Don't Waste Wine

New digs

2008-01-11T14:52:00.002-08:00

Movin' the blog. If you have any spare boxes I'd appreciate them.

New digs are at dontwastewine.wordpress.com.

Are liberal churches doing a better job than conservative ones?

2008-01-10T10:55:00.000-08:00

A better job of what? Well, of being obedient to scripture. Of acting as a church is supposed to act.

The majority of readers for this blog (unless you just happened to pop-in, love the pop-in, I'm a big fan of the pop-in), will probably find the idea of liberal churches being more true to God's word to be laughable. But lately I've begun to seriously wonder if this is the case.

Let me back up a moment and ground this a little more. Over at Wilderness Wonderings, Wes has a post on the book Deep Justice in a Broken World: Helping Your Kids Serve Others and Right the Wrongs Around Them (Wes is a youth pastor). In his post, he gives a list of distinctions between what the authors call "shallow service" and "deep justice." Here are a few examples:

Service often dehumanizes (even if only subtly) those who are labeled the “receivers.” While justice restores human dignity by creating an environment in which all involved “give” and “receive” in a spirit of reciprocal learning and mutual ministry.

Service is something we do FOR others. Justice is something we do WITH others.

Service is an event. Justice is a lifestyle.

Okay, that last one sounds kind of cheesy, but you get what their talking about. Further more, thanks to my white-middle-class-protestant familiarity with service, I would add a couple of distinctions:

Service is (often) preformed to relieve a guilty conscience. While justice is performed out of love for those created in the image of God.

Service events facilitate a connection between the servers. Justice involves connection with those who need justice.

I very distinctly remember the feelings I’ve had the (shamefully few ) times I have been involved with service projects or short-term missions projects. Quite frankly, they were completely selfish. I wanted to feel good about myself. I wanted to have an experience with the other "servers" who were there. I wanted to get gold stars with God.

And I see no indication that I'm an exception in this. It's not that the people involved with these projects don't want to benefit those whom they serve, they do. And their hearts are honestly tugged at by the descriptions and pictures of "those less fortunate." But by and large these are passing feelings, and doing a service project helps them to pass even quicker.

This is not just an attitude of the church, but the people in the church. I remember one time in Nashville I was walking down to the local and thinking, "I really hope nobody stops me to ask for money tonight. I'm so sick of that." Sure enough, when I got a couple of blocks a homeless person approached me... but he didn't ask for money. He just started talking to me. Out of a sense of obligation I stood there and talked with him until I felt I had to get away. Then, when I was going I thought, "I wish he would have just asked me for money." I didn't want to be reminded of "those less fortunate," but if I had to be, I wanted to be able to just throw them some change and get away as quick as I could. I in no way wanted to love them.

And this is why I wonder if liberal churches don't "get it" more than conservative churches. Because let's face it, if you find a church that is actively involved with the disenfranchised and downtrodden, a church that actually consistently has compassion on our fellow image-bearers, it's probably a liberal church.

And if you find a church that sends a group 'round the soup kitchen once a month, that sends short term missions teams to nice parts of Mexico and throws money at charities, but does little or nothing in its own community... it's almost certainly a conservative church.

This is only one aspect of the disparity of love in these churches. Who attends conservative churches? Me, and people who look like me. White. Middle class. And, well, conservative. Part of this is certainly elements like location, and like attracting like (both socially and theologically). But that's not the whole story.

Part of the story is this: we only want people who are like us or "better." This is different than a simple tendency for like minded people to group. When we look at others, when we occasionally attempt to have compassion on them, we do so because we see something in them... we see that maybe they could become like us. And those who are not like us, or do not wish to be like us, are completely uncomfortable in our congregations.

By no means should we cease preaching the full counsel of God (we conservatives will often bring up liberal distortions of sin and the gospel, as though this relieved us of our obligations). Love the sinner and hate the sin is a tired, but incredibly profound maxim that we should live by. But (and oh that I had a megaphone to reach every conservative Christian in America), refusing to have anything to do with sinners because of their sin does not qualify! It is not "acting lovingly by pointing out the sin," as we want to imagine. It is unequivocally unloving!

If you are not sure what I'm talking about, let me state plainly the best example. Very few conservative Christians would ever befriend a homosexual.

But how can we show the love of Christ to anyone with whom we refuse to spend time? And, to further instantiate my claims above, preaching to a gay man or a lesbian that they are living in sin until they cannot stand to be around us anymore is not loving.

Jesus was condemned for eating with sinners. Oh that we would would warrant such condemnation!

The thrust of this piece has been less of an argument for an answer to the title question, and more of an exercise in conviction, my own, and hopefully some readers. But to further indicate why I think these things may mean that liberal churches are more on track than conservative churches, I'll end with a couple of scriptures.

James 1.xxvii

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Orphans and widows are repeatedly mentioned throughout scripture, and it's important to note that they were the disenfranchised of that time and culture. We are called here to lovingly minister to not only orphans and widows, but all who are so beset.

I Corinthians 13.i, xiii

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Verse 13 amazes me. Love is greater than faith, that which brings about our salvation.

And a quick comment here that the word for love is agape. It indicates the love that God has for us, that we have for God, and our love for others that results from those loves. It is an active love, not a warm fuzzy emotion.

I think that it is evident that liberal churches do a better job of actively loving the disenfranchised.

So then I urge you, fellow conservative Christians, out of God's great love for us, and our responsive love for God, let us actively love, not only holding onto true doctrine, but practicing true religion!

Some politics

2008-01-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

At this point in time I think that attack ads have become necessary. So here you go:

Restoring my faith in humanity...

2008-01-08T11:51:00.000-08:00

Here.

Another list of things that are true

2008-01-07T16:01:00.000-08:00

1. I am not in Nashville.
2. I cannot get Abita Root Beer anywhere.
3. I cannot smoke inside anywhere.
4. I have no Flying Saucer, no Mulligan's, no hipster parties in East Nashville, no Belcourt (art house) Theatre...
5. My soul is very sad.

Well finally...

2008-01-02T18:12:00.001-08:00

With as much cash as there is to be had, you knew it would eventually happen. Peter Jackson has agreed to direct a film adaptation of The Hobbit.

Despite having my qualms with the Lord of the Rings movies, I'm glad to see this is happening. The most curious thing to me, is that this will be in two installments (shot simultaneously, like the trilogy). I wonder where and how they'll break the story.

So when do we get the Silmarilion?

Juno

2008-01-02T10:24:00.000-08:00

I started off the New Year right yesterday, with two film viewings. The first was Margot at the Wedding, which I'll probably review later. The second was Juno, this year's winner of an award created specifically for Garden State back in 2004, the Trendy-
Independent-Film-That-Every-Hipster-Will-
See-And-Love award.

Let me start out by saying that I definitely enjoyed Juno, but since the film has been so hyped (even Roger Ebert picked it over No Country for Old Men), I'll probably spend an inordinate amount of time on why it's not quite as good as everyone thinks. So I'll tip my hand and rate it a solid 7.5 out of 10, and let the review be couched in those terms.

For those who don't know already, Juno is the name of the lead character, a 16 year old high school junior who finds out at the beginning of the movie that she's pregnant from a one off night with her best friend Bleeker (the excellent Michael Cera from Superbad and Arrested Development). She starts to get an abortion, but later decides to give the child up for adoption to a nice, yuppie couple.

Let me here agree with every single person who has reviewed this movie by saying that: A. Ellen Page is amazing as Juno, as in "won't get the best actress buzz she deserves because she's young and in a comedy" amazing. And B. It is impossible for a real person to use that much rapid-fire, mind-numbingly hip slang. It simply can't be done, although Page is so good, that she kind of makes you forget that (kind of).

By the close of the movie, I would have been completely unsurprised had the end credits contained a line something to the effect of, "From the makers of Scrubs." In much the same way as that show (which I love, by the bye), Juno seemed to be saying, "Hey look at my trendy music! Look I use hip slang, and I'm funny and poignant at the same time! Wooooo!" Like Scrubs, Juno really is funny and poignant, and at times overuses independent music.

Really Juno the movie is a lot like Juno the character. Trying desperately to be as hip and quirky as possible. No one in real life could try as hard as the character and actually be cool, and no film could try as hard as the movie and actually be as good as people are saying it is. But both are charming, and in ways that escape their attempts at hipness. So, having said all of this, see the movie. Laugh. Be charmed.

Other thoughts anyone?

A list of things that are true

2007-12-31T13:57:00.000-08:00

1. I am in Nashville.
2. I am at the Flying Saucer.
3. I am smoking Pembroke.
4. I am drinking draught Abita Root Beer.
5. My soul is Happy.

Frank Capra and Ayn Rand

2007-12-27T14:53:00.000-08:00

Here is one of my favorite posts from one of my favorite blogs that compares how we think about the main characters in The Fountainhead and It's a Wonderful Life. Enjoy!

I defy you...

2007-12-27T14:18:00.000-08:00

To watch Sweeney Todd and tell me that Anthony doesn't look like a cross between Hillary Swank and the Beast from Beauty and the Beast.

I saw the film Christmas night and thought it was excellent. I think that it should get consideration for, but not win, best picture, and I think that Johnny Depp should get serious consideration for best actor. Helena Bonham Carter was outstanding as well.

I'm not generally a fan of musicals, but the macabre aspects of the story helped it avoid many of my normal complaints. Some of the music did tend to get repetitive, but not too bad, and one benefit of seeing the movie instead of the play was that when two characters are singing separate things it was fairly easy to discern them both. As I've already noted, the acting was fantastic. And of course Tim Burton was the perfect choice for the surreal morbidity of the story. The whole notion of a musical is fantastic, and he provides that fantasy with his colors and sets. It should be noted though, that this includes Sin City-type blood, that spurts in a way reminiscent of the first Kill Bill. And the violence is by no means off-screen.

I did have one significant problem with the whole film, which was the ending. The secondary plot is never wrapped up, and I found it bothersome. I think that the author and/or Burton worried that doing so would detract from the dirk climax, but I believe that there was a way around it. I think that if secondary protagonist had been shown leaving London singing the lines that Todd sings in the beginning of the film that there would have been closure that remained true to the film. (Sorry to be so vague, but I don't want to spoil anything).

All in all I'd give the film about a 9 out of 10. Anybody else seen it? What did you think?

Small group hazing and I

2007-12-21T19:48:00.000-08:00

The Holy Observer is my (distant) second favorite organ behind skin (skin is the largest organ, it provides a barrier against most bacteria and viruses, and it prunes in the tub... there's really no competition).

Anyway, the HO has a very important story in its latest issue that blows the whistle on small group hazing. I myself have been subjected to this recently at my own church. As some of you may have noticed, John made me yell out a request for "Free Bird" during a lull at our recent Christmas sing (when in fact I would have much preferred "Stairway to Heaven"). Furthermore, I was forced on three occasions to clean Allan's apartment while wearing a French maid's costume that was much skimpier than anything I would normally don.

Humiliating? Yes. Degrading? Yes... But at least I didn't have to deal with Joseph and the cream cheese.

Some good blues

2007-12-19T14:31:00.000-08:00

This past weekend I stopped by St. Louis on my way home for Christmas break and had a great time (car problems and icy roads notwithstanding). I got to see good friends from college and have some light dinner conversation about covenental theology, training up children, and the ethics of a range of embryonic procedures. I got to hang out with Wes of Wilderness Wonderings (which I couldn't recommend more highly) and his lovely wife Steph. We discussed adoption, some great ideas on imagination and Christian living, and poor thinking skills (all three of which I hope to post on soon). AND I got to hear some amazing blues.

This blues was provided in the confines of the renovated BB's Jazz, Blues, and Soups (not to be confused with BB Kings mediocre chain). The good BB's is a deceptively large blues bar located at 700 S. Broadway in St. Louis. They have music every night of the week, usually jazz earlier in the week, and blues for the back half. If you're ever in town I highly recommend it.

I also highly recommend the two acts I saw last Saturday:

1. The Bel Airs
Several bands have sported this name, but these guys hail from Columbia, Missouri. They're a three piecer and they play rhythm and blues, jump blues, and basically anything blues-like that is conducive to dancing. I wouldn't recommend their cd's, but their live shows are phenomenally fun. This was my third time to see them, and I was sad that I had worn my body down from the week of paper writing such that I was unable to enjoy them for more than a set.

2. Joe Price
That said, I in no way felt cheated. Remember in That Thing You Do, when the black valet is suspicious of Guy Patterson and quizzes him to see if he's worthy of being told the best jazz club in the city? After Guy answers some very esoteric questions the valet exclaims: Get in the car. GET. IN. THE CAR! That's how I felt the whole time I was listening to Joe Price(often accompanied by his wife Vicki).

Joe plays a brand of blues that is, in the literal sens of both these words, unusual and compelling. For most of the show he was picking and playing slide and Vicki was playing an electric resonator. At one point though, Joe picked up a gorgeous, early thirties National resonator. He could also be considered a multi-instrumentalist as his foot stomping is purposeful and driving and integral to much of the music (much like Hooker, though, unsurprisingly, with more complex rhythms).

It took me a while to figure out how to describe the style that the Price's play, because the electricity threw me off the track. In fact Joe plays electric guitar, but in the country style, much the way that bluesman first played electric before they developed separate styles adapted to the medium (most notably Memphis and Chicago blues). The best way to describe Joe's playing is as a cross between Elmore James and the Muddy Waters field recordings (with a little bit of John Lee thrown in for good measure).

I'll leave you with a (poor, unfortunately) sample for your listening enjoyment:

An Excuse and a Video

2007-12-18T14:43:00.001-08:00

So just as soon as I get a compliment on the consistency of my postings I have my longest drought yet. Well done there.

Anyway, hopefully with papers finally out of the way and having made my way back homewards I'll have some good stuff coming for the next few days. For now, I will leave you with another Michel Gondry video. This one is Beck's "Cellphone's Dead." Enjoy.

Umm...

2007-12-13T22:54:00.000-08:00

I love Mythbusters, and once I found this I didn't really see any way I could not post it. But, umm... I... yeah...

Led Zeppelin

2007-12-11T13:01:00.000-08:00

So Led Zeppelin has actually played a successful reunion concert...

Crazy.

For those of you wondering, late drummer John Bohnom's son Jason filled in for his da'. Go here if you want to read about the concert in a bad Rolling Stone article that sets the record for most effusions of praise since the first publishing of the Psalms.

There are two things that distract me, yea three that are ruining my life

2007-12-07T08:42:00.000-08:00

Links to three procrastination enablers:

1. At the Movies
I love movies and I love movie reviews, and I knew the second I found this site that it would be a bane. I've more than once spent hours at a time tracing trails of reviews that play like extended versions of "Six degrees from Kevin Bacon."

2. Google Reader
Used to be that I just had a group of about six blogs called "Daily Blogs" in my Firefox bookmarks. I would open them all once or maybe twice a day and check to see what was going on. Now with Google reader the annoyance of having to open all the blogs is gone, so I have feeds to a score of blogs that update throughout the day. While I didn't have time to bother with mildly interesting posts when I had all my daily blogs to slog through, now I feel compelled to read each and every thing that pops up throughout the day.

3. World Wide Words
I mentioned in a recent post that this website was a new favorite. And so it is. I find the Q&A section to be a particularly excellent procrastination tool.

Paul McCartney Videos

2007-12-06T08:57:00.000-08:00

I'm not really a very big Paul McCartney fan, but I've been constantly listening to the new songs "Dance Tonight" and "Ever Present Past." Both of the videos are fairly interesting too. "Dance Tonight" is by Michel Gondry, the greatest music video director ever, and stars Mackenzie Crook (Gareth, from The Office) and Natalie Portman. Enjoy!

Good ol' Betty

2007-12-04T23:18:00.000-08:00

It's a bit of a strangled-route-and-left-at-the-traffic-lights path, but when an incredulous person says something like, "300 yard drive my ass!" they are actually using a descendant of the phrase, "All my eye and Betty Martin!" (Hands up if you've heard that one before... anyone?).

I hearby propose...

2007-12-04T14:05:00.000-08:00

That followers of Feyerabend be labeled "Feyerabanditos."

Frost, and saving the semantic phenomenon

2007-12-04T10:31:00.000-08:00

I usually hate when people say something like, "I want to live my life to the fullest with no regrets!" The statement is usually meant in one of two ways, both of which are complete foolishness. That said, though, I do think there is a way to save the phrase.

Here are the two ways most people mean the statement (and my problems with them). Then my attempt to make it work:

1. No regrets in general
To regret something is to wish that one had acted differently. Clearly no one can ever live a life in which they never wish they had acted differently (unless it is a life utterly bereft of reflection). "Even the wisest cannot see all ends."

2. No regrets about missed opportunities
What a lot of people mean by the phrase, is that they don't want to get to the end of their lives and say something like, "Gee, I really wish I would have gone base jumping with a penguin named Harry strapped to my chest." But missed opportunities are just as inevitable as unforeseen consequences.

To testify to all of this, here is the most overplayed poem in history (except maybe "A Dream Deferred"): Robert Frost's "Road Not Taken."

The obvious thrust of the verse is that a thoughtful person will always and forever be faced with mutually exclusive choices, and will never be able to know what might have been if they had chosen aught else. The sigh that Frost will heave is indeed a sigh of regret.

3. Living without meta-regret
There is one way in which I could accept the notion of "living without regret." This is that a person determines the values and rules that will guide his every move. These grant him a calculus by which to act in all situations, that he believes will minimize regrettable choices and actions. Then, at the end of his life, he may say that he has no regrets about maintaining that optimal calculus (even though it did not eliminate all first level regret).

A like mind

2007-12-03T10:46:00.001-08:00

I was joyed today when I came across the Touchstone magazine article, "Top Twenty Books Nobody Reads." Why? Because number one was dead on:

1. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene. C. S. Lewis: "I never met a man who said he used to like The Faerie Queene." It's the longest poem in English (26,000 lines), possibly the greatest (Paradise Lost and The Canterbury Tales are the only competitors), and by no means an easy read for us nowadays. Hawthorne used to read it to his daughters by the fireside, but that was back in the day when people enjoyed poetry. The poem is about -- what is it not about? Love, sex, the body, the soul, the nation, the Christian faith, matter and spirit, justice, courtesy, time and eternity. It has the greatest ending of any poem I have ever read -- almost an ending fit for all poetry, the end of ends.

I can't wait to get to the end now, though I'm surprised that it's so good. After all, Spenser only completed six cantos of an intended twelve.

Found it!

2007-11-30T07:16:00.000-08:00

The Roc Raida (of the X-ecutioners) rap ninja routine I was saying someone should upload. This is my other favorite clip from Scratch, and has some crazy body tricks. It took me a couple of viewings to see everything that's going on because he's just so fast.

Amazing... An actual case of CCM being influential

2007-11-30T06:58:00.000-08:00

In a Rolling Stone interview with Wyclef Jean (creative force behind the Fugees, and owner of a double platinum album for the solo project "The Carnival"), Clef reports that he got into music through Petra, Stryper, and Amy Grant.

If he had announced he was producing the next Wiggles cd, I think I would have been less surprised.

As a hip-hop kid from Haiti, how did you get into rock music?

My father was a Nazarene preacher, and his English wasn't too good. He went all over America as a missionary, and one day he comes back with a cassette by a rock band called Petra, this Christian rock band. I'll never forget it. We started listening to Christian rock: Petra, Stryper.

Stryper? Really?

Yeah, of course! I also had, like, Amy Grant. That was part of our church culture. Then I was like, "Yo, man, we got to start listening to some other shit." So we started listening to Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Pink Floyd. And my dad would accept it because he couldn't speak English. If I was listening to Metallica, he would say, "What's that?" And I would say, "It's Christian rock!"

Scenes from Scratch

2007-11-29T08:03:00.000-08:00

Scratch is an outstanding documentary from 2001 about the development of hip hop dj-ing. I found two of my favorite clips from the film today and had to post them. The first is Mixmaster Mike (best known for his work with The Beastie Boys) mixing the Robert Johnson song "Rambling On My Mind."

The second clip demonstrates beat juggling, a process that blows my mind. It involves taking two copies of the same song (or sometimes different songs) and rearranging the playing of them to create a new beat. This is especially impressive when lyrics are involved, such as in this clip. (Fair Warning: The routine ends in an obscenity).

Now if only someone would post the rap-ninja clip from the X-ecutioners...

I could care less

2007-11-28T22:57:00.000-08:00

Here's an article that tries to provide some reasoning for the American switch of "I couldn't care less," to "I could care less," a change that bothers me to no end. It's from a website that has just this minute become one of my favorites: worldwidewords.org.

On this particular subject though, I think I have to disagree with Steven Pinker (who is referenced in the article linked above). Pinker thinks that "I couldn't care less" has been changed so that it better fits in a family of phrases that is prominent in Yiddish culture. While the cadence of the latter form does seem to lend itself to a disdainful use, I don't think that it quite fits with the grouping, "I should be so lucky," and "Tell me about it." Both of these phrases retain a delivery that indicates the speaker understand himself to be giving a sarcastic reply. "I could care less," on the other hand, is delivered matter of factly.

Before the Bo was just nine days old...

2007-11-28T10:48:00.000-08:00

ESPN.com has up a great story about Bo Jackson. I found it fascinating that in several places the author, without hint of irony or exaggeration, suggests that we are currently privy to the development of a folk myth. He compares Bo to Paul Bunyan, but I think John Henry is a more appropriate. Bo wasn't of mythic proportions, just mythic abilities.

Personally I would love to see this happen. I'm a big fan of mythology and have always wondered what it would be like to see a myth develop, to know its origins. I'm just old enough to remember Bo playing, and I do recall being in awe of him in a way that I never was of other sports heroes. As the memories faded and I grew older, I assumed that they were merely the embellishments of childhood, but this article has convinced me otherwise.

Realizing this, it made me sad that Bo seems to have been reduced to the punchline of a cultural reference joke about Tecmo Bowl. But that said, here's a contribution to the myth-making...

Some good news

2007-11-27T08:59:00.000-08:00

Take a look at this somewhat heartening article from the magazine Commentary. (HT: JollyBlogger) It reports significant gains in many conservative "cultural indicators" (though unfortunately not many in the arena of family).

A Jade's Trick: Shakespeare and Argument

2007-11-26T11:29:00.000-08:00

I noticed someone pulling a jade's trick on a friend's blog today, and decided to procrastinate by ranting about the tactic: I abhor it. It's crap and completely disrespectful of one's interlocutor. It usually indicates that the debater is unable to answer some key point by his opponent. In response, he frames the debate in his own terms and declares an end to the discussion.

I take the term "jade's trick" from the first scene of "Much Ado About Nothing," wherein the two characters Beatrice and Benedict engage in a "merry war" of verbal jabs which ends with this exchange:

BENEDICK: Well, you are a rare parrot-teacher.
BEATRICE: A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours.
BENEDICK: I would my horse had the speed of your tongue, and so good a continuer. But keep your way, i' God's name; I have done.
BEATRICE: You always end with a jade's trick: I know you of old.

"Jade's trick" is one Shakespearean term that has not managed to hang around, however, it seems reasonable to guess that it refers to Benedick's attempt to get in the last word by simply declaring "game over" before Beatrice has a chance to respond.

Of course, for a spirited, comedic battle there may be nothing wrong with taking this rhetorical out. When it comes to serious discussion (or even quasi-serious, such as blog commenting), however, the maneuver can only be appropriate when one has a position of authority, such as a teacher or moderator, and is exercising that authority to avoid fruitless banter. If one wishes to end a debate, then the respectful thing to do is to retire while refusing to respond. Or, declaring that this particular point will be one's last, it may be presented with a rebuttal allowed before retiring. But attempting to make an opponent seem petty for responding is simply bad form.

To let you know I'm going to be lazy

2007-11-21T09:49:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note to say that I'm probably not going to be posting over the next handful of days, due to the holiday. I will, however, hopefully get some good work done on the problems of evil series and have that ready to go soon.

You should really take the extra time you have this week and go participate in my one question survey on this post.

Wherein I Immitate Richard Dawson

2007-11-19T14:40:00.000-08:00

Survey question ahead...

One of the reasons my posts haven't been quite as substantive lately is that I'm spending a lot of time working on a paper that's got me wondering about a folk epistemological question. To get a rough idea of whether or not I'm right, I wanted to ask a survey question that I'll set up with a scenario:

Suppose that I am throwing a party and I run into my friend Adam earlier in the day. Adam tells me that he thinks I'm the coolest person he has ever met, and that he wouldn't miss my party for the world.

Later on in the day I run into Beth. (Neither of us are hurt). Beth, for unfathomable reasons, is much less enamored of me and would rather not spend the evening in my presence. But I tell her that Adam is going to be at the party, knowing that Beth wants to have Adam's babies (and lots of them), so she would love the chance to get him in a corner of a party and beguile him. She looks at me incredulously and asks, "Are you sure?" I respond, "I know that Adam will be there."

Question: Is my response to Beth true?

Don't over analyze it. It's not a trick question. I just want to know what your natural answer is. Leave a Yes or No in the comments, and feel free to give some explanation if you like.

Assuming I get enough responses to see a trend I'll post later about what that trend indicates.

Tertiary!

2007-11-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

Gorgeous gorgeosity. But don't watch if you haven't seen the Abbot and Costello version at the bottom.

(HT: My brother)

Here's the classic. The gold standard is the version from "Naughty Nineties," but, I prefer this one with an audience.

You can't make this stuff up folks

2007-11-14T20:36:00.000-08:00

This years coaches of the year for the A.L. and N.L. are named Wedge and Melvin.

If you're not sure why this is funny, ask the nearest jr. high male.

Q: How do I make my own Turing machine?

2007-11-13T22:35:00.000-08:00

A: Think one.

A Turing machine is the simplest possible computer, and can mimic any more complex computer. It works by having a tape (like a ticker tape) run across the head of the machine. The head reads the symbols on the tape one at a time, performs an operation on that symbol then gives an output. A more extensive informal definition can be found here.

Since a Turing machine is defined by the process above, if you can think a Turing machine (e.g. if you can visualize the symbols on the tape, think of the function to be applied, then visualize the output from that function) then the neurons in your brain that are performing these functions are an actual Turing machine and not just a representation of one.

(Of course, it seems that it would be difficult to maintain a working machine in your brain for a long time, but that makes it no less an actual Turing machine. A machine made of more standard materials would still have been a Turing machine even if it was destroyed after the first computation.)

La Lune

2007-11-13T22:24:00.000-08:00

I have just been subjected to my first drive-by mooning.

I am speechless. I am without speech.

Clarifications concerning hip hop

2007-11-12T17:26:00.001-08:00

A few recent blog posts on hip hop made me think that it would be worthwhile to set some things straight about which a good number of people (even those who like hip hop) seem to be confused.

Hip hop is a genre of music. Rap is a vocal style.

Rap music may have been a common term at one time (and a cheesy dc Talk song), but it is a misnomer. However, a piece of hip hop containing rap vocals is accurately called "a rap." (Though this is now a very square way to put it... preferable options include the classic standbys "a joint" and "a jam.")

Rapping is a musical vocalization that keys on rhythm, as opposed to singing, which is a musical vocalization that keys on melody or harmony.

Both rapping and singing are accurately described as "talking to music," but neither is merely talking to music.

If you ever say something like "crap music" as an attempt to make a play on the phrase "rap music," you are not funny or clever. You are, in point of fact, a douche.

Thanks Stadium Pal!

2007-11-10T10:27:00.000-08:00

Men. Need a response to the question, "What do you want for Christmas?"

Women. Need a gift for a special guy?

Well joyeux Noel!

Raison d'Etre

2007-11-08T09:15:00.000-08:00

I think I'm finally ready to write about the purpose of this blog. I've been tempted to start one for a long time (especially since I had the idea for the name "Don't Wast Wine," which I must say that I'm rather proud of). But I was stopped because I couldn't particularly see any value in the activity. So here's the value that I see now:

I enjoy putting my opinions down in writing. It forces me to make them more rigorous, and allows criticism that I then have to consider. In particular, I tend to think about art (especially film and music) with a review type of mindset, and now I have a place to give those reviews.

That was my original impetus, but it wasn't enough to make blogging seem worthwhile. It wasn't until I moved and missed this sort of interaction with the good friends that I have, but no longer see, that I felt justified in taking the time to blog.

So with that in mind, if you have something to add, or if you think I'm full of it, please comment! (Even if not an old friend). The tagline may say that this is a masturbatory enterprise, but I appreciate any help I can get.

Wait, I don't know if that came out right...

YHVH

2007-11-07T13:33:00.001-08:00

Anyone who's been to Sunday School likely knows that Abram and Sarai got a name change to Abraham and Sarah when they entered into a covenant with God. But I learned something new about this change from a Jewish friend today. It is no coincidence that the letter H is added to both names. When we use H in the English version of these names it is a transliteration of the Hebraic letter Heh. Heh, with another mark, is a common shorthand for the name of God, so the addition of Hehs to the names of Abram and Sarai identified them as God's own.

Holocausts, torture, and Down syndrome

2007-11-04T19:30:00.000-08:00

In preparation for a post about problem(s) of evil...

(I highly recommend all of the Mr. Deity episodes.)

Unreported Report

2007-11-04T08:28:00.000-08:00

I honestly don't plan on blogging politics almost at all... however, I couldn't pass this up.

Three questions (answer honestly to yourself, and not according to what you think I'd blog on):
1. How bad are U.S. casualty rates in the current war?
2. Has the "surge" affected U.S. casualty rates?
3. Are military suicide rates up?

Here are three graphics from a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (ht: Sweetness & Light):

1. Current casualty rates are somewhere in the middle of where they've been for the last 27 years. (By the bye, for anyone not up on their history, for much of that time we were not at war.)

2. Casualties are down significantly since the surge started.

3. Military suicide rates are down from peace time.

Now, let me add quickly that this is obviously not a defense of the war. The purposes of the war and their achievement must be determined and judged to do that. The reasons for posting these statistics are: A, Because you're not likely to see them anywhere else; and B, To point out that you're not likely to see them anywhere else. So I recommend trusting the media (mainstream or otherwise) approximately as far as you can throw Al Roker... before the surgery.

This is one of the main reasons why I don't plan on blogging politics. It seems that there is always and forever some piece of information lying around, unreported, that would be vital to making an appropriate judgment. I rarely trust that I have the whole story.

Boatloads of shame

2007-10-31T21:54:00.000-07:00

Guilt has no place in the life of a Christian (Romans 7. xxi - 8.i). Christ has mercifully become guilty for us, and has graciously imputed to us his innocence. But what place does shame have?

I, for one, feel ashamed not uncommonly. When I have flaunted God's law, disobeyed him who loves me most, selfishly used and hurt those made in his image I feel completely and utterly ashamed. And these feelings do not leave just because I repent, they can hang around for hours or days after I've come to my senses.

So what is the appropriate response to this sense of shame? Should I ask God to take it from me? If I'm not guilty then I might as well leave my shame once I have repented... right?

What is natural for me is to avoid it. Go out with friends, watch t.v., I do something to try to numb myself until it passes. Occasionally I do something that is seen as more respectable, journal (or blog!) in an attempt at catharsis. But is this right? Should I be doing everything in my power to avoid feeling bad? Or if not, what is the appropriate response?

Haw! Haw! Haw!

2007-10-31T03:24:00.000-07:00

Sometimes being discerning means deciding things are okay. I think Halloween is one of those times.

To that effect I'm recommending Joe Carter's annual Halloween post at evangelicaloutpost.com. Actually, its focus is less on Halloween in general, and more on some of the awful tracts written by Jack Chick. But I particularly liked this broader paragraph though that responds to some of the urban legends that Christians (especially conservatives and fundamentalists) have bought into:

None of this, of course, is true. Halloween is the holiday equivalent of Wicca -- a 20th century invention that pretends to have ancient pagan roots. Halloween has nothing to do with Samhain, a Celtic agricultural festival that marked the beginning of winter. There is also no evidence that Samhain was a celebration devoted to the dead or to ancestor worship, much less to kidnapping, human sacrifice, playing with chainsaws, or walking with snakes on a rope.

I would add that I don't even think it's that big a deal for people to dress up as ghosts and the like. I find it interesting that the church in which I grew up, which would not allow children dressed like devils or witches into its "Harvest Party," had no problem with prominent members playing the role of Satan when Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames came to town.

Of course HG&HF gives a different context to the costume than Halloween, but it does demonstrate in principle that it's possible to dress up like a bad character without it meaning, "I want to be like this." Part of Halloween is celebrating the fact that we can be scared, and that getting scared actually adds something to our lives (hence horror films, roller coasters, etc.). The spiritual, with its unavailability to our senses, is scary and will naturally play a part.

Anybody think I'm way off here?

Man I hate the Red Sox

2007-10-29T08:13:00.000-07:00

... primarily because I hate Red Sox fans.

My heart goes out to Nate and Grace in this sad hour.

Holy... Trinity!

2007-10-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

OK, so I stole ESPN's tag line for this video, but it was pretty much perfect. And furthermore, I am speechless. I am without speech.

Expansion by analogy, or, What's the F?

2007-10-25T11:21:00.000-07:00

Apparently this week is Islamo-Fascism Awareness week. Colleges around the nation are inviting speakers to discuss the problem Islamo-Fascism. These are pretty much all conservative speakers... a fact that itself would make for an interesting post.

But instead of that, I'm interested here in how the term "fascism" has come to be used. And by "interested," I mean annoyed. I hate when words lose their meanings, and I'm afraid it's happened to the F word quite some time ago.

Fascism has traditionally indicated a dictatorial government that maintains strict and oppressive control over the activities of its people. (By the way, after reading this definition, does anyone really think the term Islamo-Fascist doesn't legitimately apply to places like Iran?) But that traditional reading has been loosened up. It now seems that any unpleasant exercise of authority is considered fascism.

Perhaps we could call what has happened to this definition, "expansion by analogy." My guess is that it started with calling local authority (principals, parents, etc.) fascists to make an analogy from their rules to despotic declarations. This loosened things up, and the term began to be applied in more and more places. But as it was used for a wider variety of figures and acts it began to lose its function as an analog and take on a broader definition until it came to serve its current function, which is an all-but-contentless slur of disapproval.

Case and point, today's Ann Coulter column. It's probably one of my favorites of hers for clearly pointing out something else I'm frustrated with, the lack of civility on the part of the left (especially at college campuses) that leads to a double standard, despite all the talk about "dialog." However, the mix of appropriate and loose uses of the word fascist just about drove me crazy. Not that it's much of a drive, but still...

Hitchcock and Grant: Notorious

2007-10-23T23:16:00.001-07:00

Having recently watched/rewatched the three classic Hitchcock and Grant films Notorious, To Catch A Thief, and North By Northwest, I thought I might post a little on them.

The first of these three is Notorious. It's a 1946 picture that includes Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains along with Grant. I would say that, despite being a good film, it is the least of the three endeavors. It is shot in black and white, and in 4:3.

Plot Summary

Alicia Huberman (Bergman) is the daughter of an unrepentant post-war Nazi who has just been jailed. She plans to spend her time having fun with people who like her, and being a drunk. That is, until T. R. Devlin (Grant) convinces her to become an American agent and infiltrate a group of Nazi's living and working in Brazil. Alicia is wanted because her father's reputation will allow her to quickly gain their trust. Naturally, she and Devlin fall for each other. However, when she has to take the Nazi leader, Alexander Sebastian (Rains), as her beau it causes a falling out.

Alicia performs her work well for a time and provides useful information, but when Sebastian discovers the real reason she is with him, he begins to poison her. Not having seen her for a while, Devlin decides to check on Alicia at Sebastian's house. In the end he must get her out while Sebastian, Sebastian's mother, and all the Nazis are watching.

First, for why it is a good film.

The biggest reason, by far, is Ingrid Bergman, who gives one of the best performances I have ever seen from an actress. Despite the film being suspense/thriller, there are several scenes in which she pulls off outstandingly subtle and layered performances. I particularly liked her response to the news that her father was dead. Also, she does absolutely the best job I have ever seen of playing a woman in new love.

Along with Bergman's brilliance, the rest of the cast turn in solid performances. As does Hitchcock behind the camera. There are a couple of interesting cinematographic effects. And Hitch's shots are always well composed, if sometimes a bit too obvious (more so in Notorious than in later films).

And now, for why it is not as good as To Catch A Thief or North By Northwest.

One of the basic reasons is Cary Grant's role. Grant himself is always solid, but this role does not let him shine the way the other two films do. He was at his best when delivering rapid fire dialog full of witty one liners and sharp banter barely this side of the censors, and in he gets to do very little of that. He's not particularly suave, or charming, or funny... he's just the male romantic lead. And Cary Grant is one of the rare actors who should never be just anything!

But the blame for this cannot fall to Grant. It is primarily on the shoulders of the screenwriter and Hitchcock. This is a movie that starts out as though it will be character centered, then shifts gears into full on plot mode. A mountaintop scene that lasts just long enough for a fight to turn to a kiss is the best example here.

There is also the issue that I found Notorious to be rather less suspenseful than most Hitchcock pictures. Were the final scene only the first half of a buildup I think I would have been much more satisfied. And even more so if there had been some sort of denouement (a technique Hitchcock consistently employs later on). If Alicia's spy work is the McGuffin, then why end at its conclusion instead of at least briefly showing her and Devlin to us once more?

Verdict

In the end, the film is certainly worth a watch. And while it is up there for Bergman, I would call it "good enough" for Hitchcock and Grant.

Rating: 7/10
MPAA Rating: NR
Objectionable Material: almost none
Recommended for: anyone who likes classic film, Hitchcock, or Ingrid Bergman.

The most protective of parents might be concerned with Alicia's marrying Sebastian for the purpose of gaining information. However the sexual implications are never discussed explicitly, and children old enough to make the connection are likely to be mature enough to watch.