Book Reviews 2011 – The Third Ten

Book Reviews 2011 – The Third Ten

21. **** All’s Well That Ends Well by William Shakespeare (movie) – Strangely, this play was not available in the Complete Arkangel Shakespeare series. I have to wonder why! I loved it, but I had difficulty discerning who was who among the men, probably due to their long hair.

The storyline is a wonderful tale of virginity and young love. We see both the wavering certainty in both the male whom is to become the husband, and the maid whom is to become the wife. The maid did service to the King, as the daughter of a physician, such that he offers her the choice to choose whom she shall marry among several men. The storyline is thus the same as the modern day reality show, where one person chooses a partner among several.

The story reminds me of my own submission to love of Meghan whom became my wife. It almost seems prophetical of my early relationship with my wife. At first, though she desired me, I wanted my own freedom. That is, she sowed first. I ran away. However, though she never chased me, I submitted myself to her because I felt helpless to resist. I had in mind a certain type of woman that I wanted to be my wife, and Meghan, at the time did not fit the bill. I wanted a pretty airhead. That happens in this story too, where the virgin maid’s wisdom almost works against her, as it almost did for Meghan. According to the Talmud, such relations end up producing sons. It is quite an affirmation of faith that my wife did produce a son for me though a daughter would have been loved just as much.

22. Panned! Prince Caspian (video, Disney, 2008) – C.S. Lewis wrote a children’s book, and this seems to be far beyond the imaginative capabilities of a child. For example, I like Jordan Rudess (often sugar coated solo piano music with nothing but endless frills), but at times it seems too pretty, such as his album 4NYC. This movie is as Jordan Rudess playing for a child. Everything is just so perfect in the movie that it lacks a certain amount of realism to which the original was to suit its audience. Such imagery works great for a Star Trek movie, or something such as Star Wars, but the imaginations of children are somewhat feeble, and not really capable of generating images that cost over $100 million dollars to produce when they read a book. Likewise, I don’t believe that this film would have gotten any better if more money were thrown at it.

This movie does not capture the heart and soul of the book. Rather, the book is as a rag, a means to an end, to which Disney could boost sales. Disney did not need the book, and thus should not have used it simply to generate greater sales given that Prince Caspian, the book, is a modern classic. Also, though simple and almost feeble in comparison, the book Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis is better. Its imagery is more age appropriate and thus this is what makes it so classic. That is, C.S. Lewis is able to think on the level of a child, while still creating something that grownups enjoy too.

At best, Disney has made a movie that is a rich man saying, “You can look, but you can’t touch.” This is the proverbial crumb of wealth that some of us our able to see that the rich have, and will let us see, but not share in. This is a rich man with a model for a wife whom has but a pinhead because such things are fashionable. It is as if one’s greatest hope might be to make popcorn for theater goers, while the rich man has an entire theater for himself. This is as a birthday bash that a rich man has costing millions of dollars to which my best hope might be to sweep the floors afterward.

Everything is as a regal portrait, instead of a child’s imagination. This is the sort of wealth where the humans seem as but feeble actors, and the rest is fantastic imagery. There are not enough takes that a producer could justify in order for the level of the actors’ ability to match the quality of the special effects, further detracting from the film. This movie had me thinking, it is but a human, should I expect a human to be able to match the feats of special effects?

C.S. Lewis created Narnia as a sort of play-land that came from the minds of children as they played. It was such that when reading the book it occurred to me that a couple of children got together at a train station (in the case of the book Prince Caspian) and began to play, generating a world of make-believe, Narnia. However, these children, in the Lewis book, were not only exceptional, but realistically exceptional, such that they were able to imagine great things. This causes me to recollect my own personal memories I had generating a world of make-believe with my friend Rick, where we imagined that we were mice, and occasionally Rick’s older brother Paul would be the cat that chased us around in a game of the Looney Tune, Tom and Jerry. Rick and I, and some others had even gotten together by ourselves and built a fort with leftover wood in an area of woods near the house I grew up in that we called, “The Mouse Hole,” which was our equivalent to Narnia. Just as we were feeble, so was our fort, which was terribly unsafe and had nails sticking out everywhere causing me once to step on an old rusty nail mainly because we were not assisted by grownups when we built the fort, leading to a trip to the emergency room for me.

I hate to knock the children in this movie, but something that continually ran through my mind was; are these just pretty bimbo actors? The main actors of Prince Caspian couldn’t hope to generate the scenery of this movie in a million years, as children or adults. They are but feeble actors that will grow into feeble adults, such that the brains of the crew are behind the scenes generating grandiose imagery and plot, while pretty bimbo actors stumble through it. This is vastly different from the actor, Natalie Portman that played the Queen in the more recent Star Wars movies. She could carry it off. However, she was also a college student at a top school at the time that just happened to look younger than she actually was, if I recollect correctly, such that she pulled it off.

I seriously doubt one of the juveniles in Disney’s Prince Caspian could make it through an entire act of a real life play without prompting. Likewise, the scenes of this movie are so short that they flash by in a matter of seconds, such that the children only need to remember a few lines at a time. Disney suggests nothing great of these children that would merit them generating such a fantastic world of play, but rather the effects are those of geeks made for bimbos. These are as a doctor’s crafty brains that enable him to put breast implants in a stripper, something she or her friends could never do. What Prince Caspian, the Disney movie needs most is a homey feeling to it. Disney has shown that it is not the “magic kingdom,” but the plastic kingdom. Watching this movie reminds me of a woman with breast implants that are so gross, they look unnatural.

Can you tell I wondered if the juvenile breasts of Susan were natural or if she had her top stuffed to make her look like she has perfect breasts? I did not appreciate that. I would imagine that Disney told a mere girl that her breasts were not good enough such that she had to wear a stuffed top in Prince Caspian. What a horrible message to send! And, if it wasn’t stuffed, my oh my! that is a tight top to put a juvenile girl with her nubile breasts in, the type that poisons girls into thinking scantily clad and revealing dress is appropriate and normal for young women and women alike! Showing off the breasts of juvenile girls using sexual attire is the last thing I expected from a company that has been traditionally family friendly. Sure they have had princesses in bras in the past, but they were cartoons. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THIS WAS INTENTIONAL, such that it was to begin the process of corrupting the actress that played Susan.

Because of that, I would go even so far as to suggest that behind closed doors Disney put off finishing Prince Caspian until the actress that played Susan’s breasts started to grow. I recall (but without certainty) now that her breasts were flat in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and by 2008, Prince Caspian, she was showing some curves. Though curves are perfectly natural, the crux of this issue is not that the actress that played Susan grew them, but that Disney intended for her to grow them for the audience. I remember thinking to myself during the first movie of this series both the girls tops were somewhat tight and somewhat inappropriate for their age though not revealing, as these girls had nothing to reveal, such that I put this out of my mind and enjoyed the film, thinking it to be completely innocent. However, this time I felt as if Disney had set up as a girl actor to reveal to a somewhat naturally perverted audience that she was now a juvenile actor, and then seeing the formation of this pattern I realized that she had been set up from day 1 by Hollywood for a lifelong strip tease in her career as an actress. That is, as she lands more parts in other movies it is intended that she continue to reveal more, especially as she plays increasingly “adult” roles. Is Disney telling the men who watched that we are supposed to hope for seeing perhaps a naked breast of hers when she reaches the legal age for doing such things?

Thus, I saw Susan’s attire as exploitative, corrupting, perverse and outright immoral. It is something that this juvenile girl could have done without, as she will probably face a lot of pressure in her future roles to, “Show a little more,” and then a little more each successive movie. Such is the way of Hollywood. Female actors start young (but usually not this young) and then increasingly reveal a little more in every film.

To her credit, the actor who played Susan is probably more likely not to do this, such that her portrayal as a bimbo is not her fault, and that we should not expect her to become subject to the traditional corruption that happens to female Hollywood actresses. Thus, it is such that I believe that we should not expect her to star in any films after the age of 21, despite the fact that she is pretty, and this will be due to her refusal to play the role of a bimbo that gives men a strip tease that lasts over the course of her prime. It is unfortunate that I expect Hollywood will collectively give her the ultimatum: no starring roles unless you show a little, and then a little more.

It occurs now that the same was likely done for the girl that played Lucy in the movie that I have not seen (nor do I intend to see) The Voyage of The Dawn Treader. She is still flat as a board in Prince Caspian, but what about the next movie in the series, if you know what I’m saying? Yes, she is flat is a board in Prince Caspian, and the reason that I know that is because Disney put her in a tight top. This is such that I suggest that the actress that played Lucy has also been placed in the situation of playing the role of a stripper in the same way I suspect has happened to the actress that played Susan.

For certain, Hollywood will want these girls to continually reveal more and more in every film, especially now that boys know the actress that played Susan has some cleavage. Though that will be their choice as adults in future films, this is a horribly tacky move by Disney. They should know better than to corrupt mere girls for the whole world to see. We should want to see girls in innocent roles, and not expect them to grow boobs before us on the screen. That is rather than have these girls being shown as girls, having the films all being made within a short period, what we are being shown is a moderately tacky strip tease, as girls grow to be juvenile, and that Hollywood will want to continue this horrible process of corruption.pp

Hollywood always wants women to show more, and says throw them out if they are over the age of 25 unless they have a loyal following. Likewise, the idea that a woman has a following for sexual reasons is completely despicable, especially the idea of girls becoming high class prostitutes. I don’t actually need to have seen The Voyage of The Dawn Treader, as the same happened with Natalie Portman, and even Britney Spears for that matter. Dare I say that it is standard practice, such that we should expect that if we see a girl in a tight top in a movie that she is to grow into a tight top as a juvenile, and then perhaps do a sex scene, show some nudity, or pose for Playboy when Hollywood is no longer constrained by legality issues?

For all the money thrown at making this film, it is no better than the made for television version made by the BBC. The special effects in both movies are equally out of place, the BBC film being too low budget, and this one being too high. The acting in both films was about equal, perhaps better in the BBC version, where the special effects are not as good as a bright child’s imagination. Likewise, when watching the BBC version I felt like the children were just that, children.

Finally, I didn’t watch the whole film because it just plain wasn’t good.

23. **** Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope by Chalmers Johnson – This is a collection of odds and ends, essays that are sometimes very good and sometimes just okay. The introduction, “The Suicide Option,” was the best part of the book. If the rest of the book was as good, I would have given it five stars. This book almost serves as his collected wish list that he presents in other books. You can be rest assured that though Chalmers Johnson is dead now, that if he had been President or someone with his exact ideas had been President that the USA republic would not be in danger of collapse. This author would certainly get spending, the deficit, under control, and maybe 9/11 wouldn’t have even happened.

I firmly agree with Chalmers on his points. I believe the republic of the USA is in danger if not doomed. I do not believe in militarism. I agree that we spend too much on defense. I don’t like President Barrack Obama’s continuing of the empire. I don’t like neocons. I don’t like an interventionist foreign policy. For example, I never supported the Iraq war, and I am completely unhappy that Barrack Obama has not pulled us out of there. The Iraqi people should have made their own government. It happened recently in Egypt. It is going to happen in Libya. It will possibly happen in other countries as well, but without our aid in seeing that the dictators go. I agree that our cause in Afghanistan will be fruitless. I believe that we should disband the CIA. I think that we should just up and out of our foreign military bases, as we have to many in too many countries to maintain (It is no wonder Watson thought Canada or any other nation is a part of the USA). I agree that instead of spending on the military that we should be spending on infrastructure.

Though there is plenty quotable material, rare for a modern book, so I will the review with his last paragraph: “Unfortunately, few empires of the past voluntarily gave up their dominions in order to remain independent, self-governing polities. The two most recent examples are the British and Soviet empires. If we do not learn from their examples, our decline and fall is fordained.”

24. **** The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World by Alan Greenspan (did not finish) – Though I do not share a complete distaste of Keynesianism with him, I can respect Alan Greenspan’s view. What is certain is that sometimes economic crises occur, such that some sort of intervention is needed. With that respect, he is one step ahead of the Obama Administration, which in Obama’s first two years of presidency Keynesianism seemed to be his ideal. President Barrack Obama seemingly wanted to recreate The New Deal, or the Great Society, while as the present Speaker of the House John Boehner puts it, we can’t do that now because, “We’re broke!” (I voted democrat in both the last two elections, the first one loosely a Presidential election, the second one loosely a Congressional election because the Democrats had a record of budget balancing under the Clinton Administration. That is, I believe national healthcare will pay for itself though cuts are needed elsewhere.) Truly, national healthcare was the only way I intended to expand government, and likewise I know that it needs to shrink in other areas. That is, in order for Keynesianism to work, the government has to have some money, and ultimately rectification of economic crises should fall where it is most appropriate for them to fall. In the case of the present budget government deficits, high unemployment, increasing amounts of renters, etcetera; the answer is not for the government to invest more into its people. It could do this is if it had the means, but it does not have the means. Thus, in my opinion the burden of the current economic crises should fall to wealthy Americans, and that the government should facilitate this.

25. *** Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union (video cassettes) – The quality of the information presented is high, but it is at too fast of a pace. This video is a barrage of information, one fact after another with very few pauses, such that the viewer does not have time to think about the information presented. Yet, I did not turn it off because tone was not used to control the viewer’s emotions. For example, socialism, communism and the various Russian leaders are not presented with typical Cold War attitudes, suggesting that the producer intended for the viewer to make up their own mind relative to the facts. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, that is virtually impossible given this video’s fast pace.

Though it is not indicated by tone, Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev are painted in a positive light, strong leaders. I was surprised that my reaction to them was sympathetic because of their support of the arts and education. Their socialism and communism is not judged by the narrator. It is mentioned however that Marx thought his ideas would not work in the Soviet Union because the nation was too primitive then. Also, I appreciated that there was not a strong connection made between totalitarian rule and Marxism. Likewise, totalitarian rule may have been more appropriate for the Soviet Union from the historical perspective, as totalitarian rule has generally worked best for the people of this land, which is different from the people of the USA. I see these as cultural differences between the USA and the Soviet Union. I also believe that understanding these cultural differences was one reason Igor Panarin failed to predict the exact year of the collapse of the USA. That is, the USA by nature is more durable than the Soviet Union was because its people are historically more accustomed to greater levels of freedom than the Russians.

Brezhnev starts the decline with overspending, especially with respect to militarism and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to see how this video, if it were released now, updated, would paint the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan relative to how this rather primitive nation might be credited in playing a strong role with the fall of a great nation, such as the Soviet Union. Gorbachev tries to save the Soviet Union, but is unsuccessful, and the people under his rule are too free, engaging in immorality. Yeltsin brings democracy, which comparatively doesn’t seem to work relative to the years under Stalin and Lenin.

Relative to the present, as this is not a new video, I see militarism as one of the USA greatest threats. Perhaps, more than anything else, militarism caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA’s current President, Barrack Obama is very much into militarism. However, the greatest threat posed to the USA is in the next election, given the popularity of Mitt Romney. Yet, from what I have read, I voted correctly, as Obama is still less militaristic than McCain. Recently I read Mitt Romney is the leading Republican in the polls. I have read his book, No Apology. Overall I liked him except for one major point, he is very much pro-militarism. He would make a terrible commander in chief because of that, yet for some reason militarism has great appeal to conservative Republicans. The truth is that the military budget is currently very bloated and needs great reductions to ensure that the USA does not collapse. Therefore, Mitt Romney is just the opposite of what we need. Most Islamic nations are not even nearly a threat to th<><>

25. *** Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union (video cassettes) – The quality of the information presented is high, but it is at too fast of a pace. This video is a barrage of information, one fact after another with very few pauses, such that the viewer does not have time to think about the information presented. Yet, I did not turn it off because tone was not used to control the viewer’s emotions. For example, socialism, communism and the various Russian leaders are not presented with typical Cold War attitudes, suggesting that the producer intended for the viewer to make up their own mind relative to the facts. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, that is virtually impossible given this video’s fast pace.

Though it is not indicated by tone, Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev are painted in a positive light, strong leaders. I was surprised that my reaction to them was sympathetic because of their support of the arts and education. Their socialism and communism is not judged by the narrator. It is mentioned however that Marx thought his ideas would not work in the Soviet Union because the nation was too primitive then. Also, I appreciated that there was not a strong connection made between totalitarian rule and Marxism. Likewise, totalitarian rule may have been more appropriate for the Soviet Union from the historical perspective, as totalitarian rule has generally worked best for the people of this land, which is different from the people of the USA. I see these as cultural differences between the USA and the Soviet Union. I also believe that understanding these cultural differences was one reason Igor Panarin failed to predict the exact year of the collapse of the USA. That is, the USA by nature is more durable than the Soviet Union was because its people are historically more accustomed to greater levels of freedom than the Russians.

Brezhnev starts the decline with overspending, especially with respect to militarism and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to see how this video, if it were released now, updated, would paint the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan relative to how this rather primitive nation might be credited in playing a strong role with the fall of a great nation, such as the Soviet Union. Gorbachev tries to save the Soviet Union, but is unsuccessful, and the people under his rule are too free, engaging in immorality. Yeltsin brings democracy, which comparatively doesn’t seem to work relative to the years under Stalin and Lenin.

Relative to the present, as this is not a new video, I see militarism as one of the USA greatest threats. Perhaps, more than anything else, militarism caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA’s current President, Barrack Obama is very much into militarism. However, the greatest threat posed to the USA is in the next election, given the popularity of Mitt Romney. Yet, from what I have read, I voted correctly, as Obama is still less militaristic than McCain. Recently I read Mitt Romney is the leading Republican in the polls. I have read his book, No Apology. Overall I liked him except for one major point, he is very much pro-militarism. He would make a terrible commander in chief because of that, yet for some reason militarism has great appeal to conservative Republicans. The truth is that the military budget is currently very bloated and needs great reductions to ensure that the USA does not collapse. Therefore, Mitt Romney is just the opposite of what we need. Most Islamic nations are not even nearly a threat to th<><>

27. *** Cymbeline by William Shakespeare (audiobook) – What I first wanted to know about this play is: In history, who the heck is Cymbeline? Shakespeare sort of gives the answer, but one has to be familiar with British history in order to get it. Before Britain was occupied by Rome, c. 50 CE, Cymbeline was the last British (Celtic) king before the Roman occupation. Cymbeline was also a very powerful king, and he reportedly ruled for a good amount of time. When the play opens Cymbeline does not pay tribute to Rome. His wife is wicked. I am assuming that her daughter was the heir presumptive (as queen) intermarries out of her own distaste for the tribe that nobles are made of, Judah. The Queen attempts to prevent the marriage, but at the end the king’s daughter, and her husband are alive and well. That is much to her mother’s chagrin; her daughter has chosen to marry a non-noble. What this essentially means for Britain, if you believe in the Bible, is the loss of the scepter, as the husband of king Cymbeline’s daughter does not possess the Y chromosome of Judah. Consequently, king Cymbeline relinquishes the scepter peacefully to Rome by deciding to pay tribute to Rome, beginning the Roman occupation. However, if another noble were chosen to be king, such that the scepter was kept, it probably would have lead to a war between Rome and Britain, instead of just an occupation.

28. * Henry VIII by William Shakespeare (audiobook) – If there was any doubt in my mind Shakespeare sought, it has subsided. Shakespeare did not seek to just be a poet that wrote about history. He sought more than anything to please Queen Elizabeth. Though I don’t think very highly of him for being so irresolute, Henry VIII is one of England’s most important kings historically, and he was also the father of Queen Elizabeth. He started the Church of England, which was based on the teachings of Martin Luther, ramifications of which are legion today. As in his way with religion, first supporting the Catholic Church, than starting the Protestant Church, Henry VIII is irresolute with his wives. Rather than try to take 2 wives where he has had an affair during Katherine’s rule, and Anne gives birth to a daughter before the marriage is annulled, Henry decides to get rid of Katherine. Later, he decides to get rid of Anne. Frankly, we should view Henry as a man that had very little understanding, nothing more, nothing less. Likewise, the generation following generation is unable to produce another generation, such his lineage no longer continues today, blotted out from the Book of Life.

29. * Henry VI part 1 by William Shakespeare – Mainly, this is a mediocre play that suffers from over dramatization. It is hard to follow too. Instead of writing on the main plot I will write on an aspect of it. In Henry V, the play concludes with Henry V’s death, which happens after he conquers France. Consequently, a very young Henry VI takes the throne. Though France had been decimated under Henry V, there is a famous uprising against England and the rule of Henry VI lead by Joan of Arc. As the story goes, Joan of Arc was a teenager that had a vision, and based upon that the French gained inspiration to continue their fight against English rule. This idea of being lead by a vision seems very far from us in today’s world, but in medieval times visions were taken very seriously. This poses a question: Are we better off in the stale modernity of where rulers are essentially subject to the wisdom of the Age of Reason, and would face harsh criticism for believing a vision, or are we better off being ruled by superstition? Is reason the greatest force which can lead us?

I would argue from person experience that it should be a combination of the two. Even though it may be mere superstition, prayer should have a place in this world. However, what we should be praying for is not miracles beyond that which we comprehend, but for miracles which operate within the laws of nature. Thus, we should hope that miracles are repeatable, in order that they have more than one situation for application.

Let me relate a personal story. I suffered from a medical condition of which I was unaware of what was the source though it affected me severely. I was reluctant to seek a doctor’s help, which may have been to my benefit, as I imagine that I would have probably been prescribed Ritalin and that would have made my problems worse. Instead, a time came when I was helpless to care for myself in doing things such as eating and bathing. I became paranoid and helpless too. However, I trusted in G-d to help me. If an atheist is reading this, I can imagine the snickers, but I believe that through trust in G-d and prayer I was healed. However, this is not to say that medicine and treatment did not play a role in my recovery. In fact, all my improvements were directly under a doctor’s supervision and advice. Yet, I have to recognize that I felt miserable for many years and saw no progress until I trusted in the Lord. Well, the Bible says, “Trust in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” That proved to be true for me, which is not to say that everything is perfect now. However, I must recognize that I was so sick that I probably would be dead by now had I not found a good doctor, which I have faith that was in part due to prayer.

The best part of my story is not that prayer cured me, but that others can be cured by the medicine and treatment which my doctor has prescribed. That is, if I had been cured by prayer alone, and there had been no real life hard work for me and those who helped me to do, then the idea that this would be repeatable, and possible to work for others would be as if I had seen the witch doctor. Instead, it is good to know that miracles can happen and that G-d can give us tangible ways that we can understand such that they are repeatable, and thus usable to help other people. Additionally, I know that I am given a tangible choice. I know what I shouldn’t do and I know what I should do with regards to my illness. It is not the vagueness of such ideas as sin, for example sexual immorality (whatever that means) causes illness. It is that if I eat certain foods, my body does not process them like it does with most people. Thus, if I eat them, I become sick. It is that if I don’t take my medications, I risk insanity. These are real and tangible things and much more satisfying cures than that of prayer alone. Quite frankly for me to say I had been cured by prayer alone would be demeaning. It would neglect the concrete role that I and my family have played in my life in trying to get me well.

Tying this back in with Joan of Arc, I wouldn’t want to live in medieval times. It seems so backwards to be lead by the inspiration of a teenager’s vision. Visions aren’t reliable. For example, Constantine had a vision of a cross and was told that by this sign you shall conquer. Well, guess what? That conquering was pure evil. And, it is one of my greatest criticisms of Christianity that had it not been for people spreading it by the sword, then it probably would have been lost among other pagan religion. However, it is at least laudable that her vision didn’t cause the French people to sit on their duff and think that everything is taken care of because someone had a vision. The French took real action as a result of her vision, such that they fought for their independence harder because of it. It was an inspiration to the French as prayer and religiosity should merely be inspiration for deeds and not an excuse not to do them. Sadly though, from much of what I have read about the hyper-religiosity of the medieval time period, most of it did not result in goodness.

30. * King John by William Shakespeare – King John was a real king in English history. He is often referred to as King John “Lackland.” Lackland is merely a reference to the fact that he did not have land. This raises a question: If a King does not have land, then what is a king? I would suggest that what makes a king a king is the idea that the king has subjects. In that sense, a king might be called a spiritual ruler, and not necessarily someone who own lands. The requirement for kingship is thus the ownership of the loyalty of souls. I feel like this is very different from the bullshit judgment some people claim happened from a recent doomsday prophecy, which apparently did not result in an end of the world scenario. Sometimes, such as in the doomsday prophecy and the way that people read the New Testament, when they say spiritual, what they really mean is bullshit. However, since they want for it to be honorable bullshit they give it a name that is not crass, misusing the word “spiritual,” suggesting something positive about that which they not only don’t understand, but that which is completely not understandable. The case of King John is different. He really was a king, if only a king in spirit.