A golem* is a creature in Jewish folklore made by man out of inanimate material, generally soil. Much like Dr. Frankenstein's Monster, the best-known story of a golem ends with the creature betraying its maker.
I have jokingly referred to the Pillsbury Doughboy as a golem, and along those lines, so are the fabled Gingerbread Man and his comical form, the Stinky Cheese Man.
But what would an actual 21st century golem look like? A creature made from an inanimate material brought to life by its creator, and then being set loose to destroy order and harvest chaos?
I suggest the Internet-based Anonymous, a collection of web-users from the Something Awful forums, 4chan and 7chan, and any number of other sites that compose the basement of the World Wide Web. Anonymous is not a single person, but it is not really a group, either. Anonymous has no coherent membership, no leaders, and no common goal (in fact, it often turns on itself). It is self-aware, which is, granted, rather unlike a golem. But it has a mysterious life force -- like the magic words and combinations of letters which bring a golem to life, so anonymity gives Anonymous the ability to, for better and for worse, get away with what they do. Take away the life force, take away the creature.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we grab pitchforks and torches, form a mob, and take down Anonymous. Just trying to flush out a thought.
Rock on.
*The term means "cocoon", but also "silly" or "stupid". The Hebrew root for the Yiddish word means "incomplete substance". It's likely that Tolkien's Gollum is a reference to this phrase, slipping from Smeagol, his Superego and Ego, into Gollum, his Id, becoming a baser creature
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
13 August 2009
08 August 2009
Health Care Refo-oh crap, what are you doing with that noose?
From a recent NY Times article:
Um...on the up-side, people are starting to take notice of politics. Yea!
On the down side, we're starting to look like those Fox specials with names like "The World's Wackiest/Most Violent Parliaments."
I understand that divisive issues will lead to frustrations on both sides. Great. Read up on the topic, take a side based on an informed opinion, and make your voice heard.
But be respectful and calm. Don't start a riot. This is not Iran. This administration did not steal an election. We are not being oppressed. We are being asked to join in a debate over the future of healthcare, like the civilized country we are.
And as a brief aside to those calling for these protests (I'm looking at you Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly): for eight years, you told protesters that they were un-American. You said dissent was un-patriotic. You questioned the loyalty of any who didn't fall in line behind the Bush administration's agenda. But now, dissent is patriotic, as your picket signs read. You organize events and encourage your followers to disrupt meetings and protest taxes, and then claim it's grassroots.
But I've never seen grass grow from the top down.
I'll let Mr. Jon Stewart explain*:
Rock on.
*I was going to right a brief explanation of Fox New's claim about Cash for Clunkers seen in the posted video. It took on a life of it's own and is now posted here.
The bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations.
Um...on the up-side, people are starting to take notice of politics. Yea!
On the down side, we're starting to look like those Fox specials with names like "The World's Wackiest/Most Violent Parliaments."
I understand that divisive issues will lead to frustrations on both sides. Great. Read up on the topic, take a side based on an informed opinion, and make your voice heard.
But be respectful and calm. Don't start a riot. This is not Iran. This administration did not steal an election. We are not being oppressed. We are being asked to join in a debate over the future of healthcare, like the civilized country we are.
And as a brief aside to those calling for these protests (I'm looking at you Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly): for eight years, you told protesters that they were un-American. You said dissent was un-patriotic. You questioned the loyalty of any who didn't fall in line behind the Bush administration's agenda. But now, dissent is patriotic, as your picket signs read. You organize events and encourage your followers to disrupt meetings and protest taxes, and then claim it's grassroots.
But I've never seen grass grow from the top down.
I'll let Mr. Jon Stewart explain*:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Master Rebators - The Crank Cycle | ||||
| ||||
Rock on.
*I was going to right a brief explanation of Fox New's claim about Cash for Clunkers seen in the posted video. It took on a life of it's own and is now posted here.
On Cash for Clunkers and Why Fox News Sucks at Math
I started to write a brief end note to this post about political fist fights, town hall meetings, and the conservative double standard. The end note was going to be on an outrageous claim from Fox News that the Cash for Clunkers deal was running out of money. But the note quickly spiraled, and has taken the form you see now.
Now, on to Cash for Clunkers.
Yes, due to the program's popularity, it burned through it's allocation rather quickly, leading to additional funds being allocated. But at the time FN's claim, the math worked out like this:
The statement claims CfC was allocated $1 billion, and spent $96 million with another $96 million promised, and was therefore "basically out of money already". That's dishonesty in reporting. Let's look at this in digits.
One billion = 1,000,000,000
One million = 0,001,000,000
Notice the three extra zeros. At this point, CfC had spent $192,000,000. Out of $1,000,000,000.
Each clunker traded in is worth between $3,500 and $4,500.
Let us now consider this with smaller numbers and get rid of a few zeros. We'll move the decimals over six places. One billion becomes one thousand and one million becomes one. We will leave the percentages the same.
Each additional clunker traded in costs less than one half of one percent. That means that 202,000 more trade-ins were made between Fox New's wonderful display of (willful) ignorance and the renewal of CfC.
What thinking man, given a thousand dollars, would claim that he was out of money after spending $192, if each purchase cost him less than half a penny?
Using elementary-school level math, you can move the decimal over one more place, and see that 19.2% of the allocation had been expended.
Does this mean that Fox News is a less-than-twenty-percent-of-the-glass-empty style pessimist? If this is the case, they are truly the most depressed people in the world. By the time you're a teenager, you're "basically" almost dead.
Another option is that they so incredibly simple as to not understand the difference between a million and a billion. But I would hope that "America's News Network" was smarter than that.
Instead, I see it that the network that claims to report the facts and let the viewer decided, who has taken "Fair and Balanced" to be their slogan, is so incredibly biased as to purposely misinterpret the facts to mislead the public.
Rock on.
Edited on 8 September 2009 for minor formatting changes.
Now, on to Cash for Clunkers.
Yes, due to the program's popularity, it burned through it's allocation rather quickly, leading to additional funds being allocated. But at the time FN's claim, the math worked out like this:
The statement claims CfC was allocated $1 billion, and spent $96 million with another $96 million promised, and was therefore "basically out of money already". That's dishonesty in reporting. Let's look at this in digits.
One billion = 1,000,000,000
One million = 0,001,000,000
Notice the three extra zeros. At this point, CfC had spent $192,000,000. Out of $1,000,000,000.
Each clunker traded in is worth between $3,500 and $4,500.
Let us now consider this with smaller numbers and get rid of a few zeros. We'll move the decimals over six places. One billion becomes one thousand and one million becomes one. We will leave the percentages the same.
CfC allocated-------------$1,000.00
CfC spent-----------------$0,192.00
Each additional deal----$0,000.0045
CfC spent-----------------$0,192.00
Each additional deal----$0,000.0045
Each additional clunker traded in costs less than one half of one percent. That means that 202,000 more trade-ins were made between Fox New's wonderful display of (willful) ignorance and the renewal of CfC.
What thinking man, given a thousand dollars, would claim that he was out of money after spending $192, if each purchase cost him less than half a penny?
Using elementary-school level math, you can move the decimal over one more place, and see that 19.2% of the allocation had been expended.
Does this mean that Fox News is a less-than-twenty-percent-of-the-glass-empty style pessimist? If this is the case, they are truly the most depressed people in the world. By the time you're a teenager, you're "basically" almost dead.
Another option is that they so incredibly simple as to not understand the difference between a million and a billion. But I would hope that "America's News Network" was smarter than that.
Instead, I see it that the network that claims to report the facts and let the viewer decided, who has taken "Fair and Balanced" to be their slogan, is so incredibly biased as to purposely misinterpret the facts to mislead the public.
Rock on.
Edited on 8 September 2009 for minor formatting changes.
27 August 2008
Regina Spektor
Over the summer, I lived with my friend Evander. Evander has weird taste in music.
By weird, I mean he listens to a lot of jazz. And video game music. And N*Sync. And Christmas music. Oh, and choral pieces. As I said, weird - or, at least, unexpected.
Anyway, he and I usually end up either reminiscing about 90s one-hit-wonder alt-rock bands or giving each other new CDs to listen to.
I introduced him to piano-rock group Mae. He introduced me to Regina Spektor.
He let me borrow her first CD, and I listened to it at least every day for two weeks. So now, I pass this musical addiction on to you:
This is her song "Samson"
And this is one of my favorite music videos ever, "Us"
Rock on.
Post Script: I was going to write about a artist I discovered on NPR's Echoes about a month a go. The artist's name is Alu, and while she was introduced to me as "Alice in Wonderland in hell", she manages to avoid YouTube - an impressive feat. Anyway, check her out at www.alumusic.com
By weird, I mean he listens to a lot of jazz. And video game music. And N*Sync. And Christmas music. Oh, and choral pieces. As I said, weird - or, at least, unexpected.
Anyway, he and I usually end up either reminiscing about 90s one-hit-wonder alt-rock bands or giving each other new CDs to listen to.
I introduced him to piano-rock group Mae. He introduced me to Regina Spektor.
He let me borrow her first CD, and I listened to it at least every day for two weeks. So now, I pass this musical addiction on to you:
This is her song "Samson"
And this is one of my favorite music videos ever, "Us"
Rock on.
Post Script: I was going to write about a artist I discovered on NPR's Echoes about a month a go. The artist's name is Alu, and while she was introduced to me as "Alice in Wonderland in hell", she manages to avoid YouTube - an impressive feat. Anyway, check her out at www.alumusic.com
22 June 2008
Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt / im huy die Seel im Himmel springt
"Metal bottom makes taking of offering NOISY! Listen to the change rattle in the pot and watch the giving momentum grow!"
I found this in a Christian resource magazine. A modern Christian resource magazine. And I very nearly died laughing.
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. It's been happening for quite some time. A few examples:
The first is the reason we are all Roman Catholic. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a Christian could give money to the Roman church and either earn a few years off of their own stay in Purgatory or free a deceased relative from the same. For those unfamiliar with European High Medieval/Renaissance history, this was the practice of selling Indulgences. It was based off of the theory that "the merits" of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints were stored up and that the papacy had the authority to distribute them. For a generous donation, that is. One German monk, of the Augustinian order, took issue with this unfounded practice. He wrote on it and ended up changing the world. Forever. He challenged the pope, asking, if this unfounded teaching is true, why are the "merits" not given freely to all? His name was Martin Luther, and if you want to more, I would encourage you to watch the movie Luther. It's not the most accurate depiction in the world, but it does a great job of discussing the issue of indulgences.
But don't take my word for it...
Ok. Moving on after a delightful little flashback.
Another prime example comes from the Christ, and you probably already know where I'm going with this. In one of the stories mentioned in all four Gospels, Jesus goes into the Temple and drives out the money changers and those selling animals to be sacrificed - in other words, those trying to make money off of God. And it's not like when he drove out demons, where Christ simply commanded it and it happened. No, it's significantly more dramatic than that. Making a whip out of reeds and turning over tables - this is the stuff Indiana Jones was made for. As Jesus said, the Temple had been made "a den of thieves".
And today we have much the same thing going on. First and foremost, I think of the massive market of Christian books. And here I must be careful, because there are a lot of authors that I respect and admire. But at the same time, there are people selling "special editions" of books and Bibles, trying to come up with any reason for a new volume. The Five Languages of Love...for Young Men Between the Ages of 20 and 30 Who Enjoy Watching Men's Double Tennis During the British Open. Today's New International Version for Housewives Who Just Sent Their Fourth Child to Kindergarten for the First Day - Study Edition. Don't get me wrong. I understand books aimed at special audiences. But when you get tot he point of having five or more editions of the same book, something's gone horribly awry. CS Lewis, arguably one of the best Christian authors of the twentieth century, did not have Mere Christianity - For Singles. And yet Lee Strobel feels that if he doesn't publish seperate copies of The Case for... series for both teens and kids - well, I don't really know what will happen. Will the kids not understand the deep thoughts of the teen version? Will the younger half of a generation not fully love God? Will they be converted to atheism before the age of thirteen, never to go to church again?
And then there are the bullet point books. Joel Osteen guarantees that if you read his book, he can give you seven principles to being blessed by God. I'll hold my criticism of prosperity preachers for another day and focus more on the flawed idea of preaching that bullet points can change your life. First, I'll let Donald Miller explain it.
Second, I'll continue Luther's challenge. If the secret to living a better life is seven simple steps, why are these not given out freely? If everything can be reduced to a point-by-point list, why does it have to be bound and sold for $22 ($15 on Amazon)? Why not publish it on a website? Now, I know that this same argument applies to all books, and CDs, and movies, but how much more, then, does it apply to lists?
Yes, yes, I know it all comes down to money. I know that money drives people, even Christians.
But I also know one thing: God is not for sale.
We cannot sale religion. We cannot sale salvation. We cannot sale a better relationship with God.
And Christianity is not the only religion with this problem.
I'm currently in "Introduction to Religion in Native American Cultures". And the first thing we talked about in this class was the New Age attempt to mix Eastern and Native American religious traditions and sell them. Which is why you have wealthy fifty year old white men smoking "peace pipes" and going on "vision quests" and teaching that we are all one with Mother Earth and the Great Spirit*. This abduction of culture has driven some Native Americans to "declare war" on the perpetrators, boycotting bookstores and New Age shops.
Which makes me wonder.
If native people are offended by cultural/religious theft and are willing to protest the offenders, why are Christians so willing to let our faith be packaged and sold for twenty dollars per mountaintop experience? Why do we stand by as "Christian" toys (BibleMan would pwn Psalty in a cage match), "Christian" financial guides, and, among the more troubling, "Christian" patriotic clothing, continue to commercialize Christianity?
And even more important, once we've had enough, what do we do about it?
Rock on.
*The "peace pipe" comes from various traditions of the Sacred Pipe. Vision quests are not practiced by all cultures. Mother Earth is a Greek concept. And the Great Spirit is a translation of an Oglala Lakota (think Black Elk) belief used to make monotheistic Westerners more comfortable with polytheistic native beliefs.
Post Script: The title is Johann Tetzel's famous rhyme. Translated , it means "As soon as the gold in the pan rings, the soul in [to] Heaven jumps," or more commonly translated, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul to Heaven springs." Or, depending on the source, it could be "Die Seel aus dem Fegefeuer springt", which is, "the soul from Purgatory springs." There are a few other variations, but I won't go into them.
Updated: 28 June 2008
I found this in a Christian resource magazine. A modern Christian resource magazine. And I very nearly died laughing.
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. It's been happening for quite some time. A few examples:
The first is the reason we are all Roman Catholic. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a Christian could give money to the Roman church and either earn a few years off of their own stay in Purgatory or free a deceased relative from the same. For those unfamiliar with European High Medieval/Renaissance history, this was the practice of selling Indulgences. It was based off of the theory that "the merits" of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints were stored up and that the papacy had the authority to distribute them. For a generous donation, that is. One German monk, of the Augustinian order, took issue with this unfounded practice. He wrote on it and ended up changing the world. Forever. He challenged the pope, asking, if this unfounded teaching is true, why are the "merits" not given freely to all? His name was Martin Luther, and if you want to more, I would encourage you to watch the movie Luther. It's not the most accurate depiction in the world, but it does a great job of discussing the issue of indulgences.
But don't take my word for it...
Ok. Moving on after a delightful little flashback.
Another prime example comes from the Christ, and you probably already know where I'm going with this. In one of the stories mentioned in all four Gospels, Jesus goes into the Temple and drives out the money changers and those selling animals to be sacrificed - in other words, those trying to make money off of God. And it's not like when he drove out demons, where Christ simply commanded it and it happened. No, it's significantly more dramatic than that. Making a whip out of reeds and turning over tables - this is the stuff Indiana Jones was made for. As Jesus said, the Temple had been made "a den of thieves".
And today we have much the same thing going on. First and foremost, I think of the massive market of Christian books. And here I must be careful, because there are a lot of authors that I respect and admire. But at the same time, there are people selling "special editions" of books and Bibles, trying to come up with any reason for a new volume. The Five Languages of Love...for Young Men Between the Ages of 20 and 30 Who Enjoy Watching Men's Double Tennis During the British Open. Today's New International Version for Housewives Who Just Sent Their Fourth Child to Kindergarten for the First Day - Study Edition. Don't get me wrong. I understand books aimed at special audiences. But when you get tot he point of having five or more editions of the same book, something's gone horribly awry. CS Lewis, arguably one of the best Christian authors of the twentieth century, did not have Mere Christianity - For Singles. And yet Lee Strobel feels that if he doesn't publish seperate copies of The Case for... series for both teens and kids - well, I don't really know what will happen. Will the kids not understand the deep thoughts of the teen version? Will the younger half of a generation not fully love God? Will they be converted to atheism before the age of thirteen, never to go to church again?
And then there are the bullet point books. Joel Osteen guarantees that if you read his book, he can give you seven principles to being blessed by God. I'll hold my criticism of prosperity preachers for another day and focus more on the flawed idea of preaching that bullet points can change your life. First, I'll let Donald Miller explain it.
Second, I'll continue Luther's challenge. If the secret to living a better life is seven simple steps, why are these not given out freely? If everything can be reduced to a point-by-point list, why does it have to be bound and sold for $22 ($15 on Amazon)? Why not publish it on a website? Now, I know that this same argument applies to all books, and CDs, and movies, but how much more, then, does it apply to lists?
Yes, yes, I know it all comes down to money. I know that money drives people, even Christians.
But I also know one thing: God is not for sale.
We cannot sale religion. We cannot sale salvation. We cannot sale a better relationship with God.
And Christianity is not the only religion with this problem.
I'm currently in "Introduction to Religion in Native American Cultures". And the first thing we talked about in this class was the New Age attempt to mix Eastern and Native American religious traditions and sell them. Which is why you have wealthy fifty year old white men smoking "peace pipes" and going on "vision quests" and teaching that we are all one with Mother Earth and the Great Spirit*. This abduction of culture has driven some Native Americans to "declare war" on the perpetrators, boycotting bookstores and New Age shops.
Which makes me wonder.
If native people are offended by cultural/religious theft and are willing to protest the offenders, why are Christians so willing to let our faith be packaged and sold for twenty dollars per mountaintop experience? Why do we stand by as "Christian" toys (BibleMan would pwn Psalty in a cage match), "Christian" financial guides, and, among the more troubling, "Christian" patriotic clothing, continue to commercialize Christianity?
And even more important, once we've had enough, what do we do about it?
Rock on.
*The "peace pipe" comes from various traditions of the Sacred Pipe. Vision quests are not practiced by all cultures. Mother Earth is a Greek concept. And the Great Spirit is a translation of an Oglala Lakota (think Black Elk) belief used to make monotheistic Westerners more comfortable with polytheistic native beliefs.
Post Script: The title is Johann Tetzel's famous rhyme. Translated , it means "As soon as the gold in the pan rings, the soul in [to] Heaven jumps," or more commonly translated, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul to Heaven springs." Or, depending on the source, it could be "Die Seel aus dem Fegefeuer springt", which is, "the soul from Purgatory springs." There are a few other variations, but I won't go into them.
Updated: 28 June 2008
01 October 2007
BlendTec Presents: Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris doesn't sleep. He waits.
The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
Chuck Norris has two speeds: walk; and kill.
Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting. He goes killing.
Chuck Norris - the only force in the universe strong enough to survive a BlendTec Total Blender.
Catch the video here.
The best part is if you look closely enough, you can see him at the top of the blender roundhouse kicking everything else.
The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
Chuck Norris has two speeds: walk; and kill.
Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting. He goes killing.
Chuck Norris - the only force in the universe strong enough to survive a BlendTec Total Blender.
Catch the video here.
The best part is if you look closely enough, you can see him at the top of the blender roundhouse kicking everything else.
26 September 2007
The Kingdom
One of the great parts about being a college student is that we are Hollywood's biggest target. As such, they send do free sneak previews of movies on campus quite often. I was lucky enough to get in and see The Kingdom on Tuesday night. And while they spent most of the time before the movie trying to shove commercialism down our throats (they asked one trivia question: What movie was being released on DVD that day? Answer: Knocked Up. Correct! Come over to the release party at one of the local bars. The unspoken message to everyone under 21: Don't forget your fakes), the movie itself was pretty good.
Most movies of this nature normally send one of two messages: "We're going to kill all of the towel-heads!" or "The US is a horrible, imperialistic nation and should stay away from the Middle East!". The Kingdom did neither. Instead, it starts with a very concise, yet detailed, history of the struggle between fundamentalists within Islam and the West. For the first time ever in a major Hollywood movie, wahhabism was mentioned and emphasized.
Over the course of the movie, Western views of Islam and Arabian culture are confronted as the Arabian characters are developed - religious devotion is demonstrated as some of the main characters go home to say the evening prayers with their families; there is a conversation with a former terrorist who discusses why he left the path of violence; a Saudi prince figures prominently into the story line, and his extravagant life style is well noted; the methods and beliefs of extremism within Islam are explored with disturbing detail.
The movie is very violent - there is no doubt about that. But not in the modern style of violence where you get shot and don't bleed. The fight scenes are very intense, rough, and bloody (it was odd to see Jennifer Garner in an action scene so far removed from those of Alias). For those who didn't deal well with Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan (the content of The Kingdom is somewhere in between the two), keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to see this movie. For those hoping for a typical action movie with constant explosions, chase scenes, and gun fights, don't hold your breath. The film spends a lot of time on character development, investigations, and cutting through red tape. The "R" rating for intense, sustained violence doesn't come in until the last half-hour or so of the movie.
Spoiler Warning: The last words of the movie are going to be disclosed below; don't highlight if you don't want to know. You have been warned.
The main point of the movie is delivered in the last lines. When asked, what two characters said (an FBI agent comforting a colleague over the loss of a friend, and a dying militant comforting his grandson), the answer is eerily similar: Don't worry, we will kill them all. With that in mind, you leave the theatre wondering about both sides' approach to the other. What hope is there for us as a civilization if our answer to the problem is to kill people? For my thoughts on the subject, see an old post (Emergent Qaeda).
In short, this movie is continuing the recent trend of action movies for the thinking man. Like Blood Diamond before it, and a large number of movies to be released in coming months, it brings some hope, but leaves you with more questions than answers, and above all, a feeling of urgency to do something. However, unlike Blood Diamond, the "what to do" is left up to the viewer.
End spoiler warning.
Rock on.
Most movies of this nature normally send one of two messages: "We're going to kill all of the towel-heads!" or "The US is a horrible, imperialistic nation and should stay away from the Middle East!". The Kingdom did neither. Instead, it starts with a very concise, yet detailed, history of the struggle between fundamentalists within Islam and the West. For the first time ever in a major Hollywood movie, wahhabism was mentioned and emphasized.
Over the course of the movie, Western views of Islam and Arabian culture are confronted as the Arabian characters are developed - religious devotion is demonstrated as some of the main characters go home to say the evening prayers with their families; there is a conversation with a former terrorist who discusses why he left the path of violence; a Saudi prince figures prominently into the story line, and his extravagant life style is well noted; the methods and beliefs of extremism within Islam are explored with disturbing detail.
The movie is very violent - there is no doubt about that. But not in the modern style of violence where you get shot and don't bleed. The fight scenes are very intense, rough, and bloody (it was odd to see Jennifer Garner in an action scene so far removed from those of Alias). For those who didn't deal well with Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan (the content of The Kingdom is somewhere in between the two), keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to see this movie. For those hoping for a typical action movie with constant explosions, chase scenes, and gun fights, don't hold your breath. The film spends a lot of time on character development, investigations, and cutting through red tape. The "R" rating for intense, sustained violence doesn't come in until the last half-hour or so of the movie.
Spoiler Warning: The last words of the movie are going to be disclosed below; don't highlight if you don't want to know. You have been warned.
The main point of the movie is delivered in the last lines. When asked, what two characters said (an FBI agent comforting a colleague over the loss of a friend, and a dying militant comforting his grandson), the answer is eerily similar: Don't worry, we will kill them all. With that in mind, you leave the theatre wondering about both sides' approach to the other. What hope is there for us as a civilization if our answer to the problem is to kill people? For my thoughts on the subject, see an old post (Emergent Qaeda).
In short, this movie is continuing the recent trend of action movies for the thinking man. Like Blood Diamond before it, and a large number of movies to be released in coming months, it brings some hope, but leaves you with more questions than answers, and above all, a feeling of urgency to do something. However, unlike Blood Diamond, the "what to do" is left up to the viewer.
End spoiler warning.
Rock on.
10 June 2007
Good, Clean, Christian Sex
I hear that sex is supposed to be fun. Like, a lot of fun. This comes from parents, friends, family, TV, the radio, and the movies. And I don't doubt that it is. I have a question, though. Why is it that what I hear from most churches is that sex is God's gift to married couples? Why do we leave it at that? It's either this one line about how good sex is or a long list of "thou shalt not's" that if thou doest, make sex bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for "free love" along with communion (though that would make for a catchy church sign and a great double entendre), but if sex is so great, why don't we discuss it more in church?
Sex is the greatest level of physical intimacy that humanity can have, yes? So it's no wonder that the Church is called the Bride of Christ, with the obvious intimate connotations that come with this, the description of Love that is inherent in this term. There's a reason we have an entire book that is little more than a love letter between two people in our Bible, despite the fact that this is often looked over (part of me is glad about this, as a sermon on the Song of Songs would be incredibly awkward). I know I'm just stating the obvious here; this is the same stuff you always hear in the obligatory youth group relationship talks. So why in the world are we not applying this?
The Church is going through something of a sexual revolution right now. By this, I mean that some on the progressive side of ministry are discussing sexuality as it pertains to faith. Not a list of what you can and can't do, but actually taking a look at how sex ties into our relationship with God. Rob Bell's new book has one of the most provocative titles in modern Christian writing: Sex. God. I was quite literally speechless when I first saw it. "Surely he can't have written a book about that!" I picked up a copy at the book store and was flipping through it. The first section is titled, "This Is Really About That". Then there is this little article from the Burnside Writers' Collective, which prompted this post, simply entitled "Sex, God, and Rock & Roll". Then there was the most awkward month of middle school youth group. It was our frank discussion on sex. This was meant to educate us. In public schools, discussions in sex ed are limited to talking about the basics. Nothing controversial (oddly enough, this is because of the Christian Right). So, to make sure that we weren't going blindly into the world of high school and sex, my youth pastor decided we would have four sessions of no-topic-off-limits sex talk. I assure you, this was quite unheard of in the suburbs of Columbia, SC, and most of my friends were quite shocked. Come to think of it, I think most people would still be shocked if this were to come up at most youth groups. All of this, I think, is for the better.
This leads us into the important question: What impact does it have on the world when the Church is afraid to discuss a gift from God? Well, it means that other people have to do the discussing. As the author of the article, Steve Simpson, points out, the porn industry is not afraid to talk about sex. The media is not afraid to talk about sex. This is where, then, people will go to learn about it. MTV and Ron Jeremy. I see in the dorms how good of a job they do in instilling good sexual values (or values of relationships in general). I thank God for those progressives in the Church that are not afraid to talk openly about sex because it's too important of a topic for Christians to not be involved in.
Rock on.
Edit: Something I thought and hoped I would never see - a Christian sex advice site. Somebody left a comment advertising for a web site "For Christian Husbands Only". And when I mean "sex advice site", I don't mean topics like "I struggle with lust/pornography/whatever", but "Keep Your Erection as Long as You Desire". This is another example of slapping the label of Christian on anything to make it all right. Sites like this, whether done in the name of God or not, still turn the focus of a marriage towards sex. Again, sex in marriage is a great thing. But it should not be the focus. And if there are sexual problems in a relationship, I would hope that the couple in question would have friends they could turn to for such advice.
Sex is the greatest level of physical intimacy that humanity can have, yes? So it's no wonder that the Church is called the Bride of Christ, with the obvious intimate connotations that come with this, the description of Love that is inherent in this term. There's a reason we have an entire book that is little more than a love letter between two people in our Bible, despite the fact that this is often looked over (part of me is glad about this, as a sermon on the Song of Songs would be incredibly awkward). I know I'm just stating the obvious here; this is the same stuff you always hear in the obligatory youth group relationship talks. So why in the world are we not applying this?
The Church is going through something of a sexual revolution right now. By this, I mean that some on the progressive side of ministry are discussing sexuality as it pertains to faith. Not a list of what you can and can't do, but actually taking a look at how sex ties into our relationship with God. Rob Bell's new book has one of the most provocative titles in modern Christian writing: Sex. God. I was quite literally speechless when I first saw it. "Surely he can't have written a book about that!" I picked up a copy at the book store and was flipping through it. The first section is titled, "This Is Really About That". Then there is this little article from the Burnside Writers' Collective, which prompted this post, simply entitled "Sex, God, and Rock & Roll". Then there was the most awkward month of middle school youth group. It was our frank discussion on sex. This was meant to educate us. In public schools, discussions in sex ed are limited to talking about the basics. Nothing controversial (oddly enough, this is because of the Christian Right). So, to make sure that we weren't going blindly into the world of high school and sex, my youth pastor decided we would have four sessions of no-topic-off-limits sex talk. I assure you, this was quite unheard of in the suburbs of Columbia, SC, and most of my friends were quite shocked. Come to think of it, I think most people would still be shocked if this were to come up at most youth groups. All of this, I think, is for the better.
This leads us into the important question: What impact does it have on the world when the Church is afraid to discuss a gift from God? Well, it means that other people have to do the discussing. As the author of the article, Steve Simpson, points out, the porn industry is not afraid to talk about sex. The media is not afraid to talk about sex. This is where, then, people will go to learn about it. MTV and Ron Jeremy. I see in the dorms how good of a job they do in instilling good sexual values (or values of relationships in general). I thank God for those progressives in the Church that are not afraid to talk openly about sex because it's too important of a topic for Christians to not be involved in.
Rock on.
Edit: Something I thought and hoped I would never see - a Christian sex advice site. Somebody left a comment advertising for a web site "For Christian Husbands Only". And when I mean "sex advice site", I don't mean topics like "I struggle with lust/pornography/whatever", but "Keep Your Erection as Long as You Desire". This is another example of slapping the label of Christian on anything to make it all right. Sites like this, whether done in the name of God or not, still turn the focus of a marriage towards sex. Again, sex in marriage is a great thing. But it should not be the focus. And if there are sexual problems in a relationship, I would hope that the couple in question would have friends they could turn to for such advice.
29 May 2007
The HotList
This just in from Facebook: You can now use brand names and icons to let people figure you out.
"Help people know you better by showing logos of the brands you identify with. Compare what you like with your friends....Show people what you are all about. Better than Facebook's info section because this uses logos, and no one reads your profile anyways ;)"
Facebook: Taking sign-exchange value to a new level. Reinforcing the trend that all Greeks love Abercrombie, all black people listen to rap, and every man, woman, and child in the south loves their Ford truck.
Seriously, though, what the crap? Have we gotten that lazy, that we now reduce our entire self-image down to corporate icons? I can just see the next wave of college applications: Please, describe yourself in twenty brand-names or less.
There is also the new Lamefactor function: "Anonymously judge your Facebook friends."
And Rendezbook, self-described "Speed-dating for Facebook." A simulation of simulated relationships! Brilliant! This even saves you the awkwardness of having to tell someone how you feel, because if both people are interested in the same option (out of Friendship, Relationship, or Random Fling) they are emailed confirming the "feeling".
Not to mention the Compass, which uses ten questions to tell you where you are in the detailed political spectrum of Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative.
And last, but not least, we arrive at the Causes feature. You can give a crap about the rest of the world without ever lifting a finger!
Some of the new features are great. I love the Extended Info section. It gives me a place to list some things I think are important about me: Favorite authors, places, philosophers, foods, artists, you name it. But then again, with the HotList, why should I even bother? Brand names can do all of the talking. I could use the Info area to discuss my politics. Or I could answer ten questions and they'd make a picture of a compass for that, too. Now I'm really desperate. I should just list my favorite friends and girls that I'm attracted to. No, wait. There are features for those. I can just vote on my friends and women, and if I'm lucky, things will work out that way.
Facebook: Eliminating the need for words and human interaction since May 2007. It can all be simulated anyway.
Rock on.
"Help people know you better by showing logos of the brands you identify with. Compare what you like with your friends....Show people what you are all about. Better than Facebook's info section because this uses logos, and no one reads your profile anyways ;)"
Facebook: Taking sign-exchange value to a new level. Reinforcing the trend that all Greeks love Abercrombie, all black people listen to rap, and every man, woman, and child in the south loves their Ford truck.
Seriously, though, what the crap? Have we gotten that lazy, that we now reduce our entire self-image down to corporate icons? I can just see the next wave of college applications: Please, describe yourself in twenty brand-names or less.
There is also the new Lamefactor function: "Anonymously judge your Facebook friends."
And Rendezbook, self-described "Speed-dating for Facebook." A simulation of simulated relationships! Brilliant! This even saves you the awkwardness of having to tell someone how you feel, because if both people are interested in the same option (out of Friendship, Relationship, or Random Fling) they are emailed confirming the "feeling".
Not to mention the Compass, which uses ten questions to tell you where you are in the detailed political spectrum of Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative.
And last, but not least, we arrive at the Causes feature. You can give a crap about the rest of the world without ever lifting a finger!
Some of the new features are great. I love the Extended Info section. It gives me a place to list some things I think are important about me: Favorite authors, places, philosophers, foods, artists, you name it. But then again, with the HotList, why should I even bother? Brand names can do all of the talking. I could use the Info area to discuss my politics. Or I could answer ten questions and they'd make a picture of a compass for that, too. Now I'm really desperate. I should just list my favorite friends and girls that I'm attracted to. No, wait. There are features for those. I can just vote on my friends and women, and if I'm lucky, things will work out that way.
Facebook: Eliminating the need for words and human interaction since May 2007. It can all be simulated anyway.
Rock on.
17 May 2007
Another News Round-Up...
The last time I did this, I had the misfortune of reporting the news of the Virginia Tech massacre. I am pleased to say that this time, I don't have anything nearly as gruesome to report on.
In the presidential debate, Giuliani and Edwards both hold stock in companies doing business in Sudan. Both claim they were unaware of the investments, both worth thousands of dollars. While both candidates say they are shocked and will quickly sell the stock, this raises the question of why aren't our politicians looking at where there money is going? And if they don't know what they aren't on top of their own investments, will they show similar care with the nation's finances?
Today was doubly rough for Rudy, who was rejected by James Dobson. Whether or not the founder of Focus on the Family should have a say in who the Republican candidate will be is still up for debate, but for Dobson's many supporters, the former mayor is on his way out. Giuliani, who attempted to defend his stance on abortion at a Baptist college in Texas, is having trouble courting the religious right. Despite leading in some polls, this may cost him the election (the same way it won the election for Reagan and George W).
As far as the religious right is concerned, they are mourning the loss of one of the prominent members, Jerry Falwell, who died yesterday. While I disagree with Mr. Falwell on many issues, I pray for comfort for his family and friends.
In other political news, a bipartisan group of politicians have agreed on an immigration reform plan. Official debate begins on Monday, though many congressman from both sides have criticized it as either too harsh or not harsh enough (generally a good sign that it's a moderate proposal).
In Hollywood today, Paris Hilton (I want to cry for actually putting her in my blog) dropped her appeal for her less than two month prison term. What gets me is the one-liner near the end, "She could have a cellmate." On the other side of the legal spectrum, Lindsay Lohan will not be charged with grand theft after it was ruled that there is not enough evidence to move forward with allegations of her stealing a shirt. I'm sure that somewhere, a preteen girl is excited over this.
Again, I do this to take a look at what our media tells us is important. If I'm reading this correctly, the only things in politics is the presidential election, illegal immigration, and a congressional stalemate over Iraq. Meanwhile, an important preacher died and two of America's royalty are having some legal troubles. Never mind that the presidential election is more than a year away. Never mind that while immigration is an important issue, the country has some other major issues to deal with (whatever happened to the concern over Social Security?). Never mind that the use of war as a means for political gain (on both sides) is disgusting. Never mind that many Republicans have changed their opinions on Mr. Falwell to court his followers. And never mind that the people young Americans care about the most are over-privileged and over-paid and yet under-talented. Never mind that there is actually more in the world than the US, its border with Mexico, and Iraq.
It is said that the media shapes the minds of the people. But it is also said that the people tell the media what to play. So where did this all begin? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? And where will it end? When will we finally decide to wake up and realize that our culture is nothing more than a simulation, a copy, and a poor one of that, of the ancient Romans, with our bread and circuses (bread replaced with fast food and chariots replaced with bad movies), fed to us in thirty second sound bites? And we thought that the Matrix was just a movie...
Rock on.
In the presidential debate, Giuliani and Edwards both hold stock in companies doing business in Sudan. Both claim they were unaware of the investments, both worth thousands of dollars. While both candidates say they are shocked and will quickly sell the stock, this raises the question of why aren't our politicians looking at where there money is going? And if they don't know what they aren't on top of their own investments, will they show similar care with the nation's finances?
Today was doubly rough for Rudy, who was rejected by James Dobson. Whether or not the founder of Focus on the Family should have a say in who the Republican candidate will be is still up for debate, but for Dobson's many supporters, the former mayor is on his way out. Giuliani, who attempted to defend his stance on abortion at a Baptist college in Texas, is having trouble courting the religious right. Despite leading in some polls, this may cost him the election (the same way it won the election for Reagan and George W).
As far as the religious right is concerned, they are mourning the loss of one of the prominent members, Jerry Falwell, who died yesterday. While I disagree with Mr. Falwell on many issues, I pray for comfort for his family and friends.
In other political news, a bipartisan group of politicians have agreed on an immigration reform plan. Official debate begins on Monday, though many congressman from both sides have criticized it as either too harsh or not harsh enough (generally a good sign that it's a moderate proposal).
In Hollywood today, Paris Hilton (I want to cry for actually putting her in my blog) dropped her appeal for her less than two month prison term. What gets me is the one-liner near the end, "She could have a cellmate." On the other side of the legal spectrum, Lindsay Lohan will not be charged with grand theft after it was ruled that there is not enough evidence to move forward with allegations of her stealing a shirt. I'm sure that somewhere, a preteen girl is excited over this.
Again, I do this to take a look at what our media tells us is important. If I'm reading this correctly, the only things in politics is the presidential election, illegal immigration, and a congressional stalemate over Iraq. Meanwhile, an important preacher died and two of America's royalty are having some legal troubles. Never mind that the presidential election is more than a year away. Never mind that while immigration is an important issue, the country has some other major issues to deal with (whatever happened to the concern over Social Security?). Never mind that the use of war as a means for political gain (on both sides) is disgusting. Never mind that many Republicans have changed their opinions on Mr. Falwell to court his followers. And never mind that the people young Americans care about the most are over-privileged and over-paid and yet under-talented. Never mind that there is actually more in the world than the US, its border with Mexico, and Iraq.
It is said that the media shapes the minds of the people. But it is also said that the people tell the media what to play. So where did this all begin? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? And where will it end? When will we finally decide to wake up and realize that our culture is nothing more than a simulation, a copy, and a poor one of that, of the ancient Romans, with our bread and circuses (bread replaced with fast food and chariots replaced with bad movies), fed to us in thirty second sound bites? And we thought that the Matrix was just a movie...
Rock on.
16 April 2007
News in Brief
First, let's look at Virginia Tech, where a gunman killed thirty-two students on campus. I'd always known college campuses weren't the safest place, but I'd never imagined anything like this. Please pray for the families, friends, and victims of this atrocity.
Now some good news: Sudan has decided to allow UN peace-keepers to operate in the country's borders. Accepting 3,000 troops, the country is slowly, but finally, accepting help to reign in rebel and Janjaweed militias, two warring factions responsible for well over 100,000 deaths and two million refugees. This is a small step in the direction of accepting a proposed 20,000+ peace-keepers. Hopefully, the US will chip in with, at the very least equipment, and maybe even a some boots on the ground.
Speaking of the US, Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on ministers in the Iraqi cabinet to resign over the lack of a timetable for redeployment of US forces. Six cabinet members answered his call.
Now, for a laugh: A church just for men (Not only am I the founder of the Church for Men, I'm also a member). To combat the trend of women making up the majority of the congregation (as a single college male, I'm not complaining), a church in Florida is offering a more masculine-themed service. Meeting in a gymnasium, timing the preacher, and guaranteeing a service under one hour, the "Church for Men" is drawing about seventy men every Saturday night.
And something that I'm not even sure qualifies as news: In New Dehli, protesters burned pictures of Richard Gere because he kissed an actress at an AIDS rally. Apparently, Indian culture frowns upon public displays of affection.
For those of you wondering why I'm posting on so many news stories (I rarely even post one story, and that normally concerns Sudan), I'm beginning to look at how news reflects our culture. How can so many wide-ranging stories all be headline news? And why are the good news on Sudan and the odd story of Gere seen as equally important by news agencies? Why is it that my neighbor is more worried about how the VT shooting will affect gun control than he is about the victims? In short, what is wrong with our society?
I'll be posting more on this later. Look for a post on UGA students, Playboy magazine, and the Sudan in the coming week.
Rock on.
Now some good news: Sudan has decided to allow UN peace-keepers to operate in the country's borders. Accepting 3,000 troops, the country is slowly, but finally, accepting help to reign in rebel and Janjaweed militias, two warring factions responsible for well over 100,000 deaths and two million refugees. This is a small step in the direction of accepting a proposed 20,000+ peace-keepers. Hopefully, the US will chip in with, at the very least equipment, and maybe even a some boots on the ground.
Speaking of the US, Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on ministers in the Iraqi cabinet to resign over the lack of a timetable for redeployment of US forces. Six cabinet members answered his call.
Now, for a laugh: A church just for men (Not only am I the founder of the Church for Men, I'm also a member). To combat the trend of women making up the majority of the congregation (as a single college male, I'm not complaining), a church in Florida is offering a more masculine-themed service. Meeting in a gymnasium, timing the preacher, and guaranteeing a service under one hour, the "Church for Men" is drawing about seventy men every Saturday night.
And something that I'm not even sure qualifies as news: In New Dehli, protesters burned pictures of Richard Gere because he kissed an actress at an AIDS rally. Apparently, Indian culture frowns upon public displays of affection.
For those of you wondering why I'm posting on so many news stories (I rarely even post one story, and that normally concerns Sudan), I'm beginning to look at how news reflects our culture. How can so many wide-ranging stories all be headline news? And why are the good news on Sudan and the odd story of Gere seen as equally important by news agencies? Why is it that my neighbor is more worried about how the VT shooting will affect gun control than he is about the victims? In short, what is wrong with our society?
I'll be posting more on this later. Look for a post on UGA students, Playboy magazine, and the Sudan in the coming week.
Rock on.
12 April 2007
The Ousting of Imus
Don Imus has been canned. After a career of being incredibly offensive, the public finally had enough after Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos". After an initial punishment of two weeks suspension, CBS finally decided to pull the plug on Imus in the Morning.
My question is why the change. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see him go, as he is possibly the only talking head (well, disembodied voice) who is a bigger jerk than Bill O'Reilly. But honestly, what made CBS change its mind? Executives claim that it's because his remarks were inappropriate (that's been obvious for a while) and harmful to the young black female community. This is, of course, true. But did it take them that long to realize it? Why not just fire him from the get-go? Public outcry? Or corporate outcry?
The first headline I saw this morning when I checked my mail and news was that Imus was losing sponsors. Again, as he should. But why does it take advertising losses for corporate executives to realize that what's wrong is wrong?
Rock on.
My question is why the change. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see him go, as he is possibly the only talking head (well, disembodied voice) who is a bigger jerk than Bill O'Reilly. But honestly, what made CBS change its mind? Executives claim that it's because his remarks were inappropriate (that's been obvious for a while) and harmful to the young black female community. This is, of course, true. But did it take them that long to realize it? Why not just fire him from the get-go? Public outcry? Or corporate outcry?
The first headline I saw this morning when I checked my mail and news was that Imus was losing sponsors. Again, as he should. But why does it take advertising losses for corporate executives to realize that what's wrong is wrong?
Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)