Ingredients

Let's talk food.

I really should write more on this topic, but I tend to avoid it.  However, when media tells us something not only wrong but flat-out dangerous, I must act...

This is an actual commercial for milk, trying to lure you away from almond milk.  Boy, did they pick the wrong fight.

Their argument, boiled down, is "if you can't spell it, it's bad for you."  There are a ton of things, however, that we can't spell that are in milk!  Some of them include:

• riboflavin
• pantothenic acid
• pyridoxine
• cobalamin
• ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol, both of which are added to milk by producers
• ß-lactoglobulin
• α-lactalbumin

And so on... Taking the milk industry's argument, we shouldn't be drinking milk either, just based on this information.

But they specifically pick on lecithin...

lecithin...

which is good for you.  Here's a snippet of WebMD's description of it:

Lecithin is a fat that is essential in the cells of the body. It can be found in many foods, including soybeans and egg yolks. Lecithin is taken as a medicine and is also used in the manufacturing of medicines.

Lecithin is used for treating memory disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. It is also used for treating gallbladder disease, liver disease, certain types of depression, high cholesterol, anxiety, and a skin disease called eczema.

This is why we can't have nice things - because we know better, but we allow advertisers to tell us not only misleading but dangerously inaccurate information, confusing huge sections of the population into believing that healthy things are bad and unhealthy things are good.  It's how we came to believe that sugar-heavy fat-free foods were good, and fatty foods like nuts and olive oil were bad.

Review: The Force Awakens

It should come as no surprise that I would watch the new Star Wars movie, or that I would want to get a few thoughts about it out of my system by way of my blog.

It should also come as no surprise that there are SPOILERS here.

So don't read any further unless you've seen the movie or don't mind spoilers...

All in all, The Force Awakens was a decent movie.  If it stood alone from the rest of the Star Wars universe, it would be even a good movie, with great effects, good acting, epic characterization, and a cohesive plot.  Taken within the fabric of the whole universe, though, it is lacking on several fronts.  As someone said, it's the best Star Wars movie in 32 years - not better than the original trilogy, but certainly better than the prequels.

Although, perhaps, only slightly better than Episode 3.

So why do I think it misfired?  To answer that, I need to go into detail about the film...

Problem #1: There is nothing new under the sun...

The movie starts out as A New Hope:
The bad guy, Darth Vader Kylo Ren, who is cloaked all in black and wearing a mask, invades a rebel ship resistance camp.  Plans to the Death Star a map to find Luke Skywalker is uploaded into a droid for safe keeping.  The droid is then set loose on the desert planet of Tatooine Jakku, where he accidentally meets a force-sensitive teenage orphan named Luke Skywalker Rey, who is a hotshot pilot and capable fighter already.  The teenager meets up with Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Millennium Falcon, and together they fly away on a mission to deliver the droid to Princess Leia and the rebellion resistance.  On the way, the Empire's First Order's gigantic planet-destroyer is put in use, its destructive power witnessed by our heroes, who have to flee. Once they arrive at the base, they find that the planet-destroyer is being turned on their base, because the Empire First Order was secretly tracking them.

It then briefly becomes Empire Strikes Back:
We discover Darth Vader Han Solo is Luke Skywalker's Kylo Ren's father.  Darth Vader Kylo Ren reports in to his master, who we see only in hologram.

And then solidifies into Return of the Jedi:
The heroes form a plan to destroy the Empire's First Order's weapon: land on the planet and take out the shield generator, so hotshot pilot Wedge Antilles Poe Dameron can fly in and take out some critical target that will cause a chain reaction and destroy the entire base.  Luke Skywalker Han Solo confronts Darth Vader Kylo Ren, believing there is still good in him, and trying to turn him back to the good side.  This sets up an epic lightsaber battle between Vader Ren and Luke Rey, and in the end, our hero manages to win, and flies to safety as the planet-destroying weapon is destroyed.

So my biggest problem with the movie is that it's not a new movie - it's the same bloody movie they've done before.  The only thing new about it is that the dark-clad masked bad guy strikes down his relative, instead of being saved... but the story is clearly set up to let Ren turn back to the side of good, perhaps as he strikes down his master in a later movie.


Problem #2: It's too predictable
Part of its predictability has to do with the fact that it's the same movie as before, but every time they do a tiny bit of foreshadowing, it's obvious what's going to happen: the monsters Han is smuggling will get out, Leia and Han will make up, Ren will kill Han, the rebels will destroy the Death Star or whatever everyone wants to call these things now, and everyone else will survive, and R2-D2 will conveniently come back online at the end to give Rey the location of Luke so she can receive her training.  There was not one single moment during the movie that I was surprised by anything relevant to the plot, except for the moment when Rey and Finn are running towards a fancy ship and it's destroyed, so they turn and run for the Falcon.

As a result, nothing is ever tense.  The scene that's supposed to make us question who can live and who can die - the scene where Han is killed - doesn't actually serve to do that, because the foreshadowing of the scene made it clear he would.


Problem #3: The little idiosyncrasies
There are little things wrong with the movie.  For instance, in the beginning, we see an old guy who looks vaguely like the War Doctor, who we're told is someone we know and trust who might know the location of Luke.  Problem is, he's entirely new to the universe - no one has a clue who he is.  If you do some research online, you'll discover that his name is Lor San Tekka, and he runs some kind of Church of the Force or some such nonsense, and that's why he might know that location.  But, without digging into his story, you won't know any of that, and so he's just a random old dude whose death is entirely meaningless and who we have a hard time believing would have any such information.  We're left scratching our heads about who he was in the other movies, only to draw blanks.

In the same scene, we see something that is impossible in the original 6 movies: Kylo Ren stops a blaster bolt in mid-air.  Darth was able to absorb or deflect a bolt with his hand, but never did he stop the bolt in mid-air.  If such a thing is even possible in the universe (I guess it is now, but it wasn't before), then Ren should be capable of doing such a thing in even more crazy scenarios.  He could stop the bolts coming out of the x-wings that were attacking his troopers, for instance.  Instead of pushing Rey's blaster away, he could stop the bolt in mid-air with her, too.  Heck, he could stop the bolt, knock her out (we saw him knock her out with the Force), place her in front of the bolt, and let it go, so that her own shot kills her.  Yet, when he actually fights either Finn or Rey, he doesn't rely on The Force at all, and we're given no explanation or insight why, despite the fact that he's clearly capable of it.

We're also told Poe Dameron is a hotshot pilot, but what kind of hotshot pilot jumps into a tie fighter not looking to see if it's still tied down.  Any decent pilot is going to make sure he can actually take off before gunning it.

And we're told that Finn is a stormtrooper, but for some reason, he's the only stormtrooper who can hit anything.  Just like in A New Hope, where we're told that "only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise" and then see them missing every single shot they ever make, we should expect him to do the same, only to see him be this godlike badass who hits everything and can even fight a trained Dark Lord with a lightsaber...

And then there's Rey, who lacks even the training Finn has.  Her fighting prowess is great, certainly, but she uses a staff on Jakku, not a sword, let alone a lightsaber.  Ren, on the other hand, was trained by Luke himself.  And yet, Rey defeats him...

And the entire time she's beating him down, there's no moment where it seems like maybe she's giving in to the dark side.  When we saw Luke and Vader fighting in both Empire and Return, there was always the risk that Luke would give in to his hatred (an early script for Return actually had him turning to the dark side), but we see no such fear or temptation between Rey and Ren.  Ren mentions once that he can train her, and that's the extent of it.



Problem #4: The science.
Star Wars is not a science fiction - it is, rather, a fantasy set in space.  When Star Wars has tried to explain its science, such as in the midi-chlorian debacle, it has always fowled up marvelously.  It is at its best when it simply shows futuristic-looking things without explanation.

That's why the new Death Star-like thing is even more ridiculous than the last.  It's the size of a planet, and in fact appears to be built into a planet, carving out the entire thing like hollowing out a pumpkin.  It has the ability to siphon energy off of a star, taking solar power to a whole new level, but it does so by sucking in all the matter of the star.

First of all, that's bad enough.  If you want to destroy a planet, sucking in its sun is a great way to do so.  Without the gravity of the sun (which is now entirely inside the destroyer), the planet orbiting it would shoot out into deep space at whatever direction it was traveling when the gravity went away.  Since the new destroyer has come into the system, and has sucked in the solar gravity, the planet will now be gravitationally bound to it, and will have a massive course change.  If they wanted to, the First Order could simply move their destroyer near to the planet and let the two collide, or use the gravity of the destroyer to fling it into another planet or a moon.

But when you suck in the matter of a star, you're not sucking in its energy.  You'll get a bit of energy, thanks to the fact that a lot of the star is super-heated plasma that will continue to be ridiculously hot, but it won't be engaging in fusion.  The matter itself isn't destroyed, it's instead compressed inside your planet.

That's actually a key component of the film - the thing that the resistance has to destroy is the compression coil, which is keeping the matter of the star compressed inside the destroyer.

But hydrogen, under intense pressure and heat, as it would be inside the destroyer, would fuse - that is, it would go back to being a star inside the destroyer, now under much more intense pressure and heat than it had before.

but it would not cease to exist

They say they have to suck in a star each time they want to make a shot, but the star they sucked in already isn't dead, the hydrogen is converting slowly to helium.  Our own star will last for another 4 billion years.  Even under intense pressure and heat, it should last for a few million.  The shortest-lived stars still live for tens of thousands of years.  If they could somehow compress and hold onto a star like that, they would have the power to destroy planets for thousands of years.

Not to mention the gravitational issues...

Our sun has a mass of about 2×10³⁰ kg, and a volume of 1.41×10¹⁸ km³, leading to a density of 1410 kg/m³.  If it was compressed down into the volume of our Earth, its density would be 1300000 times higher, or roughly 1,800,000,000 kg/m³.  That's still 8 zeroes away from Neutron Star, but the gravitational forces would be extreme nonetheless.  The gravity on its surface will increase by about a thousand-fold.

That's going to put tremendous gravitational forces on the destroyer.  Nothing on the surface could survive, no matter if they are our intrepid heroes.  And, under that kind of gravity, we can't even imagine technology that can survive, meaning the entire planet-destroyer-thingy would collapse.  We can't even land a probe on Venus without it instantly dying.


All of that said, it's still an enjoyable film.  Finn and Rey are believable heroes, and the film plays just the right balance between fan-service and advancing the story.  There are several moments during the film where even I cheered and laughed.  It could be better, and if Disney is to survive ownership of the franchise, it must be better.  Fortunately, this film is really just set up to the Disney expanded universe of films, books, shows, etc., and as the setup for that universe, it did a remarkable job.  Disney didn't forget that the point of the Empire is to mimic Nazi Germany, and it really nailed that point home, which is really critical at a time when so many politicians seem to be trying to lead America to becoming the ideological successor of Hitler. 

Echoes

How is it that Trump is in the lead of the latest Republican poll, with a total equal to the sum of his next *6* competitors?  41% of Republican voters back him, which says something decidedly disturbing about today's Republican party. 

Any time someone says he "says what's on his mind," it's really a way of saying that the prejudices the person experiences are things he or she wishes were accepted by society, that he or she wouldn't be ostracized for saying them.  And, since so many people back Trump, it's clear that a considerable portion of society wouldn't ostracize the person for saying them, either.  It's an echo chamber around Trump, creating a closed society of Trump supporters whose shared beliefs can bounce around within the group and become reinforced and amplified.

There has been a sudden spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes since Trump said he would block Muslims from entering the country entirely, which is a reflection of this echo chamber.  When demagoguery is echoed and amplified, it leads to people being emboldened to take action against other people, partly under the belief that they will get away with it since everyone else feels the same way, and partly because the anger and hate that are bouncing around that echo chamber also amplify until that anger reaches the tipping point. 

I wonder if all of this isn't a result of social media.  I know that in my own Facebook and Twitter feeds, I see mostly those people who agree with my points of view.  As a result, Bernie Sanders groups, progressive groups, groups espousing a progressive interpretation of scripture, and so on, are echo chambers for me, making me believe falsely that more people agree with my ideals than actually do.  While Social Media could perhaps enable people to interact more with others who disagree with them, because of the vitriol spewed from people online who wouldn't act the same way face-to-face, we tend to push people of differing viewpoints aside.

Case in point: a man who goes to my very liberal church, who espouses mostly liberal beliefs, and who at one time was on my friends list.  He went to the Veterans' Day Parade in Tulsa, and protested Muslims marching in the parade by flipping them off.  When I found out, I looked for him on my friends list to remove him - but, it turns out, he had already removed me, perhaps because I had posted so angrily about the people who were protesting.

I feel like it's right to push him and others who agree out of my life, because I don't need that kind of hate, but in so doing, I do wonder if I'm not propagating the problem.  Being friends with someone offers unique opportunities to change minds, to show that good people disagree with their viewpoints, that it's not just their political "enemies." 

That said, I'm not sure I'm strong enough to be that guy...

Swords

I find it terribly interesting that the Christian Right is associated so strongly with the NRA, especially in light of Christ's own teachings regarding weaponry.

Jesus said He was bringing strife rather than peace (Matthew 10:34), but this is in the context of how people would be so adamant for Him that they would forsake everything else, much like someone who has found a new passion for music or art or anything else might forget their friends and family and focus on it.

That said, He was not bringing the kind of strife that the Jews of the New Testament thought - that is, He was not bringing about a new Earthly kingdom, leading the Jews to a glorious revolution over the Roman Empire.  They expected a Messiah that would lead them to war.  There was a moment when He could've taken up that banner, where He could've fought back - His arrest.

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. (Matthew 26:47-51)

An uprising is exactly what Jesus' disciples still thought he was there to lead, and this kind of violent confrontation is exactly the sort that could have escalated quickly.

Instead, though, Jesus defused the situation,

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. (Matthew 26:52-56)

All who draw the sword will die by the sword; or, you may have heard it as "all who live by the sword will die by the sword."  The literal weapon is unimportant - the weapon is merely a symbol for a person's willingness to maim and possibly kill an opponent, armed or unarmed. 

There may be some who say, "but it's okay to defend yourself!"  Well, to a certain extent, yes.  But note what Jesus says about self defense:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

Or, as quoted in Luke:

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:27-31)

The command of Jesus is to not fight back, but to rather give people whatever they want.

Now, certainly, this does not mean to acquiesce to rape or murder - there are certain violations that I'm sure Christ wouldn't say you should suffer, because of how personal they are and how long-lasting their damage is.  That said, we aren't supposed to fight back in most situations. 

My mother used to say that this passage only means you should turn your cheek once, that if the person hits you again, you have leave to beat the snot out of them.  However, it's clear from Jesus' language that that is not the case, that the point of this is not to say "give in a little bit, but not too much" but rather "don't fight back."

That's because we're supposed to do to others as we would have them do to us.  If we beat them or shoot them, even when they're threatening us, we are not doing to them as we would have them do, but instead doing to them what we assume they would do to us.

But that may not be the intent.  Most people who draw a gun don't intend to kill, but rather to scare.  The gun is supposed to be a motivator to acquiesce to what the person wants.  When we fight back, when we draw a gun, etc., we are escalating the violence, rather than defusing it. 


That said, it's a different story if the situation is already deadly.  A person who threatens you with a gun might not be willing to take your life.  A person who fires a gun in your direction or the direction of another person certainly is.  At that point, it's necessary to take the other person's life to save your own.  One problem with guns is that they make us react at the wrong times, shooting at people who are no threat.  They give us a false sense of security that our actual training in stressful shooting situations may not be sufficient to see us through.

Words can save our lives... but when we have a weapon, we tend to reach for it first, rather than trying to defuse with words.  That's what Jesus means when He says those who draw the sword die by the sword.

We're all murderers

Mental Health.  I've written about it before, here and here, notably.  It's our go-to explanation any time someone goes on a murderous rampage like the one in San Bernardino yesterday (or the 354 before that this year).  When something horrible happens, we immediately seek answers, and more often than not, those answers are extremely complex.  We simplify them by wrapping them up in the banner of mental health, though that is horribly unjust, both to those who suffer from mental health issues (that is, all of us), and for those who seek to create public policy based on those issues.  If you take a complex problem and reduce it to a simple cause, then your policy answering it will be simple, too, and will only address a portion of the overall cause.

Granted, a portion would be at least a start.  We still have yet to take any kind of action to address mass shootings.

As I've noted before, we can and should address mental health issues on a national scale while we have the political will from both right and left to do so, and the only time we have it from the right is after a horrible shooting disaster, when the left starts screaming for gun control and the right frantically runs out and buys up more guns and more ammo in response.  Such an expansion would need to see mental health become the first of America's nationwide single-payer healthcare system, because mental health is already somewhat covered by the Affordable Care Act, and our number of mass shootings is increasing rather than decreasing, as we would expect.  If we stick to our guns (pun intended) and stick to the story that mental health is the cause of all shootings, then the answer must be that the ACA has not done anything to improve mental health access, which means that a single-payer system is the natural next step.

But that assumes that mental health is the culprit.  It's easy to say and to understand how a person might become deranged, might abandon hope, might learn to blame the world for his or her problems, and might lash out.  In my Hitting Where You Aim post, I talked about how we're each the hero of our own stories, even when we take bad actions.  Slotkin says it's still possible for a hero to be a hero, even when undertaking violent actions, so long as the perception is that the people acted against are still worse (and note: it's really only the person at the top who matters - anyone serving that person is cannon fodder in our movies and tv, stick figures with targets on their chests rather than human beings with a right to life.  You can see this especially in The Matrix, where the computer can take over any human host, so Neo is outright encouraged to kill everyone.  Thus, if the person at the top is worse than the hero, it doesn't matter who dies in the hero's pursuit of justice).

Thus, the only step between violent rampage and silently sulking about perceived injuries is one little mental health disorder.   On his blog, Dr. Paul Mattiuzzi provides a brief list of personality types that are likely to engage in murderous behavior.  Take a look at the list, and challenge yourself: can you find your own personality traits in that list. 

I can find several of my own, and I'm relatively certain you can, too.  The difference between a murderer and a non-murderer, then, is a trigger - a "straw that broke the camel's back" moment where all of those little annoyances and grievances and dark thoughts that have been building up for years finally pass the breaking point.  This is why, almost invariably, no one ever saw it coming.  Even those close to the murderer say they can't understand why he or she would do this. 

Certainly, mental health experts might be able to identify and diffuse such tension before it builds into a mass shooting, but only if they're able to get the patient to open up about these thoughts.  If the patient believes the expert to be "part of the system," or if the patient isn't comfortable talking about such issues with someone, or if the patient lacks the knowledge that he or she NEEDS to talk to someone, then mental health experts can do nothing.  No one can force a person to reveal his or her darkest thoughts.

But what we can do is prevent such a person from having access to guns.  Almost without exception, mass murders are committed with a gun in hand.  When someone has a trigger moment and slips from being normal and quietly dealing with his or her problems to murderous rampage, he or she can easily get a gun, no questions asked.

Simply limiting gun purchases when someone has mental health issues is not enough - because we all have mental health issues, and because those can only be diagnosed in willing patients.  To be effective, we need to limit all gun purchases, perhaps entirely (going gun-free), perhaps to those who have routine psychological exams (at least monthly) and for whom the doctor or therapist signs off that the person is safe to own and operate guns.  Yes, this takes away the perceived "2nd amendment rights," but perhaps it's time to admit that another person's right to continue living trumps your right to own a gun.

In the mean time, it doesn't matter who you are - everyone has things that they let build up inside of them.  Talk to a mental health expert, get some relief valves in place for those issues, learn tools for coping with your world that will make your life happier and healthier.

Syriasly

Governors across the country are urging President Obama to reject refugees.  According to CNN, their stated reason is that they fear terrorists could enter the country disguised as refugees, as one of the terrorists in the Paris attacks had entered Greece in such a manner.  Nevermind that that accounted for only one of 400,000 refugees that have entered Greece, a paltry 0.00025% of all refugees that have entered that country, and nevermind the fact that, according to hyper-conservative Breitbart.com, 1.3 million Muslim migrants have entered the U.S. since 9/11, with no terrorist attack instigated by a foreign terror group (though several domestic terror attacks, some by right-wing Christians, some by U.S. citizen Muslims). 

And on top of that, the president has proposed bringing in an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees.

10,000.

Or less than 1% of the total number of Muslim migrants into the country thus far.

And since the refugee crisis started, the U.S. has already admitted well over a thousand Syrian refugees, who have shown no sign of terror activity.

In my mind, the risk of terrorism from a paltry 10,000 refugees is tiny - so tiny, that we can discount it as a legitimate threat.  That means there are two remaining possibilities for why these governors would move to reject them:

1. The terrorists won - that is, they induced so much fear into these governors that the governors are acting upon their fears and taking actions to make the U.S. a less-free place, as the terrorists want.
2. The governors are pandering - that is, the Republican voters (and only one governor who isn't a Republican has joined this cause) who elected them into office have stated a desire to reject Syrian refugees, and the governors are making an excuse to pander to them in order to win reelection.

At the risk of that being reductive, I'll state that there could be other reasons, but I have yet to encounter them.  Please leave comments with others you can think of.

For that second one, the possible reasons for their Republican bases to reject Syrian refugees are the already-stated fear of attack, xenophobia in general, and a misunderstanding of economics (the "they're taking our jobs" argument that has been proven false time after time, more on that in a moment).  Again, comment if you think of more.

What I've seen from my friends on Facebook points to those three things, but the third one happens in a very unusual way...

The "Why are we helping refugees when we're not helping vets" argument.  I think this is likely the chosen argument (instead of "when we're not helping starving children") simply because we just had Veterans Day, and so veterans are fresh on people's minds. 

That's great!  Let's help vets.  Let's figure out what we can do to get homeless vets off the street and into housing. 

But we won't do that.  Not because of Democrats, who have actively pushed to expand welfare programs that could help vets get off the street, who have actively pushed to expand mental health services for those suffering from PTSD and other mental afflictions that have impacted their abilities to hold down jobs, etc., who have pushed for improved educational opportunities to teach vets skills that can help them land those jobs in the first place.  When such things come up, the GOP blocks them.  Yet, it's the GOP that screams that we can't help refugees until we help vets first. 

We can't help refugees until we help vets, and we won't help vets because taxes. 

We have no problem creating vets by going to war, we just can't help them when they return because that would be too costly.

Republicans, listen closely: your argument that we shouldn't help refugees because we're not helping veterans is not sincere.  Until you move to actually help veterans, 

Syriasly.

The Prince of Lies

Right before the Supreme Court decision on equal marriage, a church in Virginia posted a sign reading, "Remember Satan was the first to demand equal rights" and a scripture, Isaiah 14:12-17:

Photo and info from WAVY.com.

Liz Palka at WAVY writes that the pastor

said the message doesn’t target a specific group. He said it’s about evil, referencing Satan trying to be equal with God, and he said he stands up for what scripture says.

Well, let's assume that's correct, and not touch on the obvious equality implications (which might make us assume blacks and women are evil in this pastor's eyes).  What does the passage say?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? (KJV)

Yet... that's not exactly what it says.  That is, the word translated "Lucifer" in the KJV was not a proper name - instead, it was the Latin word "lucifer" meaning "light-bringing" or "morning star," AKA the planet Venus (source).

Seeing that, we can and should read the rest of Isaiah 14 for context:

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!  (Isaiah 14:4, KJV)

Ohhhh, it's talking about the king of Babylon, not Satan.  That makes much more sense, especially since it says "you shalt be brought down to hell," which we would assume had already happened to Satan if he had challenged God and desired to be equal.

This is the only place in the Bible that has been mistranslated to be about Satan's origins showing him as an angel cast out of Heaven.  The passage even says "I will ascend into heaven," meaning the person in question didn't start out there - impossible if Satan was an angel.

Rather, our belief that Satan was an angel who defied God, got cast out of Heaven, and wound up as prince of Hell, comes from John Milton.  The KJV version of the Bible came out right around the same time as Milton was born, and heavily influenced his work (source).  Paradise Lost is where we get the concept of an army of angels, too, as explained in this summary:

It also includes the story of the origin of Satan. Originally, he was called Lucifer, an angel in heaven who led his followers in a war against God, and was ultimately sent with them to hell. Thirst for revenge led him to cause man's downfall by turning into a serpent and tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. 

Raphael recounts to them how jealousy against the Son of God led a once favored angel to wage war against God in heaven, and how the Son, Messiah, cast him and his followers into hell. (source)

No such thing occurred in the Bible.  Satan is not a fallen angel, is not someone who went up against God and lost.  Sorry, but your entire concept of Satan is wrong.

And a church pastor should know better.