...that Christopher Hitchens sends his daughter to a private Quaker school?
That's what he said when he was interviewed by the Commonwealth Club of California.
He was asked which religion he detests the least, and gave the response that even the Quakers make the mistake of viewing faith as a good thing.
It is of the highest order of hypocrisy to claim that religion poisons everything and then send a child, your child, to a religious institution.
Rock on.
Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPR. Show all posts
05 August 2009
01 September 2008
Alu
An anonymous tipster has pointed out that Alu (mentioned in my last post) is now on YouTube.
Cool.
The best way I can think of to describe Alu is some combination of gypsy alt rock. Or, as mentioned in my previous post, "Alice in Wonderland in hell".
This is "Circus Cosmos" off her album Lobotomy Sessions.
Rock on.
Post Script: NPR's Echoes is one of the best programs on radio today. I've been turned on to several groups, including Alu, through them. Check your local affiliate's listings.
Cool.
The best way I can think of to describe Alu is some combination of gypsy alt rock. Or, as mentioned in my previous post, "Alice in Wonderland in hell".
This is "Circus Cosmos" off her album Lobotomy Sessions.
Rock on.
Post Script: NPR's Echoes is one of the best programs on radio today. I've been turned on to several groups, including Alu, through them. Check your local affiliate's listings.
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
18 August 2008
Saint-Saëns and Babe
Last semester, I discovered French composer Saint-Saëns' piece "Danse Macabre" - a wonderfully dark tune that reminds me of the large carvings in medieval cathedrals. This piece was the first I had ever heard of Saint-Saëns, and my immediate reaction was one of wonder - mostly wondering about why nobody had introduced me to the "French Beethoven" before college.
Luckily for me, NPR was on the ball - about a week after my discovery, the UGA NPR affiliate was broadcasting a special from the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. One of the pieces performed was Saint-Saëns' third symphony, the "Organ Symphony". But before the orhcestra performed, the commentator mentioned one of the defining movies of my childhood - Babe. In the scene, Farmer Hoggett* sings to Babe, then does a little dance.
Of course, this scene was mentioned because the tune comes from one of the greatest parts of the third symphony - the performing organist that night said he loves playing this opus because it gives him a chance to play without holding back. To see just what in the world I'm talking about, just click the video link.
That'll do, reader. That'll do.
Rock on.
*Arthur Hoggett is played by professional Hollywood "That Guy" James Cromwell, perhaps better known to Trekkies as Zephraim Chochrane. Or to Aasimov fans as Dr. Robert Lanning. Or to Oliver Stone fans for his upcoming role as George H. W. Bush. Or...yeah. That Guy.
Luckily for me, NPR was on the ball - about a week after my discovery, the UGA NPR affiliate was broadcasting a special from the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. One of the pieces performed was Saint-Saëns' third symphony, the "Organ Symphony". But before the orhcestra performed, the commentator mentioned one of the defining movies of my childhood - Babe. In the scene, Farmer Hoggett* sings to Babe, then does a little dance.
Of course, this scene was mentioned because the tune comes from one of the greatest parts of the third symphony - the performing organist that night said he loves playing this opus because it gives him a chance to play without holding back. To see just what in the world I'm talking about, just click the video link.
That'll do, reader. That'll do.
Rock on.
*Arthur Hoggett is played by professional Hollywood "That Guy" James Cromwell, perhaps better known to Trekkies as Zephraim Chochrane. Or to Aasimov fans as Dr. Robert Lanning. Or to Oliver Stone fans for his upcoming role as George H. W. Bush. Or...yeah. That Guy.
22 July 2008
"Second Life Wife": Real People, Real Emotions, Simulated World
It's been a while since I've written about Second Life. Like, over a year and a half. I think.
It's not that I've forgotten. It's a hot topic on many of the Methodists blogs I read. And I like what they have to say. As long as there is a community, online or in the physical world, there is a need for a Christian presence.
But I heard something that took me back to some of my earlier discussions (leave it to NPR). In a discussion of the "virtual world", the issue of marriage in Second Life was brought up. People, some married in the real world, others single, are getting married.
One of the arguments for this is that on the site, you get to know people for who they are. Thus, love in SL is somehow more real than love in the real world. No distractions of race, age, gender, disability, etc. At the same time, though, and what the piece failed to mention, is the ease with which you can claim to be someone else in this virtual world (or any, be it a message board, World of Warcraft, etc.). All it takes is a little imagination and a descent memory. Which isn't entirely bad. It can be fun to be somebody else.
But then comes the other person, who falls in "love" with this fake person. Those emotions can be very real and very hurt.
And then there are the married people. Who get married to someone other than their real spouse in SL. The emotional investment inherent in a marriage, even a virtual one, can be just as damaging to a relationship as adultery. Some might even call it adultery.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are people who take all forms of social interaction, be it a coffee date or Second Life, too seriously (or not seriously enough). And I know I shouldn't let those people ruin the form of interaction.
Which is probably why the presence of Christian churches in SL are so important - the emotions are real, the relationships are real, and the grace of Christ is real.
Rock on.
It's not that I've forgotten. It's a hot topic on many of the Methodists blogs I read. And I like what they have to say. As long as there is a community, online or in the physical world, there is a need for a Christian presence.
But I heard something that took me back to some of my earlier discussions (leave it to NPR). In a discussion of the "virtual world", the issue of marriage in Second Life was brought up. People, some married in the real world, others single, are getting married.
One of the arguments for this is that on the site, you get to know people for who they are. Thus, love in SL is somehow more real than love in the real world. No distractions of race, age, gender, disability, etc. At the same time, though, and what the piece failed to mention, is the ease with which you can claim to be someone else in this virtual world (or any, be it a message board, World of Warcraft, etc.). All it takes is a little imagination and a descent memory. Which isn't entirely bad. It can be fun to be somebody else.
But then comes the other person, who falls in "love" with this fake person. Those emotions can be very real and very hurt.
And then there are the married people. Who get married to someone other than their real spouse in SL. The emotional investment inherent in a marriage, even a virtual one, can be just as damaging to a relationship as adultery. Some might even call it adultery.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are people who take all forms of social interaction, be it a coffee date or Second Life, too seriously (or not seriously enough). And I know I shouldn't let those people ruin the form of interaction.
Which is probably why the presence of Christian churches in SL are so important - the emotions are real, the relationships are real, and the grace of Christ is real.
Rock on.
23 June 2008
The Difference Between Interpreting and Picking (and Other Thoughts on Dawkins on NPR)
Today, I listened to Richard Dawkins on NPR during an episode of To the Best of our Knowledge entitled "Atheism & Its Critics".
Linkage!
The program opened with a discussion on faith. See my thoughts here.
One of the fundamental allegations Richard Dawkins levels against Christianity is that we (we being believers) pick and choose what we will accept as true from the Bible - Cafeteria Chrisitans, to borrow an old term. But I disagree with him on this. There is a fundamental difference between interpreting what you read and choosing what you read. Yes, some Christians avoid the more troubling part of the Bible. But many of the most sincere Christians are the same ones who take what they read and truly struggle with it. Yes, it bothers me to read about the mass killings committed in the Old Testament. But I have not rejected these stories. Instead, I have taken them as how the ancient Israelites saw God - as a god who loves his people and wants to protect them. Which is one of the recurring themes of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, if an atheist is to go through and reject the teachings of love in the Bible - to say that these are present in all cultures and therefore not relevant to the Bible - and focus purely on the violent stories of the Tanakh, then that might just qualify as "picking and choosing".
Of course, Dawkins also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the crucifixion is a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man to satisfy God for the sins of Adam, a man who never existed. To this, I say he's half - no, a quarter - of the way there. Yes, the crucifixion was a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man. But it was also a self-sacrifice - God himself dying for our sins. And that's the point we should take - the love inherent in the self-sacrifice, not the gruesomeness of the act. Secondly, and one of the largest misunderstandings Dawkisn makes is to assume that the crucifixion was about Original Sin. And while this may be up to debate among theologians*, by no means should it be taken as the belief of all Christians. It is my belief that Christ died for the sins of all people, not for Original Sin.
"I am in favor of goodness," says Dawkins. He claims that he stands against the claim that you don't need religion to be good. To this, I say, define "good". If "good" is doing good things - feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and such - then yes, you can be good without religion. If "good" means never doing bad, if it means living a perfect utilitarian lifestyle - always causing more utility than harm - then we're in trouble. Because nobody can ever be good in this sense.
Oh, and if you get a chance, read what Brad Hirschfield has to say - "faith without fanaticism."
Rock on.
*Though I can't think of any groups that hold this belief. Perhaps someone can provide an example.
Linkage!
The program opened with a discussion on faith. See my thoughts here.
One of the fundamental allegations Richard Dawkins levels against Christianity is that we (we being believers) pick and choose what we will accept as true from the Bible - Cafeteria Chrisitans, to borrow an old term. But I disagree with him on this. There is a fundamental difference between interpreting what you read and choosing what you read. Yes, some Christians avoid the more troubling part of the Bible. But many of the most sincere Christians are the same ones who take what they read and truly struggle with it. Yes, it bothers me to read about the mass killings committed in the Old Testament. But I have not rejected these stories. Instead, I have taken them as how the ancient Israelites saw God - as a god who loves his people and wants to protect them. Which is one of the recurring themes of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, if an atheist is to go through and reject the teachings of love in the Bible - to say that these are present in all cultures and therefore not relevant to the Bible - and focus purely on the violent stories of the Tanakh, then that might just qualify as "picking and choosing".
Of course, Dawkins also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the crucifixion is a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man to satisfy God for the sins of Adam, a man who never existed. To this, I say he's half - no, a quarter - of the way there. Yes, the crucifixion was a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man. But it was also a self-sacrifice - God himself dying for our sins. And that's the point we should take - the love inherent in the self-sacrifice, not the gruesomeness of the act. Secondly, and one of the largest misunderstandings Dawkisn makes is to assume that the crucifixion was about Original Sin. And while this may be up to debate among theologians*, by no means should it be taken as the belief of all Christians. It is my belief that Christ died for the sins of all people, not for Original Sin.
"I am in favor of goodness," says Dawkins. He claims that he stands against the claim that you don't need religion to be good. To this, I say, define "good". If "good" is doing good things - feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and such - then yes, you can be good without religion. If "good" means never doing bad, if it means living a perfect utilitarian lifestyle - always causing more utility than harm - then we're in trouble. Because nobody can ever be good in this sense.
Oh, and if you get a chance, read what Brad Hirschfield has to say - "faith without fanaticism."
Rock on.
*Though I can't think of any groups that hold this belief. Perhaps someone can provide an example.
01 October 2007
Starbucks, High Schoolers, and Drew's Infamous Coffee Rant
Driving home from Kroger tonight, I heard an interesting story on NPR. Starbucks is considering marketing their products to middle and high schoolers. What I don't get is why people think this is such a big deal. Surely caramel macchiatos are inherently aimed at kids. The US will never cease to amaze me. In our attempt to seem more sophisticated (simulated culture, but I've beat that horse to death...for now), we have turned towards corporate coffee houses to produce drinks that we can (barely) pass of as coffee that amount to nothing more than liquid candy. I like a cappuccino or a spiced chai as much as the next guy, but come on, even when we do get coffee we dump so much flavored syrup, sugar, and cream into it that all we've made is a warm, liquid Werther's Original.
My first experience with coffee (namely, cappuccino) was while I was living in Germany. It was an occasional thing for when my family went out at night. This was normally during vacations. And it was good. But it was also bitter. If an American college student got one sip of straight espresso or a traditional latte, they would spit it out. There's a reason I didn't start drinking straight coffee (and by straight, I mean sans-sweeteners) until late in my junior year in high school - coffee is an acquired taste too strong for most young people - and many older people.
The satirist who discussed the marketing change made a few good points. Saying that he's been to too many birthday parties at Chuck E. Cheese and that the café atmosphere would do American youth culture good, the reporter supported the idea (the downside, he mentions, being that kids who are already hyper might very well ruin the mood of the café). And I'm all for giving kids some culture. I take the success of SpongeBob as a sign of the falling of American culture and love the idea of ninth graders discussing philosophy as non-mass-produced music plays gently over the stereo. But is Starbucks really the best place for that? Starbucks, the mass-produced counter-culture? I enjoy coffee shops, I really really do, but because they offer this unique feel. One of my favorites is an old service garage in one of the prettier parts of Athens. But every Starbucks I've ever been in has looked the same, including the one in downtown Athens (and the one on the west side of Athens...yeah, we have a lot of coffee shops). I'm willing to bet that your local Starbucks has a light-stain hard wood for tables, the floor, and chairs. lamps hanging over the cash-register; a black counter. a selection of pastries on display to the immediate left/right of the register; and on the other side, five feet away, a black table where orders are delivered. It probably has trendy music for sale - really, it's just old classics repackaged, with some Nora Jones thrown in for good measure (no offense meant to Ms. Jones).
On another note, why do we wonder why kids are such discipline problems if we let them guzzle coffee, soda, and energy drinks? "Here, kid, drink this. I don't know what it is but it has three times the caffeine of a Red Bull." (On this note, they are now marketing caffeinated gum to college students). I can't really talk about coffee addiction too much - my daily habit is four cups, at least. But at least I waited until college. I was a one cup a day type of guy back in high school. Maybe a second if I went to a coffee shop later the day.
In short, I think if we want our kids to have an appreciation for the café culture, then we are going to have to reexamine our coffee houses. There's nothing wrong with a ninth grader enjoying a dark roasted coffee over jazz and a philosophical discussion with a friend, but if they (or we) think that Starbucks is high culture, we're very, very screwed.
Rock on.
My first experience with coffee (namely, cappuccino) was while I was living in Germany. It was an occasional thing for when my family went out at night. This was normally during vacations. And it was good. But it was also bitter. If an American college student got one sip of straight espresso or a traditional latte, they would spit it out. There's a reason I didn't start drinking straight coffee (and by straight, I mean sans-sweeteners) until late in my junior year in high school - coffee is an acquired taste too strong for most young people - and many older people.
The satirist who discussed the marketing change made a few good points. Saying that he's been to too many birthday parties at Chuck E. Cheese and that the café atmosphere would do American youth culture good, the reporter supported the idea (the downside, he mentions, being that kids who are already hyper might very well ruin the mood of the café). And I'm all for giving kids some culture. I take the success of SpongeBob as a sign of the falling of American culture and love the idea of ninth graders discussing philosophy as non-mass-produced music plays gently over the stereo. But is Starbucks really the best place for that? Starbucks, the mass-produced counter-culture? I enjoy coffee shops, I really really do, but because they offer this unique feel. One of my favorites is an old service garage in one of the prettier parts of Athens. But every Starbucks I've ever been in has looked the same, including the one in downtown Athens (and the one on the west side of Athens...yeah, we have a lot of coffee shops). I'm willing to bet that your local Starbucks has a light-stain hard wood for tables, the floor, and chairs. lamps hanging over the cash-register; a black counter. a selection of pastries on display to the immediate left/right of the register; and on the other side, five feet away, a black table where orders are delivered. It probably has trendy music for sale - really, it's just old classics repackaged, with some Nora Jones thrown in for good measure (no offense meant to Ms. Jones).
On another note, why do we wonder why kids are such discipline problems if we let them guzzle coffee, soda, and energy drinks? "Here, kid, drink this. I don't know what it is but it has three times the caffeine of a Red Bull." (On this note, they are now marketing caffeinated gum to college students). I can't really talk about coffee addiction too much - my daily habit is four cups, at least. But at least I waited until college. I was a one cup a day type of guy back in high school. Maybe a second if I went to a coffee shop later the day.
In short, I think if we want our kids to have an appreciation for the café culture, then we are going to have to reexamine our coffee houses. There's nothing wrong with a ninth grader enjoying a dark roasted coffee over jazz and a philosophical discussion with a friend, but if they (or we) think that Starbucks is high culture, we're very, very screwed.
Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)