the reasons we give them and the reasons for those reasons will inevitably fall flat. They see our faith as a peculiarity and nothing more. "Oh isn't that very interesting. ...Thank you, I'll take another, make it a double, please." Everyone acts generally nice towards each other, a certain baseline of etiquette is observed and silently enforced. The mysteries of the known universe are being solved day by day, and the secrets humanity has yet to uncover shall be soon enough. He can live his life in enjoyable peace and that's all he desires. He is content without anything more. Scaring him out of this state by pointing to the Bible which he doesn't believe in isn't going to work. This doesn't disprove the Bible, no. I'm saying that he's already evaluated it and found it completely unnecessary. He denies the Bible regardless of how we defend it. But he wants you to defend it. He knows you can't. Again, this doesn't disprove the Bible; all it does is show that you can't change his mind no matter how hard you try. He doesn't need convincing and he's not asking for it. He's toying with a monkey who's locked himself in a cage. So at the very least, don't give him that satisfaction. What worked for me (and I don't know how effective this will be for other materialists) is to try experiencing no life after death, true ego destruction. That is the logical conclusion of atheistic materialism. No one is going to put me back in that spot, ever. I am forever out of the atheist and materialist spaces because I would rather believe it is not true even if it turns out true. "You're emotionally immature" is exatly correct and I accept it without argument. Perhaps more difficult is the pull in one direction or another. I find Christianity most satisfying. I have infinitely more respect for the LDS member who believes in Space Jesus in all but name, and for the devout and peaceful Muslim who just wants to obey the Creator of the universe; than I do for the athiest materialist who's happily content with the paltry rewards of this world. I do not consider Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, or any of the major Christian factions non-Christian or heretical. I think they are wrong on things; I do not think they are stupid or somehow unbelieving. Fighting between factions is small fry; wrestling with the complacency of atheism is much more imperative. They are not fine. They are not in a "great" position. But it will take any of our disparate factions to draw them out of their unbelief. You Christians are all my brothers and sisters in Christ. You are fine. You are in GREAT positions. I have zero doubt in my mind. I treat you this way as I wish to be treated this way. Please, let's focus on the truly unsaved. Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:05:07 GMT telegram-post-33 Just a test, I promise. Let's see if this embeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4aS5e0J3Ls YouTube Nioh 3 - Circus of Grandmas and Kittens bring this to the Wii. call it Wiioh Wii. https://bigmode.com/shop 2 viewsAlek Miller, 03:30 Thu, 12 Feb 2026 03:30:52 GMT telegram-post-31 Mr. Jeffrey The infamous "files" have been released, at long last. The contents of which are horrifying, yes. And pretty much known about in our household for years now. The only difference is mainstream normies are able to catch up without stooping to conspiracy theorists for their news sources. Regular joes in my Facebook feed are aghast. Understandable, it's just... what took them so long? "You should care." I did. 5 years ago. Where were you all? I am at a point now where the details of the files are less believable now that so many are suggesting the demonic, evil, heinous, and unconscionable. It's weird. I'm weird. What's real anymore? Congrats, I can't tell. Reaction from the right wing has been "HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THEY WERE DOING ON THE ISLAND?!?" Reaction from the left wing has been "TRUMP should get in BIG TROUBLE for THIS many REDACTIONS". Go for it. Indict him. Please. No, not joking, I'm serious. If (and he probably is) he is implicated in all this, then try him and oust him. I am here fore it. He is not my sacred cow. He's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Pray for any and all victims. It is unlikely they will ever see true justice. Wed, 11 Feb 2026 04:28:49 GMT telegram-post-30 Hospital Bills Couple months ago, I had to take a kid to the emergency room. Doctor's orders. I dreaded the idea of several hours of waiting just to see a doc who didn't care and a bill that cost too much. Well, the waiting part was true. The doctor and staff were great, and MediShare did some voodoo magic to slice our bill by 70%. "Can't explain that," as Bill O'Reilly put it. I have mixed feelings about healthcare. This is specialized work, with high demand, at 24/7 availability (for ER, anyway). Doesn't feel right to be too peeved about a bill in the thousands of dollars. Of course I want to pay less. But I also don't always have the right time to visit cheaper doctors. I have no second thoughts regarding health insurance. MediShare has been a boon throughout this. Grateful to be part of the program. The last time I was in an ER was age 6. Went down a hill way too fast on my Little Tykes trike. Still got the scar that the stitches left in me. Since then, been to Urgent Care a few times, sort of a barebones ER that's still available 24/7. "Now, with your insurance (it was really freakin' good insurance), this visit is going to cost you $50. Is that alright?" What do you mean "is that alright." Absolutely fine by me, I'll pay it now, take my money, y'all saved me half a day of PTO. A lot of health stuff I've been able to avoid by just living healthily. Some stuff, I got lucky. Other stuff, you just can't avoid. This ER trip with my son was one of those. We finally got accepted into the back. IV drip (that was no fun, boy's arms are thin as twigs), X-ray, other vitals, plenty of questions. Doctor eventually visits and explains that a CT isn't necessary given my son's age and what we're dealing with. Diagnosis? Constipation. Run to Wal-Mart (which is closed at 2:30 AM when we left) and spend $15 on Miralax. So we didn't spend all that time and money for a treatment only the hospital could administer. No, we spent that time and money to ensure it WASN'T something only the hospital could take care of. Wasn't appendicitis or something similiarly scary. That peace of mind has its own value. This encounter went really, really well. I'm grateful for that. Next time, we'll try Miralax first. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 04:49:36 GMT telegram-post-29 Visual vs Literary Everyone has a "first time" with Lord of the Rings. Mine was via Peter Jackson's movie trilogy. Like everyone else, I watched and loved it. I picked up The Silmarillion because the title sounded cool and figured how different could it be? Age: 15. Big mistake. Please do not do that. I had a really bad time with it, could not get past Tolkien's writing style, nor could I for the life of me keep track of the many diferent characters. I read slowly as-is, but to my credit, I brute forced my way through it within... a year, I think. 18 years later, I finally decide to listen to J.R.R. Tolkien's epic via audiobook. I set the speed to 2x (it is rare for me to set it below 1.3x). I would never have completed it if I were stuck at 1x, not due to time constraints but because I would have dropped it. Sorry, guys. Still nothin' doin'. One distinct advantage to the audiobook narration over just reading it is the narrator actually sang the songs. That proved to be an unexpected boon. Is my problem the fact I saw a visual version before reading the literary source? Honestly, I really don't think so. Tolkien's writing style is still is a complete whiff for me. I'm not going to say he was a bad writer, all I'm saying is his pulp will never be something my brain can digest. Tom Clancy, oddly, is pulp my brain CAN digest. I will never recommend a Clancy novel to anyone just out of the blue. His books are long, preachy, and long. You have to show an interest and ask me for a recommendation before I suggest "Without Remorse" to you. "Hunt for Red October" was a movie I watched well before I listened to the novel. I had already listened to the rest of the books in the series by the time I got to the narration of this first entry. Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin, Tim Curry, James Earl Jones, and the rest of the cast nailed it. There's an abridged narration of the audiobook I realy liked, too; basically follows the formula of the film. I expected the full, unabridged audiobook to be tight, compact, straightforward, enjoyable, and filled with amateurish charm. It's actually my least favoirte book in the series. ("The Bear and the Dragon" slides in at second worst) The problem is it's NOT tight, compact, straightforward, or enjoyable. It's filled with amateurish over-attention to too many details, droning on and on about technical stuff in a way that is boring here that he somehow corrects by the time Clancy gets to the next Jack Ryan entry, "Patriot Games." In any event, for Clancy and "Hunt for Red October," the abridged book and the film adaptation are on the same level. Visual and literary are equal here. The full book doesn't come close to either of those for the objective reasons I mentioned. Now for an example of a modern adaptation (albeit still literary) that vastly improves upon the source: William Hope Hodgson's "The Night Land." Wife read this in the original "Greek," so to speak and will never do that again. Hodgson's style is archaic, meandering, and overpunctuated (too many commas all over the place). James Stoddard retold the story and made it at least readable for modern audiences. I managed to get through it. I cannot even imagine attempting the source. "3 Body Problem" I unfortunately watched via Netflix before getting to Cixin Liu's novels. His fans swear by the books and take issue with Netflix disincluding a lot of the deeper scientific aspects. Look, my Bachelor's is of Science and I still struggled to keep up. I see why the version with Benedict Wong, Liam Cunningham, and co. is more digestable for a lot of people. (I can't say "more" people because China has a lot of those) Mon, 02 Feb 2026 02:58:39 GMT telegram-post-27 I guess my point in saying all this is that the literary isn't inherently better than the visual. The vice versa sounds absurd, but it doesn't go without saying: the visual isn't inherently better than the literary. "The books/manga are better" can't simply be presumed, there must be objective reasons why they're better. "The movies/TV series are better" is far less common, but no less presumptuous, and the criteria must be similarly objective. Say you just like the written word more, and prefer the mental images in your head over the concocted ones on-screen. That's fine. Perfectly valid. No argument from me. But to say that it's objectively better cannot be simply taken for granted. Lemme spitfire some examples to get you thinking: Is "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" better as a book or as the Disney film adaptation? What about the BBC version, hahahaha? Is "The Expanse" better as the 9-book series, or the 6-season show? (I really enjoyed both) Is "Babette's Feast" better as the feature-length foreign film, or the 45-page novella? Is "Fullmetal Alchemist" better as a manga, or either the first adaptation or the "Brotherhood" one? Is "Star Wars" better as a film saga, than it is in the dozens of novels? Is "Harry Potter" better on-screen, or in-page? Let's throw a different wrench into the mix: compare a written story to a comic adaptation. Which is better? What if the comic got turned into a novel? Would that be an improvement? I suppose there's a really useful (if very controversial) way to test thses comparisons. And I'll go back to LotR since that seems to be the big one. AI technology has and will continue to advance to the point that Tolkien's classic can be 1-to-1 adapted visually. You can keep Tom Bombadil. You can end with the scouring of the Shire. Would superfans like that more than Peter Jackson's more cinematically-contained version? Would superfans find it objectively better? Mon, 02 Feb 2026 02:58:39 GMT telegram-post-28 This was the batch I did last month. I used tater tots at first, but have switched to tortilla chips. Best time to eat is about a minute after pouring the hot stuff onto the chips, so that they're crunchy, but not too crunchy. Tex-Mex Shakshuka Ingredients: Butter 1 medium yellow onion 1 can (28oz) crushed tomatoes Garlic powder Chili powder Cumin Red bell pepper Green bell pepper Salt (to taste) 6 large eggs Tortilla chips Queso fresco Avocado Heat a skillet or pan to medium heat, adding butter to melt. Dice the onion. Coat pan with garlic powder, chili powder, cumin, and salt; then add the onion. While that caramelizes, deseed and dice the bell peppers, adding them in. Stir for a minute, then add crushed tomatoes. Stir well, cover, and simmer for 4-5 minutes. Once thickened, make pits for the eggs, cracking one egg into each. Cover, and simmer for 4 more minutes (longer if you want over hard egg yolks). Place a handful of tortilla chips into bowls. Prepare slices of avocado. Scoop entire poached egg and place onto chips, then scoop sauce on top. Place avocado off to side of bowl, then sprinkle queso fresco on contents of bowl. Serve with spoon. Sun, 25 Jan 2026 21:54:57 GMT telegram-post-26