Monday, November 30, 2009
That Being Said...
Though I don't feel the nurturing instinct as I mentioned below, when I say protect, I don't just mean standing at the door with a club. I just mean that when he cries, my instinct is to get him to stop crying, not because it hurts my heart that he is crying, but because if he or my wife have a need, I want to fulfill it to ensure their survival. What a strange, primal feeling.
I am a Father
Fox Etienne Loup was born 11/27/09 at 4 pm. At birth he weighed 8 lbs, 12.2 ounces, and was 21 inches long. He is probably bigger now, though, considering how often he eats, which largely consists of the time he spends awake and not crying. I love him, though I am not feeling any strong nurturing instincts or life-changing emotions as some people have told me. I am, on the other hand, feeling much stronger protective feelings, toward him and toward my wife. I think that is man's instinct. The woman has the baby and nurses it, weakened by the experience, so the man has to be there to protect her from sabretooth tigers and velociraptors and stuff.
Anyway, all three of us are home, healthy, happy, and exhausted.
We have to get this little guy to start sleeping more at night, so you can pray for that. Also, he has a little bit of jaundice, so we have to take him in tomorrow to make sure that is gone. You can also pray for that. Also, Crystal and I both have little colds, nothing major at all, but annoying nonetheless, so you can pray for that.
In the meantime, I have taken off the entire week to be home, and if I continue to get moments such as this one, I am thinking of making a bunch of end of the decade lists because you guys all know how much I love lists.
Anyway, all three of us are home, healthy, happy, and exhausted.
We have to get this little guy to start sleeping more at night, so you can pray for that. Also, he has a little bit of jaundice, so we have to take him in tomorrow to make sure that is gone. You can also pray for that. Also, Crystal and I both have little colds, nothing major at all, but annoying nonetheless, so you can pray for that.
In the meantime, I have taken off the entire week to be home, and if I continue to get moments such as this one, I am thinking of making a bunch of end of the decade lists because you guys all know how much I love lists.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Precious
You do not stand up and cheer when Precious finally reaches its end credits. You sit in your chair and reflect in horror and awe that a human being can endure so much inhumanity and yet retain her dignity.
The film ends with a revelatory confession so revolting, you may want to take a shower when you get home. Mo'nique, playing the confessor in this scene, truly gives one of the most transformative performances in the history of cinema. Her previous comedic work cast her as an extremely likable, comforting persona; her role here as the titular protagonist's mother is anything but. What a protagonist the film has, though. Precious, pregnant for a second time with her father's child, overweight, uneducated, and completely broken is played so deftly by first time actress, Gabby Sidibe, the almost so-desperate-as-to-seem-unreal circumstances in the film seem as real as anything. Every other performance in the film is either solid or great, including a turn by Mariah Carey as a sympathetic social worker that has to be seen to be believed.
Despite all this, I am still hesistant to recommend the film. It is a great work of art, but the depths it plumbs are not for the weakhearted or weakstomached, and to be honest, I do not think I could sit through it again.
The film ends with a revelatory confession so revolting, you may want to take a shower when you get home. Mo'nique, playing the confessor in this scene, truly gives one of the most transformative performances in the history of cinema. Her previous comedic work cast her as an extremely likable, comforting persona; her role here as the titular protagonist's mother is anything but. What a protagonist the film has, though. Precious, pregnant for a second time with her father's child, overweight, uneducated, and completely broken is played so deftly by first time actress, Gabby Sidibe, the almost so-desperate-as-to-seem-unreal circumstances in the film seem as real as anything. Every other performance in the film is either solid or great, including a turn by Mariah Carey as a sympathetic social worker that has to be seen to be believed.
Despite all this, I am still hesistant to recommend the film. It is a great work of art, but the depths it plumbs are not for the weakhearted or weakstomached, and to be honest, I do not think I could sit through it again.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Why?
Last night my cousin and I watched the film G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra on a rented Blu-Ray. We knew beforehand the movie, which is only partially the focus of this post, would be terrible. We only rented this film because it co-starred Ray "Darth Maul" Park, someone who should be in much better movies. Park has made an artform out of the physical limits of what a human being can do. The guy can jump clean over a six-foot tall man from a standstill. Someone could just put a camera on Ray Park for a few seconds and make their movie better. Unfortunately, the G.I Joe filmmakers deciding that instead of taking the easy route, I.E. just leaving the camera on Park while he pummels someone, they should cut to a different angle any time a different square-inch of Park's body moved. This means even a simple punch takes 14 different cuts and angles. Though this makes the punch unclear and unsatisfying, perhaps the filmmaker's thought that an average human viewer would be unable to focus their attention on one five-second moving image of a man punching another man. Personally, if I simply wanted to look at a bunch of photographs of someone punching someone from 30 different partially obscured angles, I would not think I would need to watch a movie. I would assume that watching a movie entailed the viewing of "moving pictures", but I guess not.
Anyway, there is not a single moment in this film when one cool thing is going on by itself so that the viewer can focus on it. There are a multitude of moments where many assumedly cool things are going on at the same time, however they are intermingled like 40 different colors layered over one small space of paper, creating a decidedly fecalesque shade.
I get that this is a film based on a children's toy, specifically a boy's toy, but the film is rated PG-13, and features language and violence I would assume most parents would not be happy with.
To produce this film, the filmmakers spent almost $200 million. As a nation we create roughly five to ten films like this every year, spending about $1.5 billion. By comparison, the GDP of Somalia, a country populated by nearly 10 million people, is about $7.6 billion. The yearly market value of all goods and services in the nation of Somalia is only about five times bigger than our 7 most expensive films of the year.
What value do these monumental works hold? What good does a film like G.I Joe or Transformers 2 or X-Men Origins: Wolverine add to our society and the world at large? They are certainly not enduring works of art, nor do they stir our morality or our consciences. These films, or "entertainment" as you will, are certainly not entertaining, so logically we do not make them to be entertained.
Why do we make them?
Anyway, there is not a single moment in this film when one cool thing is going on by itself so that the viewer can focus on it. There are a multitude of moments where many assumedly cool things are going on at the same time, however they are intermingled like 40 different colors layered over one small space of paper, creating a decidedly fecalesque shade.
I get that this is a film based on a children's toy, specifically a boy's toy, but the film is rated PG-13, and features language and violence I would assume most parents would not be happy with.
To produce this film, the filmmakers spent almost $200 million. As a nation we create roughly five to ten films like this every year, spending about $1.5 billion. By comparison, the GDP of Somalia, a country populated by nearly 10 million people, is about $7.6 billion. The yearly market value of all goods and services in the nation of Somalia is only about five times bigger than our 7 most expensive films of the year.
What value do these monumental works hold? What good does a film like G.I Joe or Transformers 2 or X-Men Origins: Wolverine add to our society and the world at large? They are certainly not enduring works of art, nor do they stir our morality or our consciences. These films, or "entertainment" as you will, are certainly not entertaining, so logically we do not make them to be entertained.
Why do we make them?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Cell Phone Union
I was texting someone yesterday and wondered something: If this person and I had no cell phone to text with, would I have called this person at home, or just passed on this information whenever I next saw them?
I can't figure out if all this new communication is bringing us together or creating distances that can only be bridged by our electronic appartus. Basically, are we talking to people more or less now? What constitutes talking? I have said numerous times after only communicating with someone by e-mail or text that I "talked" to them. Was I lying? Exaggerating? Can anyone even say?
I feel like I see people less now, but is that just the result of growing up after being conditioned to be in situations where I was surrounded by peers (grade-school, junior-high, high-school, heck even college)? I work in an office and generally spend most of the time staring at a computer. Most people in the modern world do some variation of this.
Did ancient man feel this sort of alienation after horseback riding overtook on foot as the prime mode of transportation? "Man, I used to talk to Grog all the time, but now all I do is ride this horse."
I don't know. I seriously doubt anyone cares about my existential crises anyway. I'm not even sure if I care.
I can't figure out if all this new communication is bringing us together or creating distances that can only be bridged by our electronic appartus. Basically, are we talking to people more or less now? What constitutes talking? I have said numerous times after only communicating with someone by e-mail or text that I "talked" to them. Was I lying? Exaggerating? Can anyone even say?
I feel like I see people less now, but is that just the result of growing up after being conditioned to be in situations where I was surrounded by peers (grade-school, junior-high, high-school, heck even college)? I work in an office and generally spend most of the time staring at a computer. Most people in the modern world do some variation of this.
Did ancient man feel this sort of alienation after horseback riding overtook on foot as the prime mode of transportation? "Man, I used to talk to Grog all the time, but now all I do is ride this horse."
I don't know. I seriously doubt anyone cares about my existential crises anyway. I'm not even sure if I care.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Love?
I was just watching a BBC documentary on the Westboro Baptists Church and was deeply disturbed. I have read a lot about them, but actually seeing them in action for an hour was much more affecting. The thing that hit me the hardest was that lately I have felt as loveless for people as they do. Not like I am going around with "God Hates Fags" signs, or anything to do with anyone with a different sexual preference to me at all. I have just felt very loveless toward much of the human race...er, all of the human race.
I think in the last half decade of actually moving out of the weird post college limbo into an actual adult with a job, not to mention a wife and a kid on the way, I have taken on more and more responsibility and reacted to it by "manning up." As a byproduct of this, I have also been becoming gruffer and less empathetic toward pretty much everything that breathes. This is probably not a good fruit to bear.
After watching that documentary I looked outside and remembered how beautiful everything is, how wonderful people can be and all that hippie crap, and I think I will try to be just a little bit softer.
I think in the last half decade of actually moving out of the weird post college limbo into an actual adult with a job, not to mention a wife and a kid on the way, I have taken on more and more responsibility and reacted to it by "manning up." As a byproduct of this, I have also been becoming gruffer and less empathetic toward pretty much everything that breathes. This is probably not a good fruit to bear.
After watching that documentary I looked outside and remembered how beautiful everything is, how wonderful people can be and all that hippie crap, and I think I will try to be just a little bit softer.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
When the Questions Become More Important than the Answer
I am a questioner. If something does not make sense to me, I want to figure it out. However, at some point, I have to settle myself down. If every sentence ends with a question mark, Ihave no ground to stand on.
Lately, relativism in young Christians has really stood out to me. I don't know if this is a recent phenomenon, a fad, or something that has always been this strong but has escaped my notice. Whether it is one, none, or all of these, it is definitely a problem. I recently had my attention drawn to this article on Christian webzine Patrol. Some people describe this webzine as "hipster", though this webzine does not enjoy that description. The article attempts to tackle recent attacks on Christian swearing. It eventually comes to the conclusion that it isn't an issue worth discussing. Haha. I just said cussing. Anway...
I admit, sometimes I swear. I have had a problem with swearing since the third grade when I realized that people thought it was really cool and funny when I did it (remember this sentence because I am going to reference it later). I grew up in only a half-Christian household. My father was not a Christian and he swore frequently. It sounded very cool when he swore.
The older I got, the more I realized that even swearing when I was alone in my car was fun. I could get out a ton of anger by doing so. By this point I basically swore everywhere except church or when my family was around. I especially swore at work. Coincidentally, when I began this blog five years ago, I swore on it as well.
About two years ago, while working in the staffroom at the library where I layed down enough F-word bricks to build a mansion, I suddenly heard my voice outside of my head, realized how disgusting I sounded, realized that no one hearing me speak at the moment would ever take me seriously as a Christian. So I stopped swearing...for the most part. It has been really difficult. I don't generally swear in front of people anymore, though the car is more difficult. Some of the characters in my fiction still swear...it's just who they are and I don't know what to do about that.
All that to say, I think that this is a topic we as Christians should still discuss. Haha. I said cuss again.
I think that as long as saying the F-word out loud turns heads, especially non-believers heads, we should still be talking about whether or not we should be doing it. Patrol later says in a follow up story that swearing "...simply doesn’t matter in the face of the weightier issues of our time."
I wonder if they notice the logical inconsistency here. If it does not matter, why have they written two major articles about it in the span of a week? Obviously, it is an issue they feel holds weight, even though they say otherwise.
Here I come near to the point, if it can be said this post has one. By abandoning such "lightweight" issues as Christians swearing or drinking, we are abandoning a part of what makes us Christians. Obviously in recent years, many Christians have thrown off the shackles of the "never drink" doctrine, and as someone who does drink from time to time, I have no problem with this, but by no longer discussing it we miss such "trivial" issues as the fact that our Father somehow had the time to slip in references to both drinking and swearing in His Holy Book. If God deems it something he wants to talk about, we certainly have time to talk about it. We know that God tells us we shouldn't be getting drunk, but millions of Christians do it anyway, and say it doesn't matter in light of the "weightier" issues. We know we are told to avoid coarse language and coarse joking, but millions of Christians partake in it anyway because it doesn't matter in light of the "weighter" issues.
Well, if it doesn't matter, why is it in the Bible? It is certainly in there for a reason...in fact it is in the New Testament so even those who think most of the Old Testament isn't "relevant" to us now cannot argue against it. God must have thought it was important, so it is silly to say that we don't need to worry about it. We should be talking about it.
Now I am heading into the home stretch.
Getting all heady and only focusing on the "weighter" issues is quite dangerous. When you do nothing but push boundaries, you often forget that some boundaries are there for a reason, and sometimes they were put there to stop you from falling off a cliff.
Sure I agree that we should be talking about how important global issues are. Heck, I feel like I can say I talk about them as much as anyone, but if that is all I talk about, I forget who I am. I gain the world and lose my soul.
The whole feeling that this more relative group of young Christians have, that they a new wave breaking free from the stagnant sea of evangelicism, is pretty much the same feeling that every generation of people between 20-30 have always had. The old folks don't get it, but we do, and we are going to change things. Let's face it, though, there is one truth, and there is this really good book called Ecclesiastes that has covered all this already, and did it 2500 years ago (jeez, I guess that means it's no longer relevant, huh?).
Now I link up with the beginning of this, and the title of the post.
You know why we do stuff?
Because we really, really want people to think we are cool. We like to use cover up phrases like "infiltrating the culture" as we curse and get drunk or high with non-Christians and we watch anything that they will watch and we witness any blasphemy they can endure because we don't want to make them feel like we are judging them. We want to know everything they know so we can reach them on "their level".
No we don't.
We want them to think we are cool.
We want them to like us.
We don't want them to make fun of us.
We want acceptance and not condemnation.
Whatever.
I remember when I was in college, walking through campus to a Bible study. I grew self-conscious about the Bible in my hand. "People will get pre-conceived notions about me if they see me with this," I thought. I started to put the Bible back into my booksack. Suddenly I thought, "Wait a second. I am ashamed. The real reason I want to put this Bible into my booksack is that I am ashamed of Jesus, and I don't want people to look at me and think that I worship him because they will think I am silly." So I didn't put the Bible into my booksack, but I did learn something very important about myself:
I want people to like me. I don't want people to think I am a weirdo. I value this more than I value Jesus, and this is a problem.
That said, on a slightly divergent note, writing this has reminded me of a certain singer-songwriter who has recently announced his loss of faith. He is in a "doubting period" and claims to be on the verge of Atheism, but holding as an Agnostic. Some of the Christian New Media's reaction to his new album has reinforced my opinions stated above.
Wow! they say. Such startlingly beautiful declarations of doubt! How wonderful it is to have such a seeker! How wonderful a listen! What beautiful art! He's really asking the big questions!
Sure.
Lately, relativism in young Christians has really stood out to me. I don't know if this is a recent phenomenon, a fad, or something that has always been this strong but has escaped my notice. Whether it is one, none, or all of these, it is definitely a problem. I recently had my attention drawn to this article on Christian webzine Patrol. Some people describe this webzine as "hipster", though this webzine does not enjoy that description. The article attempts to tackle recent attacks on Christian swearing. It eventually comes to the conclusion that it isn't an issue worth discussing. Haha. I just said cussing. Anway...
I admit, sometimes I swear. I have had a problem with swearing since the third grade when I realized that people thought it was really cool and funny when I did it (remember this sentence because I am going to reference it later). I grew up in only a half-Christian household. My father was not a Christian and he swore frequently. It sounded very cool when he swore.
The older I got, the more I realized that even swearing when I was alone in my car was fun. I could get out a ton of anger by doing so. By this point I basically swore everywhere except church or when my family was around. I especially swore at work. Coincidentally, when I began this blog five years ago, I swore on it as well.
About two years ago, while working in the staffroom at the library where I layed down enough F-word bricks to build a mansion, I suddenly heard my voice outside of my head, realized how disgusting I sounded, realized that no one hearing me speak at the moment would ever take me seriously as a Christian. So I stopped swearing...for the most part. It has been really difficult. I don't generally swear in front of people anymore, though the car is more difficult. Some of the characters in my fiction still swear...it's just who they are and I don't know what to do about that.
All that to say, I think that this is a topic we as Christians should still discuss. Haha. I said cuss again.
I think that as long as saying the F-word out loud turns heads, especially non-believers heads, we should still be talking about whether or not we should be doing it. Patrol later says in a follow up story that swearing "...simply doesn’t matter in the face of the weightier issues of our time."
I wonder if they notice the logical inconsistency here. If it does not matter, why have they written two major articles about it in the span of a week? Obviously, it is an issue they feel holds weight, even though they say otherwise.
Here I come near to the point, if it can be said this post has one. By abandoning such "lightweight" issues as Christians swearing or drinking, we are abandoning a part of what makes us Christians. Obviously in recent years, many Christians have thrown off the shackles of the "never drink" doctrine, and as someone who does drink from time to time, I have no problem with this, but by no longer discussing it we miss such "trivial" issues as the fact that our Father somehow had the time to slip in references to both drinking and swearing in His Holy Book. If God deems it something he wants to talk about, we certainly have time to talk about it. We know that God tells us we shouldn't be getting drunk, but millions of Christians do it anyway, and say it doesn't matter in light of the "weightier" issues. We know we are told to avoid coarse language and coarse joking, but millions of Christians partake in it anyway because it doesn't matter in light of the "weighter" issues.
Well, if it doesn't matter, why is it in the Bible? It is certainly in there for a reason...in fact it is in the New Testament so even those who think most of the Old Testament isn't "relevant" to us now cannot argue against it. God must have thought it was important, so it is silly to say that we don't need to worry about it. We should be talking about it.
Now I am heading into the home stretch.
Getting all heady and only focusing on the "weighter" issues is quite dangerous. When you do nothing but push boundaries, you often forget that some boundaries are there for a reason, and sometimes they were put there to stop you from falling off a cliff.
Sure I agree that we should be talking about how important global issues are. Heck, I feel like I can say I talk about them as much as anyone, but if that is all I talk about, I forget who I am. I gain the world and lose my soul.
The whole feeling that this more relative group of young Christians have, that they a new wave breaking free from the stagnant sea of evangelicism, is pretty much the same feeling that every generation of people between 20-30 have always had. The old folks don't get it, but we do, and we are going to change things. Let's face it, though, there is one truth, and there is this really good book called Ecclesiastes that has covered all this already, and did it 2500 years ago (jeez, I guess that means it's no longer relevant, huh?).
Now I link up with the beginning of this, and the title of the post.
You know why we do stuff?
Because we really, really want people to think we are cool. We like to use cover up phrases like "infiltrating the culture" as we curse and get drunk or high with non-Christians and we watch anything that they will watch and we witness any blasphemy they can endure because we don't want to make them feel like we are judging them. We want to know everything they know so we can reach them on "their level".
No we don't.
We want them to think we are cool.
We want them to like us.
We don't want them to make fun of us.
We want acceptance and not condemnation.
Whatever.
I remember when I was in college, walking through campus to a Bible study. I grew self-conscious about the Bible in my hand. "People will get pre-conceived notions about me if they see me with this," I thought. I started to put the Bible back into my booksack. Suddenly I thought, "Wait a second. I am ashamed. The real reason I want to put this Bible into my booksack is that I am ashamed of Jesus, and I don't want people to look at me and think that I worship him because they will think I am silly." So I didn't put the Bible into my booksack, but I did learn something very important about myself:
I want people to like me. I don't want people to think I am a weirdo. I value this more than I value Jesus, and this is a problem.
That said, on a slightly divergent note, writing this has reminded me of a certain singer-songwriter who has recently announced his loss of faith. He is in a "doubting period" and claims to be on the verge of Atheism, but holding as an Agnostic. Some of the Christian New Media's reaction to his new album has reinforced my opinions stated above.
Wow! they say. Such startlingly beautiful declarations of doubt! How wonderful it is to have such a seeker! How wonderful a listen! What beautiful art! He's really asking the big questions!
Sure.
Monday, September 07, 2009
You Are Smarter than a Celebrity
Considering that about six people read this blog regularly, all either college educated or in the process, I think it is safe to say that everyone who is reading this is smarter than your average celebrity. This post is brethren to the post below it.
I wrote the Education vs. Ignorance post after hearing several local parents overreact to a video that will be shown in public schools this week. Apparently (I haven't seen it, so I have to use this word) a video of President Obama simply encouraging children to consider the importance of education is, according to some people, brainwashing. I guess telling children to "stay in school" and "try their hardest" constitutes a threat to our young people, or as one person so eloquently put it, "communist nazi propaganda". I was not aware that Socialism, far left of the spectrum, and Fascism, far right of the spectrum, could be combined into one super-evil political milieu that our President somehow personifies. Apparently, as the person saying this is a "non-elitist", this is possible.
All that to say that another video, this one not featuring nor endorsed by our President, therefore obviously not the video that will be shown our children, has been floating around the web:
This video features a parade of mostly college-dropout (in some cases high school-dropout) celebrities. Clearly the principal made a mistake in showing this video to the students, assuming the video would be innocuous when it is obvious on one viewing to be otherwise.
These celebrities are just as numbskulled as the citizens who believe this is the video that will be shown to their children, though. Sure Gina Gershon can say "I pledge to support stem-cell research," but could she explain to you what it is? I seriously doubt it. I doubt many of the celebrities could tell you anything more intelligent than your average loudmouthed, self-righteous, uneducated person I ragged on in the last post because they are just as uneducated. The only difference is that they are in a self-important Hollywood bubble that not only balloons their perceived need that we have for them, but also inflates their feelings that somehow intelligence got them to a position where their voice can be heard. Just a hunch, but I am guessing it probably didn't. I think history has pretty much proven that physical appearance has no correlation to intelligence. I will just take a logistical leap here and say that if the previous sentence is true, most celebrities are idiots. That being said, I know that everyone who reads this blog (especially you, lovely wife!) are miraculous combinations of both.
I wrote the Education vs. Ignorance post after hearing several local parents overreact to a video that will be shown in public schools this week. Apparently (I haven't seen it, so I have to use this word) a video of President Obama simply encouraging children to consider the importance of education is, according to some people, brainwashing. I guess telling children to "stay in school" and "try their hardest" constitutes a threat to our young people, or as one person so eloquently put it, "communist nazi propaganda". I was not aware that Socialism, far left of the spectrum, and Fascism, far right of the spectrum, could be combined into one super-evil political milieu that our President somehow personifies. Apparently, as the person saying this is a "non-elitist", this is possible.
All that to say that another video, this one not featuring nor endorsed by our President, therefore obviously not the video that will be shown our children, has been floating around the web:
This video features a parade of mostly college-dropout (in some cases high school-dropout) celebrities. Clearly the principal made a mistake in showing this video to the students, assuming the video would be innocuous when it is obvious on one viewing to be otherwise.
These celebrities are just as numbskulled as the citizens who believe this is the video that will be shown to their children, though. Sure Gina Gershon can say "I pledge to support stem-cell research," but could she explain to you what it is? I seriously doubt it. I doubt many of the celebrities could tell you anything more intelligent than your average loudmouthed, self-righteous, uneducated person I ragged on in the last post because they are just as uneducated. The only difference is that they are in a self-important Hollywood bubble that not only balloons their perceived need that we have for them, but also inflates their feelings that somehow intelligence got them to a position where their voice can be heard. Just a hunch, but I am guessing it probably didn't. I think history has pretty much proven that physical appearance has no correlation to intelligence. I will just take a logistical leap here and say that if the previous sentence is true, most celebrities are idiots. That being said, I know that everyone who reads this blog (especially you, lovely wife!) are miraculous combinations of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
