Is anyone else disgusted, saddened, and angered by the events that are currently going on in the U.S. and the rest of the world??
I wake up every afternoon and immediately check out the news, and every single day, it depresses me.
A bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, put together by innocent metal shop workers, and the sharpnel kills everyone around, and people DEFEND the bomber??
A known conspirator and hijacker from 9/11 that has been in prison is expected to be set free because he "was abused as a child?"
A bunch of students in California are angry because because a Republican blogger put their press released and FREELY DISTRIBUTED contact info up on another website other than their own??
An entire country is under attack because of a fricking CARTOON???
In 1910, did people get "That Feeling?" In 1935, it was probably more obvious, but did the US get "That Feeling" before Pearl Harbor?
I look at the world, and I'm scared and very much angered. It almost seems pointless to even think about further education or marriage or jobs or anything. Whats the point?? Either its all going to end (as much as I liked that Ezekiel series, its had a weird effect on me) or we are all going to go to war against the Muslim world very, very soon. And then, really, no body is safe anywhere.
Plus, if war happens...how can we wage war effectively when our coasts are controlled by moonbats who will stab us in the back and welcome the bombers with open arms, a kiss, and a piece of sharpnel lodged in their head.
Welcome to the US...currently, we have our right hand in a fist, and our left hand is holding a knife to our back.
What a wonderful world...
Apr 18, 2006
Apr 10, 2006
The Death of the American Dream
As many of you know, I'm the student editor of the North Hennepin Community College newspaper, The North Star. Coming up on our final issue, I was submitted an excellent article from a guy not even on my staff. It was an article that seems to have been passed around on campus between the newspaper and the art magazine we also put out, and eventually it wound up in my hands. After some careful editting, it turns out this is probably the best article I've ever printed here.
Note- technically, I guess I "own" this article now...but I'm always willing to remove it from online if the author or other people have a problem with it. I WILL NOT remove it because you disagree with what it says.
Also, he sums up perfectly one of the reasons I like U2 above many other bands and performers...or genres.
-------------------
The Death of the American Dream
I used to think that the "American Dream" meant owning a house, working a steady job, being married with 2.5 kids, and owning a dog. Unfortunately, I was naïve in the ways the world works; how time can level empires, and how "change" and "social progress" in a civilization often times means that dreams are destroyed and reality is forever altered. Somehow, I had forgotten that racism was alive and well in America, and that the ‘American Dream" that I believed everyone should strive for, was dead and gone.
I am twenty-six years old, a single parent trying to raise a daughter and hold down a job while attending school in what seems a vain hope that education will lead to a better life. In twenty-six years I have witnessed my friends fall victim to drugs and crime; some are in prison, others are buried. I have worked in almost all of the homeless shelters in Minneapolis, served in my country’s elite military forces, and watched as everything I was raised to believe in was systematically destroyed in the name of "social progress."
The goal of the civil rights movement was the equality of the races, which we achieved with a modicum of success. Yet, somewhere along the way, the goal shifted from equality to appeasement, seemingly pandering to minority groups for political power, pitting one group’s interests against the others. Affirmative action laws clearly show this fundamental truth. How does society say that equality means hold some back for someone else’s benefit? If I were an employer, how could I say that I can’t hire the perfect candidate for a position that I am trying to fill simply because the candidate in question does not belong to the right minority group? How is this being equal?
So many times people seem to turn every discussion, every issue at hand into an accusation of racially motivated bias. Why is it that we are still talking about racism in the 21st century? Why do we make clear demarcations for race, such as Black History month? Was the civil rights movement only for blacks in this country? Does poverty affect only non-whites? Or it this simply a way to keep the races attacking each other, rather than face the real problem:—money; that those who have it try to keep everyone else down. It’s not about black or white anymore, it’s about green.
So I submit that we are all seduced into being racist. I am proud of my culture, my religion and my beliefs, just as others should be, but that doesn’t mean I need to denigrate others. But I do look down on everyone, white, black, and everything else, who asks for a handout instead of a hand up. But I also don’t agree with just about everything our current American society teaches us, particularly the cultural epidemic affecting our children; the communication of negative values through our media which then gets associated with race, further dividing us.
Consider music. If you listen to the hip-hop/rap genre of music today, you will be given images of men using women as playthings, frequent drug deals and drug usage, shootings and beatings over such trivial things as gang colors and city blocks, money earned through vice and criminal enterprises, and fighting the so-called "racist" cops and an uncaring society targeting minorities. The majority of performers in this particular genre are non-white, leading people to condemn this "black" music; yet the most controversial performer in this genre is white. Eminem sings about killing his ex and stealing his daughter away, committing violent crimes for fun, frequent and rampant drug usage, and how everybody in the world owes him because he has had a poor life. Interspersed between this garbage are some insights into the stresses of being a star and the required drug usage in order to cope with those stresses. (Give me a break.)
The message of female performers like Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera is just as harmful to our children, with images of casual sex, rampant drug use and the belief that everyone should treat you like a princess because you deserve it.
Watching the news, going for a walk in your nearest mall, or going back to your high school to pick up your transcripts will show you what the youth of today look like. With the negative values contained in their music, is it any wonder that our children are causing crime, doing drugs and generally apathetic towards others?
But the real message that our society accepts is that money gives you the right to do whatever you want against someone else, and that people owe you for all your troubles in life. But if money is the issue, then why do we resort to the old black and white controversy? Why do we sit and listen to the music that is our there today, then yell at teachers when our sons and daughters act like criminals and tramps? What do you expect when the song that wins the Academy Award is entitled, "It’s Hard to be a Pimp"?
We all should feel no shame in looking down on someone whose hero is a gun-toting, crack-dealing, women-belittling criminal who parades around with more money than we will ever make at an honest job. Race has nothing to do with it.
So now I feel like I stand at a crossroads. Do I raise my daughter as I was raised? Do I tell her to be proud of her culture, her society and her capabilities? Do I tell her that she should hold herself to a moral code of conduct? Do I teach her to have pride in the fact that she is an American, and that she should stand up for her morals and beliefs? Do I tell her that she shouldn’t seek a handout from the government or other cultures or blame others for her own actions? Or should I simply watch my dreams for her fade as she becomes another numb cog in the wheel that keeps this society going because, as it stands, now all these things that I was taught by my parents fly in the face of what society teaches our children today. We give lip service to those values yet behave as if anything goes if the price is right. The problem is that people are unknowingly conned into seeing these divides in racial terms and then equally conned into calling each other "racists" when someone points out these racial divides. So it really isn’t about black and white; it’s about green.
Note- technically, I guess I "own" this article now...but I'm always willing to remove it from online if the author or other people have a problem with it. I WILL NOT remove it because you disagree with what it says.
Also, he sums up perfectly one of the reasons I like U2 above many other bands and performers...or genres.
-------------------
The Death of the American Dream
I used to think that the "American Dream" meant owning a house, working a steady job, being married with 2.5 kids, and owning a dog. Unfortunately, I was naïve in the ways the world works; how time can level empires, and how "change" and "social progress" in a civilization often times means that dreams are destroyed and reality is forever altered. Somehow, I had forgotten that racism was alive and well in America, and that the ‘American Dream" that I believed everyone should strive for, was dead and gone.
I am twenty-six years old, a single parent trying to raise a daughter and hold down a job while attending school in what seems a vain hope that education will lead to a better life. In twenty-six years I have witnessed my friends fall victim to drugs and crime; some are in prison, others are buried. I have worked in almost all of the homeless shelters in Minneapolis, served in my country’s elite military forces, and watched as everything I was raised to believe in was systematically destroyed in the name of "social progress."
The goal of the civil rights movement was the equality of the races, which we achieved with a modicum of success. Yet, somewhere along the way, the goal shifted from equality to appeasement, seemingly pandering to minority groups for political power, pitting one group’s interests against the others. Affirmative action laws clearly show this fundamental truth. How does society say that equality means hold some back for someone else’s benefit? If I were an employer, how could I say that I can’t hire the perfect candidate for a position that I am trying to fill simply because the candidate in question does not belong to the right minority group? How is this being equal?
So many times people seem to turn every discussion, every issue at hand into an accusation of racially motivated bias. Why is it that we are still talking about racism in the 21st century? Why do we make clear demarcations for race, such as Black History month? Was the civil rights movement only for blacks in this country? Does poverty affect only non-whites? Or it this simply a way to keep the races attacking each other, rather than face the real problem:—money; that those who have it try to keep everyone else down. It’s not about black or white anymore, it’s about green.
So I submit that we are all seduced into being racist. I am proud of my culture, my religion and my beliefs, just as others should be, but that doesn’t mean I need to denigrate others. But I do look down on everyone, white, black, and everything else, who asks for a handout instead of a hand up. But I also don’t agree with just about everything our current American society teaches us, particularly the cultural epidemic affecting our children; the communication of negative values through our media which then gets associated with race, further dividing us.
Consider music. If you listen to the hip-hop/rap genre of music today, you will be given images of men using women as playthings, frequent drug deals and drug usage, shootings and beatings over such trivial things as gang colors and city blocks, money earned through vice and criminal enterprises, and fighting the so-called "racist" cops and an uncaring society targeting minorities. The majority of performers in this particular genre are non-white, leading people to condemn this "black" music; yet the most controversial performer in this genre is white. Eminem sings about killing his ex and stealing his daughter away, committing violent crimes for fun, frequent and rampant drug usage, and how everybody in the world owes him because he has had a poor life. Interspersed between this garbage are some insights into the stresses of being a star and the required drug usage in order to cope with those stresses. (Give me a break.)
The message of female performers like Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera is just as harmful to our children, with images of casual sex, rampant drug use and the belief that everyone should treat you like a princess because you deserve it.
Watching the news, going for a walk in your nearest mall, or going back to your high school to pick up your transcripts will show you what the youth of today look like. With the negative values contained in their music, is it any wonder that our children are causing crime, doing drugs and generally apathetic towards others?
But the real message that our society accepts is that money gives you the right to do whatever you want against someone else, and that people owe you for all your troubles in life. But if money is the issue, then why do we resort to the old black and white controversy? Why do we sit and listen to the music that is our there today, then yell at teachers when our sons and daughters act like criminals and tramps? What do you expect when the song that wins the Academy Award is entitled, "It’s Hard to be a Pimp"?
We all should feel no shame in looking down on someone whose hero is a gun-toting, crack-dealing, women-belittling criminal who parades around with more money than we will ever make at an honest job. Race has nothing to do with it.
So now I feel like I stand at a crossroads. Do I raise my daughter as I was raised? Do I tell her to be proud of her culture, her society and her capabilities? Do I tell her that she should hold herself to a moral code of conduct? Do I teach her to have pride in the fact that she is an American, and that she should stand up for her morals and beliefs? Do I tell her that she shouldn’t seek a handout from the government or other cultures or blame others for her own actions? Or should I simply watch my dreams for her fade as she becomes another numb cog in the wheel that keeps this society going because, as it stands, now all these things that I was taught by my parents fly in the face of what society teaches our children today. We give lip service to those values yet behave as if anything goes if the price is right. The problem is that people are unknowingly conned into seeing these divides in racial terms and then equally conned into calling each other "racists" when someone points out these racial divides. So it really isn’t about black and white; it’s about green.
Apr 7, 2006
Eyeball surgery
Been hunting around the blogs, discovered that all the people over at IGN are finally blogging, so I'm catching up on all the wacky things that go on in the offices of the people I'd love to work for/with (although Game Informer is local, they are Bay Area). Anyways, reading one of the editor's in chiefs blogs, http://blogs.ign.com/craig-ign/p4, and he has a short little blog about geting some surgery done on his eyes...Lasik or otherwise, not sure. Anyways, a wonderful little quote:
"The procedure took very little time at all. More time was spent in the actual preparation of the surgery than on the table itself. And once on the table, the Valium eases the stress enough that you just sit there and watch your eyes being sliced from a first person perspective.
The result: three days later and I'm seeing 20/15 in both eyes, with no side-effects other than a slight burning sensation that's easily ignored."
Ignoring the sheer comedy of watching your own eyes get sliced from a first person perspective...lol...this is a procedure I've always had mixed thoughts about. Would I love to be able to do away with glasses and contacts for the rest of my life? Yeah, sure. It took me a few months just to be able to put contacts in my eyes the first time, and even today, years later, I cheat; you are supposed to look at it coming in...I do this thing where I look in the corner of my eye, touch, and then blink it in. I still can't look at my finger going straight into my eye.
The cost is a little daunting though. However, it is something I probably should look in to.
Oh, and a word of advice? If you are a smoker, don't be taking valium. The combination of the two makes you puke for quite a while. Found that out first hand when a friend started excusing himself every hour on the hour to go throw up...
"The procedure took very little time at all. More time was spent in the actual preparation of the surgery than on the table itself. And once on the table, the Valium eases the stress enough that you just sit there and watch your eyes being sliced from a first person perspective.
The result: three days later and I'm seeing 20/15 in both eyes, with no side-effects other than a slight burning sensation that's easily ignored."
Ignoring the sheer comedy of watching your own eyes get sliced from a first person perspective...lol...this is a procedure I've always had mixed thoughts about. Would I love to be able to do away with glasses and contacts for the rest of my life? Yeah, sure. It took me a few months just to be able to put contacts in my eyes the first time, and even today, years later, I cheat; you are supposed to look at it coming in...I do this thing where I look in the corner of my eye, touch, and then blink it in. I still can't look at my finger going straight into my eye.
The cost is a little daunting though. However, it is something I probably should look in to.
Oh, and a word of advice? If you are a smoker, don't be taking valium. The combination of the two makes you puke for quite a while. Found that out first hand when a friend started excusing himself every hour on the hour to go throw up...
Apr 3, 2006
a funny coincidence?
On Wednesday at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 in the morning, the time and date will be 01:02:03 04/05/06.
...it's the end of the world as we know it...and i feel fine!
...it's the end of the world as we know it...and i feel fine!
Mar 26, 2006
A video worth sharing
For your viewing enjoyment..."One" by Mary J Blige featuring U2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4MVVwdq1ag
It's amazing just how fresh and new this song sounds. Originally released in 90/91 on U2's Achtung Baby album (which is where Zoo Station is also found), it over the years has at times sounded a little tired to me, mainly due to the fact that U2 seems to play it every single time they make any kind of public performance. However...it's just such a powerful song, that it keeps on coming back fresh and new again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4MVVwdq1ag
It's amazing just how fresh and new this song sounds. Originally released in 90/91 on U2's Achtung Baby album (which is where Zoo Station is also found), it over the years has at times sounded a little tired to me, mainly due to the fact that U2 seems to play it every single time they make any kind of public performance. However...it's just such a powerful song, that it keeps on coming back fresh and new again.
Mar 24, 2006
I have a disease...some call it "opportunity paralysis."
I pulled this quote from the main page of PennyArcade.com, an online comic strip about video gaming. Personally, I think PVPOnline.com is a better series, because they develop characters and storylines, but PennyArcade does tend to focus more on games. Anyways, this guy nails something that I experience perfectly. He's referring to the just released Xbox360/PC game Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, a game that is so nonlinear you can play for years without actual doing anything to further the story.
"The almost unlimited functionality definitely activates some hoarding response in my brain, so that if I don't pick up every dusty scapula with a shred of flesh still clinging I get terribly agitated. I stood in a cold dungeon for almost ten minutes before I could build up the strength to discard some rat meat. That isn't their fault, of course. You don't lose points for increasing player freedom to psychologically devastating levels. I was not aware that OCD was something you could "catch," but I'm beginning to think that I've got a bad case."
I suffer from this too I guess. It's crippling. I have maybe 4 or 5 games just sitting around that I bought up to six years ago that I CAN NOT PLAY. It's insane. I have to hoard every little last thing I find until I can either sell it for money or trade it in for something better (referring to in-game here).
I've been working on getting through Dungeon Siege since fall 04...I'm maybe 25-30 hours into...and while the game isn't known for its story (solely lacking), it's still a fun little game to just play. But it's literally taking me forever because I have to accumulate everything and explore every last nook and cranny in the dang game!
Then there is Baldur's Gate. I bought this game way back in Fall '01. I've tried to start playing it multiple times. But it's just so dang complex and HUGE that I can't get anywhere. The fear of missing something or doing something wrong or not getting the best experience is agravating. And it's a game I desperately want to play and beat because everyone tells me it has one of the best storylines you will ever find in a videogame!
And don't even get me started on those Grand Theft Auto games...
"The almost unlimited functionality definitely activates some hoarding response in my brain, so that if I don't pick up every dusty scapula with a shred of flesh still clinging I get terribly agitated. I stood in a cold dungeon for almost ten minutes before I could build up the strength to discard some rat meat. That isn't their fault, of course. You don't lose points for increasing player freedom to psychologically devastating levels. I was not aware that OCD was something you could "catch," but I'm beginning to think that I've got a bad case."
I suffer from this too I guess. It's crippling. I have maybe 4 or 5 games just sitting around that I bought up to six years ago that I CAN NOT PLAY. It's insane. I have to hoard every little last thing I find until I can either sell it for money or trade it in for something better (referring to in-game here).
I've been working on getting through Dungeon Siege since fall 04...I'm maybe 25-30 hours into...and while the game isn't known for its story (solely lacking), it's still a fun little game to just play. But it's literally taking me forever because I have to accumulate everything and explore every last nook and cranny in the dang game!
Then there is Baldur's Gate. I bought this game way back in Fall '01. I've tried to start playing it multiple times. But it's just so dang complex and HUGE that I can't get anywhere. The fear of missing something or doing something wrong or not getting the best experience is agravating. And it's a game I desperately want to play and beat because everyone tells me it has one of the best storylines you will ever find in a videogame!
And don't even get me started on those Grand Theft Auto games...
Mar 21, 2006
A date rule question
So...if when you and your date "catch lunch together", it's catching up as friends. If you and your date go out to dinner, it's probably the start or hope of something serious.
What is it if you go out to breakfast?
I'm sorry, but that thought came into my head earlier and I haven't stopped laughing and trying to figure it out...
What is it if you go out to breakfast?
I'm sorry, but that thought came into my head earlier and I haven't stopped laughing and trying to figure it out...
Mar 19, 2006
I'm obviously still getting the hang of this blogger.com stuff...like, I do not have any clue why alot of my blogs are double posted, and I haven't a clue how to delete the extra one. How do you mess with colors? How do you upload really neat graphics? How do you do _____?
Guess I'm learning.
And so this has some value to it...recently a thought has been bouncing around my head.
Is a sense of moral superiority a sin? Obviously we should be humble and treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated...but is walking around in judgement and believing ourselves to be morally superior an actual sin? Right now, I'm leaning toward it being a sin...but I'm open to comment.
Guess I'm learning.
And so this has some value to it...recently a thought has been bouncing around my head.
Is a sense of moral superiority a sin? Obviously we should be humble and treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated...but is walking around in judgement and believing ourselves to be morally superior an actual sin? Right now, I'm leaning toward it being a sin...but I'm open to comment.
Mar 16, 2006
It's time to take sides for the oncoming war...
...the oncoming Format War that is.
Got you going there, didn't I?
Anyways, the oncoming format war is going to be fought between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, and alot of companies have already picked sides (the smarter ones have agreed to back up both technologies).
"The Blu-ray format is backed by big consumer electronics firms such as Sony Corp , Philips and Dell as well as most Hollywood studios. But the HD DVD format, whose proponents are led by Toshiba, looks set to reach the market faster and offer cheaper players." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060309/tc_nm/bluray_hddvd_dc;_
ylt=AghWv9pOtJvKZWWbHYMlQKNk24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4ZnRnZjhkBHNlYwMxNjk1
Here's how I understand it, in a nutshell: Blu-Ray is technically better. It seems Blu-Ray is capable of holding more information (I believe the numbers are like 40 gigs), while HD-DVD holds only 30gig. Blu-Ray is also able to read the information faster, giving you a better read time.
However, and I'm not positive on this, but Blu-Ray CAN NOT play older dvds; only Blu-Ray discs. HD-DVD can.
According to some articles I've read, a Blu-Ray player will cost upwards of $500-$1000 (in a year or so). An HD-DVD player will cost maybe $300-$500 (in a year or so).
Here's where it gets really tricky. Currently, the most popular video game console on the market is the Playstation 2. Why did it become so popular? Primarily, it was the first video game console to come equipped with a dvd player, which was a relatively new format at the time (99/00). So alot of people bought the PS2 not only for games but for a relatively cheap DVD player at the time (I believe a standalone unit was selling for maybe $500-$750...I bought my dvd player Black Friday '01 for maybe $350, and it's still going strong).
Now we have the just released Xbox 360 and coming in the fall the PS3. The 360 has a standard dvd player installed, with a HD-DVD attachment player coming soon. Microsoft is kinda hoping that very few people will actually buy a HD-DVD attachment; it will only be used for movies, and a standalone is much, much superior to any "multi in a box" system.
However, the PS3 will ONLY feature a Blu-Ray player. Which is probably the primary reason the system will end up costing $500-$600 for the first year or two it is released. Quite alot of money for something that doesn't require a monitor, gas, or candle lit dinners.
So once again, it almost seems like the video game industry is gonna decide the fate of the movie and video industry. Will millions of people buy the PS3? Will they accept Blu-Ray as the next format? Or will the public say "Screw you Sony" and buy 360's? Or...and this is more likely...buy the PS3 but only play games on it, and except movies to be on the cheaper and backwards compatible HD-DVD format?
Let me ask you this- Do you really want to rebuy or reburn all those dvds you have sitting around? Do you want to have to buy a new copy of every movie you own just so it can play on your Blu-Ray player? Or will you choose to buy a HD-DVD player so you can enjoy those old but classic movies, as well as home videos, that you have on DVD, but don't want to buy High Def versions of?
I know what side I'm taking. Sony has already lost once before with the Beta cassettes. It's only a matter of time before they lose again.
Make mine HD-DVD.
Got you going there, didn't I?
Anyways, the oncoming format war is going to be fought between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, and alot of companies have already picked sides (the smarter ones have agreed to back up both technologies).
"The Blu-ray format is backed by big consumer electronics firms such as Sony Corp , Philips and Dell as well as most Hollywood studios. But the HD DVD format, whose proponents are led by Toshiba, looks set to reach the market faster and offer cheaper players." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060309/tc_nm/bluray_hddvd_dc;_
ylt=AghWv9pOtJvKZWWbHYMlQKNk24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4ZnRnZjhkBHNlYwMxNjk1
Here's how I understand it, in a nutshell: Blu-Ray is technically better. It seems Blu-Ray is capable of holding more information (I believe the numbers are like 40 gigs), while HD-DVD holds only 30gig. Blu-Ray is also able to read the information faster, giving you a better read time.
However, and I'm not positive on this, but Blu-Ray CAN NOT play older dvds; only Blu-Ray discs. HD-DVD can.
According to some articles I've read, a Blu-Ray player will cost upwards of $500-$1000 (in a year or so). An HD-DVD player will cost maybe $300-$500 (in a year or so).
Here's where it gets really tricky. Currently, the most popular video game console on the market is the Playstation 2. Why did it become so popular? Primarily, it was the first video game console to come equipped with a dvd player, which was a relatively new format at the time (99/00). So alot of people bought the PS2 not only for games but for a relatively cheap DVD player at the time (I believe a standalone unit was selling for maybe $500-$750...I bought my dvd player Black Friday '01 for maybe $350, and it's still going strong).
Now we have the just released Xbox 360 and coming in the fall the PS3. The 360 has a standard dvd player installed, with a HD-DVD attachment player coming soon. Microsoft is kinda hoping that very few people will actually buy a HD-DVD attachment; it will only be used for movies, and a standalone is much, much superior to any "multi in a box" system.
However, the PS3 will ONLY feature a Blu-Ray player. Which is probably the primary reason the system will end up costing $500-$600 for the first year or two it is released. Quite alot of money for something that doesn't require a monitor, gas, or candle lit dinners.
So once again, it almost seems like the video game industry is gonna decide the fate of the movie and video industry. Will millions of people buy the PS3? Will they accept Blu-Ray as the next format? Or will the public say "Screw you Sony" and buy 360's? Or...and this is more likely...buy the PS3 but only play games on it, and except movies to be on the cheaper and backwards compatible HD-DVD format?
Let me ask you this- Do you really want to rebuy or reburn all those dvds you have sitting around? Do you want to have to buy a new copy of every movie you own just so it can play on your Blu-Ray player? Or will you choose to buy a HD-DVD player so you can enjoy those old but classic movies, as well as home videos, that you have on DVD, but don't want to buy High Def versions of?
I know what side I'm taking. Sony has already lost once before with the Beta cassettes. It's only a matter of time before they lose again.
Make mine HD-DVD.
Feb 27, 2006
A Biblical conversation with an old friend
Have recently been put back into contact with an old friend of mine back from Green Bay, goes by the name of Nate. He's now a married seminary student living in Texas and is about four or five years older than me (as most of my Green Bay friends tended to be). While chatting online one night we got to talking about Biblical matters, and I mentioned those Ezekiel sermons Bruce was preaching about, specifically all the talk about the Spirit leaving the temple. I sent him the link to Bruce's post, and here is an editted version of our conversation following it. Note- names changed to protect our AIMs.
Nate: yeah, reading it...aight...heres me thoughts
STU2: i'm not sure if i really totally agree with it, but he uses some good scripture to back it up...
Nate: God's plan did not change with the temple... he wasn't 'forced out' of the temple...even before Ezekiel he reminded his people that he had a plan to write his words on their hearts (going back to david's time)
Nate: there's this idea floating around right now that God changes his mind...that he has emotions and we can affect him...and i say...YES
Nate: but then we get into the tricky territory of what exactly we mean by change, when he is unchangeable
STU2: true
Nate: i think that His emotions are a reflection of His absolute character (and i'm getting to my point, i promise)
Nate: God changes every time someone accepts him and he 'decides' not to send them to hell... but our understanding of that time is so limited
Nate: for instance, if you really read genesis, it looks like abraham has been following God for some time before 'it was counted to him as righteousness'
Nate: which gets us to our point...and i don't entirely disagree with your pastor
Nate: all i'm saying is this--some people who claim to be Christians will be very surprised when they meet God for the first time
Nate: But all people that God claims to be Christians will know him when they see Him
STU2: hmm... i'll have to think about all this
Nate: i don't think that God changes His mind when we sin--even if we 'force him out' of our hearts (temple)
STU2: any scripture to back this up?
Nate: anyways, here goes: acts 17:24 and to the end of the chapter
Nate: it's one of the great apologetics
STU2: ok
Nate: well, my point here is that paul has started out without judaism to convert to greeks...atheists and pantheists alike
Nate: he's pointing out to them that God does not live in temples made by human hands
Nate: the context is simple--he's standing in front of a temple to the unknown God
STU2: yes
Nate: but his point is even more simple--that God doesn't need anything from us... in a pagan mindset, this is profound--the gods needed our attention--even fought over it
Nate: he goes on to argue that God has put man in the position that he's in--searching (fumbling or groping) in the dark to find God
Nate: God has placed in us this desire to find him... which is a paradox
STU2: off topic...read a good book recently that argues we need to adopt that a more Paul type form of witnessing than a Peter type...mainly because we as a culture do not have a biblical basis any more, so our techniques need to change
Nate: i'd agree with that point to some extent
Nate: but anyways, i know i'm like forever away from concluding my thoughts, but in verse 31 paul finishes with this simple thought that God gives assurance to unto all men (and he does say all) in the resurrection
Nate: so salvation is available to all, but not all take it. but those that do are assured of it
Nate: i'm not totally disagreeing with your pastor here, please understand
STU2: i understand
Nate: it seems like there are lots of holes in your arguments
Nate: but it seems right to me
Nate: anyways man, i hope that i've made any sense at all tonight, i'm kinda tired. my point in acts was simply this--we have assurance of our salvation, and it is the same assurance of damnation to the world--the cross either brings us to life or condemns us to death.
Nate: but when it does...well, that's hard to tell
Nate: the question which i've kinda sidestepped around is this--can you step back over the fence?
STU2: meaning?
Nate: well, i still haven't really answered if you can lose your salvation or not
STU2: true
Nate: i've just answered that you can know for sure you have it
STU2: it's an ongoing debate among many circles...and despite what some fundamentalists say, it's not so easy to understand
Nate: but the question is flawed
Nate: i mean, you choose every day to step across the line
Nate: but you don't lose your salvation every time you do
Nate: because your salvation has nothing to do with anything that you've done
Nate: it's assured in the cross that you can be saved
Nate: so it's on the cross that you have to depend, thank God
STU2: true...which is hard for me to understand at times, coming from a legalistic background
Nate: i think the change that would be required of God to 'lose' your salvation would be against His nature
Nate: i don't think God changes that way, but we do
STU2: lol, it's too late for these types of arguments...
Nate: well, it's a lot ot think about
STU2: yeah... might as well just call it a night, u've given me a lot to think about
Nate: well, thanks for the friendly discussion
STU2: no problem
STU2: do you mind if i copy all this down and get some feedback from either friends or my pastor?
Nate: not at all
STU2: thanks
STU2: u'll be on the 6 o'clock news
Nate: i read a fascinating quote by C.S. Lewis the other day...let me find it
STU2: ok
Nate: "i know it indeed to my cost. in the days when i still hated Christianity, i learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying SOMETHING which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante...it was, of course, varied; and yet--after all--so unmistakenly the same. recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life. (CS Lewis)
Nate: speaking of Christianity, despite its divisions, as a 'formidable unity' to the those who are 'without'
Please feel free to leave any comments or join the discussion. I'll make sure Nate gets your responses.
Nate: yeah, reading it...aight...heres me thoughts
STU2: i'm not sure if i really totally agree with it, but he uses some good scripture to back it up...
Nate: God's plan did not change with the temple... he wasn't 'forced out' of the temple...even before Ezekiel he reminded his people that he had a plan to write his words on their hearts (going back to david's time)
Nate: there's this idea floating around right now that God changes his mind...that he has emotions and we can affect him...and i say...YES
Nate: but then we get into the tricky territory of what exactly we mean by change, when he is unchangeable
STU2: true
Nate: i think that His emotions are a reflection of His absolute character (and i'm getting to my point, i promise)
Nate: God changes every time someone accepts him and he 'decides' not to send them to hell... but our understanding of that time is so limited
Nate: for instance, if you really read genesis, it looks like abraham has been following God for some time before 'it was counted to him as righteousness'
Nate: which gets us to our point...and i don't entirely disagree with your pastor
Nate: all i'm saying is this--some people who claim to be Christians will be very surprised when they meet God for the first time
Nate: But all people that God claims to be Christians will know him when they see Him
STU2: hmm... i'll have to think about all this
Nate: i don't think that God changes His mind when we sin--even if we 'force him out' of our hearts (temple)
STU2: any scripture to back this up?
Nate: anyways, here goes: acts 17:24 and to the end of the chapter
Nate: it's one of the great apologetics
STU2: ok
Nate: well, my point here is that paul has started out without judaism to convert to greeks...atheists and pantheists alike
Nate: he's pointing out to them that God does not live in temples made by human hands
Nate: the context is simple--he's standing in front of a temple to the unknown God
STU2: yes
Nate: but his point is even more simple--that God doesn't need anything from us... in a pagan mindset, this is profound--the gods needed our attention--even fought over it
Nate: he goes on to argue that God has put man in the position that he's in--searching (fumbling or groping) in the dark to find God
Nate: God has placed in us this desire to find him... which is a paradox
STU2: off topic...read a good book recently that argues we need to adopt that a more Paul type form of witnessing than a Peter type...mainly because we as a culture do not have a biblical basis any more, so our techniques need to change
Nate: i'd agree with that point to some extent
Nate: but anyways, i know i'm like forever away from concluding my thoughts, but in verse 31 paul finishes with this simple thought that God gives assurance to unto all men (and he does say all) in the resurrection
Nate: so salvation is available to all, but not all take it. but those that do are assured of it
Nate: i'm not totally disagreeing with your pastor here, please understand
STU2: i understand
Nate: it seems like there are lots of holes in your arguments
Nate: but it seems right to me
Nate: anyways man, i hope that i've made any sense at all tonight, i'm kinda tired. my point in acts was simply this--we have assurance of our salvation, and it is the same assurance of damnation to the world--the cross either brings us to life or condemns us to death.
Nate: but when it does...well, that's hard to tell
Nate: the question which i've kinda sidestepped around is this--can you step back over the fence?
STU2: meaning?
Nate: well, i still haven't really answered if you can lose your salvation or not
STU2: true
Nate: i've just answered that you can know for sure you have it
STU2: it's an ongoing debate among many circles...and despite what some fundamentalists say, it's not so easy to understand
Nate: but the question is flawed
Nate: i mean, you choose every day to step across the line
Nate: but you don't lose your salvation every time you do
Nate: because your salvation has nothing to do with anything that you've done
Nate: it's assured in the cross that you can be saved
Nate: so it's on the cross that you have to depend, thank God
STU2: true...which is hard for me to understand at times, coming from a legalistic background
Nate: i think the change that would be required of God to 'lose' your salvation would be against His nature
Nate: i don't think God changes that way, but we do
STU2: lol, it's too late for these types of arguments...
Nate: well, it's a lot ot think about
STU2: yeah... might as well just call it a night, u've given me a lot to think about
Nate: well, thanks for the friendly discussion
STU2: no problem
STU2: do you mind if i copy all this down and get some feedback from either friends or my pastor?
Nate: not at all
STU2: thanks
STU2: u'll be on the 6 o'clock news
Nate: i read a fascinating quote by C.S. Lewis the other day...let me find it
STU2: ok
Nate: "i know it indeed to my cost. in the days when i still hated Christianity, i learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying SOMETHING which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante...it was, of course, varied; and yet--after all--so unmistakenly the same. recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life. (CS Lewis)
Nate: speaking of Christianity, despite its divisions, as a 'formidable unity' to the those who are 'without'
Please feel free to leave any comments or join the discussion. I'll make sure Nate gets your responses.
Feb 26, 2006
Blog update, and a shoutout
My apologies for not posting more often here. I envisioned Zoo Station to be more of a serious type of blog, as opposed to one of those "my day sucked/I love popcorn!/she's so into me" type of teenage online journals. Been there, done that, hated it. So, when I have something really important to say, it will get posted here, and not on that "other" blog over at myspace. Although there might be some "crossblogging" (can I coin that term?).
Plus, I was really surprised and sorta excited to find out that there are people out there who bother reading this. All to often it feels that any sort of creative work I do, be it putting down an exact track listing on a cd that reflects a theme or a mood of mine, to actually being the editor of a student newspaper which sucks huge amounts of my time and energy, or even posting a blog online...all creative work I do seems underappreciated or worse yet unnoticed.
It's nice to be noticed. Thank you.
One little shoutout- When I'm handed a cd that has "Better than U2" written on it, I'm more than skeptical. No one is better. Period. Except maybe the Beatles.
That said, I have got to give mad props to Micah for giving me a copy of Delirious? "The Mission Bell." I've listened to it a handful of times (including as I write this) and I must say it is an excellent, excellent album. Thanks Micah.
Signing off...
Plus, I was really surprised and sorta excited to find out that there are people out there who bother reading this. All to often it feels that any sort of creative work I do, be it putting down an exact track listing on a cd that reflects a theme or a mood of mine, to actually being the editor of a student newspaper which sucks huge amounts of my time and energy, or even posting a blog online...all creative work I do seems underappreciated or worse yet unnoticed.
It's nice to be noticed. Thank you.
One little shoutout- When I'm handed a cd that has "Better than U2" written on it, I'm more than skeptical. No one is better. Period. Except maybe the Beatles.
That said, I have got to give mad props to Micah for giving me a copy of Delirious? "The Mission Bell." I've listened to it a handful of times (including as I write this) and I must say it is an excellent, excellent album. Thanks Micah.
Signing off...
My apologies for not posting more often here. I envisioned Zoo Station to be more of a serious type of blog, as opposed to one of those "my day sucked/I love popcorn!/she's so into me" type of teenage online journals. Been there, done that, hated it. So, when I have something really important to say, it will get posted here, and not on that "other" blog over at myspace. Although there might be some "crossblogging" (can I coin that term?).
Plus, I was really surprised and sorta excited to find out that there are people out there who bother reading this. All to often it feels that any sort of creative work I do, be it putting down an exact track listing on a cd that reflects a theme or a mood of mine, to actually being the editor of a student newspaper which sucks huge amounts of my time and energy, or even posting a blog online...all creative work I do seems underappreciated or worse yet unnoticed.
It's nice to be noticed. Thank you.
One little shoutout- When I'm handed a cd that has "Better than U2" written on it, I'm more than skeptical. No one is better. Period. Except maybe the Beatles.
That said, I have got to give mad props to Micah for giving me a copy of Delirious? "The Mission Bell." I've listened to it a handful of times (including as I write this) and I must say it is an excellent, excellent album. Thanks Micah.
Signing off...
Plus, I was really surprised and sorta excited to find out that there are people out there who bother reading this. All to often it feels that any sort of creative work I do, be it putting down an exact track listing on a cd that reflects a theme or a mood of mine, to actually being the editor of a student newspaper which sucks huge amounts of my time and energy, or even posting a blog online...all creative work I do seems underappreciated or worse yet unnoticed.
It's nice to be noticed. Thank you.
One little shoutout- When I'm handed a cd that has "Better than U2" written on it, I'm more than skeptical. No one is better. Period. Except maybe the Beatles.
That said, I have got to give mad props to Micah for giving me a copy of Delirious? "The Mission Bell." I've listened to it a handful of times (including as I write this) and I must say it is an excellent, excellent album. Thanks Micah.
Signing off...
Feb 13, 2006
Frank Miller's Batman goes political
There is an excellent article and interview set I found. http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_02_12_brainster_archive.html#113985914760313518
In it, a great quote from Frank Miller, circa 1994. By the way, Frank Miller is a highly acclaimed novelist/graphic artist/film producer. I've highly enjoyed his work throughout the years. Anyways, his great quote:
Troublesome as the so-called Religious Right can be, they're generally a pretty clumsy bunch. They swing a club. 'Liberals', on the other hand, use a scalpel, and only after they've applied intellectual anesthetic. Any pain is felt much later. This makes them much more dangerous censors. Especially since most artists tend to be vulnerable to their anesthetic. The most palpable threat to free speech these days comes from the secular political left. Janet Reno, Paul Simon, all those little 'politically correct' fascists that haunt our universities, preaching that the purpose of fiction is not entertainment, but rather indoctrination. These shameless, lying, whiny scumbag baby boomer, sixties-generation spoiled brats who think they serve society by rewriting history and trying to unravel our language...they represent a much more effective and successful effort to shut down free speech and the free press than the Bible-bangers ever have." Frank Miller, 1994.
In it, a great quote from Frank Miller, circa 1994. By the way, Frank Miller is a highly acclaimed novelist/graphic artist/film producer. I've highly enjoyed his work throughout the years. Anyways, his great quote:
Troublesome as the so-called Religious Right can be, they're generally a pretty clumsy bunch. They swing a club. 'Liberals', on the other hand, use a scalpel, and only after they've applied intellectual anesthetic. Any pain is felt much later. This makes them much more dangerous censors. Especially since most artists tend to be vulnerable to their anesthetic. The most palpable threat to free speech these days comes from the secular political left. Janet Reno, Paul Simon, all those little 'politically correct' fascists that haunt our universities, preaching that the purpose of fiction is not entertainment, but rather indoctrination. These shameless, lying, whiny scumbag baby boomer, sixties-generation spoiled brats who think they serve society by rewriting history and trying to unravel our language...they represent a much more effective and successful effort to shut down free speech and the free press than the Bible-bangers ever have." Frank Miller, 1994.
Feb 12, 2006
Jack Thompson a Christian? Don't make me laugh...
This Jack Thompson guy sickens me. Not only does he have the nerve to manipulate data to fit his own little schemes, but then he has the nerve to call himself a Christian? And to tell Bono that he will be losing his Christian testimony if he is part of a joint venture group that buys Take Two...sheesh. This guy sickens and disgusts me.
Give it time, Hillary will jump onto this too...
_______________________________________
Ellie GibsonFebruary 10, 2006
Following the emergence of rumours that Elevation Partners may launch an acquisition bid for Take Two, Jack Thompson has written an open letter to one of Elevation's key investors - U2 frontman Bono.
"Dear Bono," the letter begins, "I write you as a fellow brother in Jesus Christ, appreciative of your bold witness to the transforming truth of the Gospel, in both your words and your deeds... I write to encourage you, respectfully and in a spirit of brotherly love, not to purchase Take Two Interactive Software, Inc."
Thompson warns Bono that if he acquires Take Two, he will also acquire "A Mature-rated murder simulator marketed and sold to teens that has been linked by law enforcement officials to numerous, specific, provable copycat killings around the country" - namely Grand Theft Auto, of course.
He goes on to claim that Take Two "lied to the investment community" in its latest SEC filing, and warns that ongoing "criminal investigations" have put the publisher's very survival at risk, "Despite the fraudulent assertions in the recent [SEC filing] that they are all 'without merit'."
"That is akin to saying that AIDS poses no threat to life. Ridiculous."
Thompson then argues that the PS2's Dual Shock controller "desensitises the user to the act of killing" because it "sends a visceral jolt back into the hands of the player each time he kills." Which, obviously, he sees as another reason not to buy Take Two.
Thompson doesn't think much of Bill Gates, either, who recently appeared on the cover of Time magazine alongside Bono. "I assume you think Gates a man of intellect," the letter reads."Here is what he said recently on 60 Minutes: 'These action games transport you to a world you think is real.' Exactly. That is why they are dangerous."
Next in the firing line is Bully, a forthcoming Rockstar title that is set in a school and which has already caused controversy despite the fact it has yet to be released. Thompson describes it as a "Columbine simulator" that will "spawn more school violence," alleging that Take Two has "lied to the public about what is actually in this game."
He also claims that he has obtained screenshots which show the game's true content, stating: "I can hear Take-Two saying to you, Bono, if I were to show you these clandestine screenshots, 'Who are you going to believe, Bono; us or your lying eyes?'"
Thompson warns Bono that buying Take Two "will serve as a refutation of your Christian twitness [sic]", stating that unless Elevation Partners plans to buy Take Two for the purpose of incinerating the Grand Theft Auto games and the other murder simulator titles that Take Two owns... Then you will be tying a millstone around your own neck."
The letter finishes: "I could fill another ten pages with descriptions of the criminal activity by Take-Two and [law firm] Blank Rome toward me, but I can tell you about all that if and when we meet."I am trying to keep you, dear brother, from being run over by a careening bus. I do this to help you. A brother in Christ has now warned you. Now, do the right thing, in His powerful name I pray," Thompson writes, before signing off: "In Jesus Christ, Jack Thompson."
You can read the full letter over at Game Politics.http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/202166.html? thread=13231030#t13231030
Bono was unavailable for comment at the time of writing, but we've sent him a text.
Give it time, Hillary will jump onto this too...
_______________________________________
Ellie GibsonFebruary 10, 2006
Following the emergence of rumours that Elevation Partners may launch an acquisition bid for Take Two, Jack Thompson has written an open letter to one of Elevation's key investors - U2 frontman Bono.
"Dear Bono," the letter begins, "I write you as a fellow brother in Jesus Christ, appreciative of your bold witness to the transforming truth of the Gospel, in both your words and your deeds... I write to encourage you, respectfully and in a spirit of brotherly love, not to purchase Take Two Interactive Software, Inc."
Thompson warns Bono that if he acquires Take Two, he will also acquire "A Mature-rated murder simulator marketed and sold to teens that has been linked by law enforcement officials to numerous, specific, provable copycat killings around the country" - namely Grand Theft Auto, of course.
He goes on to claim that Take Two "lied to the investment community" in its latest SEC filing, and warns that ongoing "criminal investigations" have put the publisher's very survival at risk, "Despite the fraudulent assertions in the recent [SEC filing] that they are all 'without merit'."
"That is akin to saying that AIDS poses no threat to life. Ridiculous."
Thompson then argues that the PS2's Dual Shock controller "desensitises the user to the act of killing" because it "sends a visceral jolt back into the hands of the player each time he kills." Which, obviously, he sees as another reason not to buy Take Two.
Thompson doesn't think much of Bill Gates, either, who recently appeared on the cover of Time magazine alongside Bono. "I assume you think Gates a man of intellect," the letter reads."Here is what he said recently on 60 Minutes: 'These action games transport you to a world you think is real.' Exactly. That is why they are dangerous."
Next in the firing line is Bully, a forthcoming Rockstar title that is set in a school and which has already caused controversy despite the fact it has yet to be released. Thompson describes it as a "Columbine simulator" that will "spawn more school violence," alleging that Take Two has "lied to the public about what is actually in this game."
He also claims that he has obtained screenshots which show the game's true content, stating: "I can hear Take-Two saying to you, Bono, if I were to show you these clandestine screenshots, 'Who are you going to believe, Bono; us or your lying eyes?'"
Thompson warns Bono that buying Take Two "will serve as a refutation of your Christian twitness [sic]", stating that unless Elevation Partners plans to buy Take Two for the purpose of incinerating the Grand Theft Auto games and the other murder simulator titles that Take Two owns... Then you will be tying a millstone around your own neck."
The letter finishes: "I could fill another ten pages with descriptions of the criminal activity by Take-Two and [law firm] Blank Rome toward me, but I can tell you about all that if and when we meet."I am trying to keep you, dear brother, from being run over by a careening bus. I do this to help you. A brother in Christ has now warned you. Now, do the right thing, in His powerful name I pray," Thompson writes, before signing off: "In Jesus Christ, Jack Thompson."
You can read the full letter over at Game Politics.http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/202166.html? thread=13231030#t13231030
Bono was unavailable for comment at the time of writing, but we've sent him a text.
Feb 10, 2006
A wonderful quote from Eugene Peterson
In the foreword to Raewynne J. Whiteley and Beth Maynard's, Get Up Off Your Knees, Preaching the U2 Catalog, Peterson wrote:
"Is U2 a prophetic voice? I rather think so. And many of my friends think so. If they do not explicitly proclaim the Kingdom, they certainly prepare the way for that proclamation in much the same way that John the Baptist prepared the way for the kerygma of Jesus. . . . Amos crafted poems, Jeremiah wept sermons, Isaiah alternately rebuked and comforted, Ezekiel did street theater. U2 writes songs and goes on tour, singing them."
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=4232
And I apologize for not blogging on this account more, I'll have to step it up a notch or two to make it interesting.
Jan 24, 2006
Jan 22, 2006
Screwtape Letters- "Lost" Letter
I found this at Christianitytoday.com. The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis has always been one of my favorite books, and this "lost" letter fits in perfectly. Enjoy. http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2006/cln60109.html
My Dear Wormwood:
Concerning your correspondence about your new assignment, you are correct: preachers must never do anything they can get caught at.
The old list of seven has proven deadly to many and those sins certainly further our cause. But taken to their logical conclusions, they put our targets out of business. I won't recite our victories; you know their names. Their demise is often well publicized, but then we must begin the long and tedious process of wooing another.
There is a more excellent way to disable the servants of our Enemy. Why it is not one of the "deadlies" I'm not sure, but it is very effective. It hobbles our prey without disqualifying them. It's the only way I know they avoid being accused of the first seven. Indeed, it is an answer to them.
I commend to you the pastor's deadliest sin: keeping up appearances.
When feeling proud, have him look humble. When lusting, look chaste. When envious, have your subject publicly congratulate the popular contemporary-worship pastor across town who is making his own congregation look like altar-call troglodytes. He needn't like his competitors, just compliment them.
(Hypocrisy is hard, Wormwood. Watch C-SPAN until you get it down. Politicians are naturals at this art.)
Gluttony is hard to mask, but it can be done. At big, must-do dinners, your pastor should say loudly, "I'll have my dressing on the side!" When the salad comes, urge him to dump it over the top when no one is looking.
If the menu is fried chicken, he should say, "The fat is in the skin, I always tear it off." Then whisper to him how Mother Teresa would eat this. He will nibble the skinned part while looking as if this chore is interrupting his quiet time. (Here's a delicious tip I picked up from an assignment in Kentucky: take the skin home in a napkin, microwave it for 40 seconds-on the defrost setting so as not to toughen it-and presto! he can eat the crunchy part and keep his testimony.)
When it comes to cars, Toyotas look sincere. If the pastor must have something larger, it should be a maroon Dodge Caravan, at least two years old, to be used when taking shut-ins to cash their Social Security checks. One preacher of mine bought a new, red Taurus and lost his witness. Red is not a humble color.
The congregation should never doubt that your project is a true minister. He should carry a Left Behind Sky Chart with his Spiritual Formation Bible. He may read Anne Rice, but keep Janette Oke novels on the desk. The key is to imply, imply, imply.
Also, I have made good use of sanctimonious phrases. Say a deacon asks, "Did you see the last episode of The Sopranos?" The proper reply is "No, that's the only time I can work in my Experiencing God notebook." This does two things: it makes the deacon feel like a Unitarian and it elevates the pastor to president of Essenes International.
And these have proven useful in preserving approval ratings: "Mrs. Jones, I went by the hospital to see your husband, but he was asleep" and "I tried to get you on the phone this week, were you out of town?"
And he must never say, "I'm going out to play eighteen holes!" Instead intone, "I'm off to visit the Greenes!"
After all, Wormwood, keeping up appearances is what it's all about. In twenty years or so, he can drive a red car and winter in Biloxi; in the meantime, he'll have done our side little harm.
Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape
My Dear Wormwood:
Concerning your correspondence about your new assignment, you are correct: preachers must never do anything they can get caught at.
The old list of seven has proven deadly to many and those sins certainly further our cause. But taken to their logical conclusions, they put our targets out of business. I won't recite our victories; you know their names. Their demise is often well publicized, but then we must begin the long and tedious process of wooing another.
There is a more excellent way to disable the servants of our Enemy. Why it is not one of the "deadlies" I'm not sure, but it is very effective. It hobbles our prey without disqualifying them. It's the only way I know they avoid being accused of the first seven. Indeed, it is an answer to them.
I commend to you the pastor's deadliest sin: keeping up appearances.
When feeling proud, have him look humble. When lusting, look chaste. When envious, have your subject publicly congratulate the popular contemporary-worship pastor across town who is making his own congregation look like altar-call troglodytes. He needn't like his competitors, just compliment them.
(Hypocrisy is hard, Wormwood. Watch C-SPAN until you get it down. Politicians are naturals at this art.)
Gluttony is hard to mask, but it can be done. At big, must-do dinners, your pastor should say loudly, "I'll have my dressing on the side!" When the salad comes, urge him to dump it over the top when no one is looking.
If the menu is fried chicken, he should say, "The fat is in the skin, I always tear it off." Then whisper to him how Mother Teresa would eat this. He will nibble the skinned part while looking as if this chore is interrupting his quiet time. (Here's a delicious tip I picked up from an assignment in Kentucky: take the skin home in a napkin, microwave it for 40 seconds-on the defrost setting so as not to toughen it-and presto! he can eat the crunchy part and keep his testimony.)
When it comes to cars, Toyotas look sincere. If the pastor must have something larger, it should be a maroon Dodge Caravan, at least two years old, to be used when taking shut-ins to cash their Social Security checks. One preacher of mine bought a new, red Taurus and lost his witness. Red is not a humble color.
The congregation should never doubt that your project is a true minister. He should carry a Left Behind Sky Chart with his Spiritual Formation Bible. He may read Anne Rice, but keep Janette Oke novels on the desk. The key is to imply, imply, imply.
Also, I have made good use of sanctimonious phrases. Say a deacon asks, "Did you see the last episode of The Sopranos?" The proper reply is "No, that's the only time I can work in my Experiencing God notebook." This does two things: it makes the deacon feel like a Unitarian and it elevates the pastor to president of Essenes International.
And these have proven useful in preserving approval ratings: "Mrs. Jones, I went by the hospital to see your husband, but he was asleep" and "I tried to get you on the phone this week, were you out of town?"
And he must never say, "I'm going out to play eighteen holes!" Instead intone, "I'm off to visit the Greenes!"
After all, Wormwood, keeping up appearances is what it's all about. In twenty years or so, he can drive a red car and winter in Biloxi; in the meantime, he'll have done our side little harm.
Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape
Jan 17, 2006
New Year's Realizations 1
Once again, imported from my myspace account:
--------------
Why must I constantly defend myself to others?
Was talking to this one girl at the new year's eve party...when she found out that the xbox everyone was playing with belonged to me, she asked me if I played games alot. I sorta danced around the question..."Yeah, I play some, although I do alot more...I mean, as a writer or journalism student, don't you have to be exposed to lots of different types of medium?" She kinda agreed with me because she's also an english student.
But that right there raises a big point. Why do I feel the need to defend my self and my actions to others? I know others have been asking me that question for a while now, too.
I enjoy video games. I am a gamer. I do not deny it. But why would I hide it from someone who seems attractive to me at that particular moment in time? Video games are hardly my life...I read too many books, watch too many movies, enjoy far too many different things for me to be exclusive to video games. And normally, video games is the thing that suffers the most. There just isn't enough hours in the night to do everything!
Do I need to apologize for who I am? It's not like I'm gonna quit playing video games or anything for a girl...I made that mistake with comics once, and I'm not going to make it again.
Ladies, listen: if you want your guy to do less of one particular thing, you had better provide an alternative that is just as interesting.
The above point really has nothing at all to do with videogames...It has more to do with why must I defend and explain myself about anything? Why am I, no matter what the subject or what the situation is, always prepared to explain and defend every little thing I do or say? Years of being defensive and having to defend many things from people who'd attack me or try to see my stumble must have taking it's toll...
Another realization: sleep is the enemy. All my life I have associated going to bed with giving something else up. This probably started way back when I would read a book before going to bed, and turning out the light would force me to stop reading. It's almost the same way now. There is just so much I want to do, that going to bed is almost like giving up. Might be why I'm a night owl. Plus things are so much calmer and cooler at night; less hustle and bustle.
--------------
Why must I constantly defend myself to others?
Was talking to this one girl at the new year's eve party...when she found out that the xbox everyone was playing with belonged to me, she asked me if I played games alot. I sorta danced around the question..."Yeah, I play some, although I do alot more...I mean, as a writer or journalism student, don't you have to be exposed to lots of different types of medium?" She kinda agreed with me because she's also an english student.
But that right there raises a big point. Why do I feel the need to defend my self and my actions to others? I know others have been asking me that question for a while now, too.
I enjoy video games. I am a gamer. I do not deny it. But why would I hide it from someone who seems attractive to me at that particular moment in time? Video games are hardly my life...I read too many books, watch too many movies, enjoy far too many different things for me to be exclusive to video games. And normally, video games is the thing that suffers the most. There just isn't enough hours in the night to do everything!
Do I need to apologize for who I am? It's not like I'm gonna quit playing video games or anything for a girl...I made that mistake with comics once, and I'm not going to make it again.
Ladies, listen: if you want your guy to do less of one particular thing, you had better provide an alternative that is just as interesting.
The above point really has nothing at all to do with videogames...It has more to do with why must I defend and explain myself about anything? Why am I, no matter what the subject or what the situation is, always prepared to explain and defend every little thing I do or say? Years of being defensive and having to defend many things from people who'd attack me or try to see my stumble must have taking it's toll...
Another realization: sleep is the enemy. All my life I have associated going to bed with giving something else up. This probably started way back when I would read a book before going to bed, and turning out the light would force me to stop reading. It's almost the same way now. There is just so much I want to do, that going to bed is almost like giving up. Might be why I'm a night owl. Plus things are so much calmer and cooler at night; less hustle and bustle.
Jan 8, 2006
New Year's Realization 2
I'm importing this over from my other blog on myspace...it's part 2 in a probable series of New Year's Realizations. Part 1 might come over at a later time...
---------------------
Would you agree it is fair to say that most Christians, instead of modelling their lives after Christ, instead model their lives after Paul or Peter or other Bible people?
I know growing up, I could pretty much fit most of my peers into two categories: those who care, and those who don't give a care. I don't need to describe the latter group...but the former group is fun to describe. In Baptist fundamentalist circles, this is the group that typically has an overdomineering mother, with a father who is probably a deacon and works construction or some other manual labor. They follow "their" Bible to a T, always attend each church service, and generally throw a Bible quote into every other line. Examples would be something like "Hi. I'd like to order a bacon cheeseburger, and did you know Jesus died for your sins? Oh, no pickles."
But tieing this into my thought above...these kids, typically, can always be seen reading the biography of some notable missionary or lay person. These are the people who typically say that Amy Carmichael or that guy who went Africa (or worse, the guy who wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye) is their hero. But once again tying this into the book i'm reading as well as my New Year Realization...
It seems we tend to pattern our lives more after others than we do the one person we are supposed to be following...Christ. Why is it we are more quick to see what Paul or Peter did in a specific situation than what Jesus would have done, or did?
Make no mistake- I am not supporting the WWJD movement. I disagree with them utterly, and think what they have done is cheapened Christianity. Christ is not a commodity.
But is there a good argument for this? Is our focus on the wrong person(s)?
And bringing it closer to home...Is my focus wrong?
---------------------
Would you agree it is fair to say that most Christians, instead of modelling their lives after Christ, instead model their lives after Paul or Peter or other Bible people?
I know growing up, I could pretty much fit most of my peers into two categories: those who care, and those who don't give a care. I don't need to describe the latter group...but the former group is fun to describe. In Baptist fundamentalist circles, this is the group that typically has an overdomineering mother, with a father who is probably a deacon and works construction or some other manual labor. They follow "their" Bible to a T, always attend each church service, and generally throw a Bible quote into every other line. Examples would be something like "Hi. I'd like to order a bacon cheeseburger, and did you know Jesus died for your sins? Oh, no pickles."
But tieing this into my thought above...these kids, typically, can always be seen reading the biography of some notable missionary or lay person. These are the people who typically say that Amy Carmichael or that guy who went Africa (or worse, the guy who wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye) is their hero. But once again tying this into the book i'm reading as well as my New Year Realization...
It seems we tend to pattern our lives more after others than we do the one person we are supposed to be following...Christ. Why is it we are more quick to see what Paul or Peter did in a specific situation than what Jesus would have done, or did?
Make no mistake- I am not supporting the WWJD movement. I disagree with them utterly, and think what they have done is cheapened Christianity. Christ is not a commodity.
But is there a good argument for this? Is our focus on the wrong person(s)?
And bringing it closer to home...Is my focus wrong?
Dec 21, 2005
Serenity- best sci-fi movie of the year
"Serenity" came out on dvd yesterday. Basically, in a nutshell, the show is a "sci-fi western," so imagine six shooters and horses mixed with space ships. Based on the Fox TV show "Firefly" by Joss Whedon, it only lasted maybe a dozen episodes, but due to incredible high dvd sales, a full length feature was created. Sadly, it also didn't do well in the box office, but if dvd sales are high, we might just get a sequel!
Everyone go out and pick up a copy of Serenity today. You will not regret it!
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BW7QWW.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BW7QWW/qid=1135201295/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6057326-7120663?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance
Everyone go out and pick up a copy of Serenity today. You will not regret it!
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BW7QWW.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BW7QWW/qid=1135201295/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6057326-7120663?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
