Dec 2004
Your New Years Resolution
12/29/2004 19:01 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Sure you can still cut down on seconds and go to the gym, but you've got to add this one, too...
If you're in any of my classes, you've probably heard my rule: Read the Bible daily; study the Bible one to two times a week. And anytime I suggest this, I admit up front that I don't keep this perfectly every week, but it is my goal.
As many of you know, I collect translations of the Bible. One of the things I like to do while I read the Bible as part of my daily goal is to systematically read through one different translation after another. Unfortunately, unless I seriously pick up the pace, I now have more translations than I can read before I die.
Normally if you asked me whether it was better to read for content or just read something from God's Word every day, I would have to answer that it's important that you read something.
However, I would like to challenge you, especially if you've never done it before, to read through the entire Bible in 2005. Some of you may have done this many times, but I also know individuals who, although they have been believers for years and years, have never systematically read through the one book they supposedly look to for direction and guidance.
Think about it for a second. At some point in eternity, you will get to hang out with everyone there. What's it going to be like to have Zephaniah slip something into the conversation about the book he wrote in the Old Testament and you think to yourself, I didn't even know he wrote a book. Okay, granted that is a bit silly, but there are some very good reasons to read through the Bible.
1. Reading through the Bible in a systematic method gives you a complete overview of God's salvation history.
2. Reading through the BIble will draw you closer to God as you spend consistent time in his Word.
3. Reading through the Bible will better familiarize you with its content so that you can give both greater witness to an unbelieving world and give answers to those who don't understand what the Bible says.
3. Reading through the Bible will prove to be a life-changing experience. Let me explain below.
The author of Hebrews wrote, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NASB). I experienced this for myself for the first time when I was a teenager. I spent a week at home in bed with mononucleosis, and that was the first time I truly read the Bible. Now you should know that I had a difficult time as a teenager staying out of trouble, even though I had been in church since I was two-weeks old.
During that week in which I was ill, I was quite bored because back then we only had three channels on television. I wasn't interested in game shows or soap operas, so I looked around my room and my hand landed on the Bible that I carried with me to church every week. I wiped the dust of misuse off of it, and I began reading in Matthew's gospel. By the week's end, I was well into John's account. I set the Bible back into its place and didn't think much of it as I went back to school the following week.
But something was different. As I attempted to go back to doing the same things I had been doing before (things which I knew I shouldn't be doing), I was startled to have Bible verses pop into my head. It was a bit scary! Although I had accepted Christ as my savior a number of years before, I look to this week as the true turning point in my life. Granted, it was not an overnight change for me. There was a long gradual process that the Lord was bringing about in my life. In fact, you could say that the process is ongoing even today. But I can honestly say that it was really kickstarted that week I began reading the Bible in my bed while I was home alone sick.
Later, I would pick up my Bible again and finish John. Then I finished the rest of the New Testament. Then I went back and read the Old Testament. I remember the day when I finished reading the entire Bible for the first time. I drove to the parking lot at church. It was a holy moment for me, and I guess I wanted to be on some kind of holy ground. The church parking lot would do!
Since then I've read through the Bible a number of times, although I don't necessarily try to do it in one year anymore. However, this year, since I am challenging you, I am going to do it, too.
I know what you're saying. "There's no way I can read all the way through the Bible." But you can. I've heard all the excuses, such as...
I can't read through the Bible because I don't have enough time.
How long does it actually take? If you were to sit down right now and read through the entire Bible without eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom--if you were just to read through the Bible straight with no breaks--how long would it take? Two years? Half a year?
Actually, it would only take sixty hours. SIXTY HOURS! How do I know this? Well, I timed myself. No, not really. Actually, I just ran this very scientific study. I went to a local Christian book store and I surveyed the Bibles on CD. The average audio Bible was on 60 one-hour CDs. That's all. That's it. And considering that you can read silently faster than you can read aloud, you can probably read through the Bible in less time than that.
Now, think about this for a second. How long would it take you to read through the Bible if you read for a whole hour every day? Two months.
How long if you read for half an hour every day? Four months.
How long if you read for 15 minutes every day? Eight months.
So get this... If you thoughtfully read the Bible for just around ten minutes or so a day, you can read through it in a year. How much time do you spend watching TV, listening to the radio, playing video games, or whatever you do to unwind. Is it too much to ask to read through the Bible in a year by spending ten to fifteen minutes a day reading God's Word?
If you don't think you will stick to it, make yourself accountable to someone or read through it with a friend or family member. This year, Kathy and I have made it a goal to read through the new Holman Christian Standard Bible together.
So how do you do it? What's the plan?
Well, it's actually pretty easy. The no-brainer way to read through the Bible is to simply read four chapters a day. That will take you through the entire book in about a year.
However, sometimes folks bog down in certain parts. Let's be honest, sometimes a book like Leviticus isn't initially all that exciting to the average reader (personally I find it fascinating, but maybe I'm weird). Therefore, I would recommend to you a reading plan that incorporates readings from both testaments in your daily reading. Consider picking up a One-Year Bible from the book store that breaks readings down into portions from the Old Testament, New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs. There are a number of editions like this in most of the major translations.
Or simply find one of the many Bible reading plans that are around, many of which you can download from the Internet, such as this one from Discipleship Journal: Brp2.pdf.
Regardless of how you do it, just do it. Make 2005 your very own personal Year of the BIble. Experience the power of God's Word in your life completely. I promise you that your life will never be the same.
If you're in any of my classes, you've probably heard my rule: Read the Bible daily; study the Bible one to two times a week. And anytime I suggest this, I admit up front that I don't keep this perfectly every week, but it is my goal.
As many of you know, I collect translations of the Bible. One of the things I like to do while I read the Bible as part of my daily goal is to systematically read through one different translation after another. Unfortunately, unless I seriously pick up the pace, I now have more translations than I can read before I die.
Normally if you asked me whether it was better to read for content or just read something from God's Word every day, I would have to answer that it's important that you read something.
However, I would like to challenge you, especially if you've never done it before, to read through the entire Bible in 2005. Some of you may have done this many times, but I also know individuals who, although they have been believers for years and years, have never systematically read through the one book they supposedly look to for direction and guidance.
Think about it for a second. At some point in eternity, you will get to hang out with everyone there. What's it going to be like to have Zephaniah slip something into the conversation about the book he wrote in the Old Testament and you think to yourself, I didn't even know he wrote a book. Okay, granted that is a bit silly, but there are some very good reasons to read through the Bible.
1. Reading through the Bible in a systematic method gives you a complete overview of God's salvation history.
2. Reading through the BIble will draw you closer to God as you spend consistent time in his Word.
3. Reading through the Bible will better familiarize you with its content so that you can give both greater witness to an unbelieving world and give answers to those who don't understand what the Bible says.
3. Reading through the Bible will prove to be a life-changing experience. Let me explain below.
The author of Hebrews wrote, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NASB). I experienced this for myself for the first time when I was a teenager. I spent a week at home in bed with mononucleosis, and that was the first time I truly read the Bible. Now you should know that I had a difficult time as a teenager staying out of trouble, even though I had been in church since I was two-weeks old.
During that week in which I was ill, I was quite bored because back then we only had three channels on television. I wasn't interested in game shows or soap operas, so I looked around my room and my hand landed on the Bible that I carried with me to church every week. I wiped the dust of misuse off of it, and I began reading in Matthew's gospel. By the week's end, I was well into John's account. I set the Bible back into its place and didn't think much of it as I went back to school the following week.
But something was different. As I attempted to go back to doing the same things I had been doing before (things which I knew I shouldn't be doing), I was startled to have Bible verses pop into my head. It was a bit scary! Although I had accepted Christ as my savior a number of years before, I look to this week as the true turning point in my life. Granted, it was not an overnight change for me. There was a long gradual process that the Lord was bringing about in my life. In fact, you could say that the process is ongoing even today. But I can honestly say that it was really kickstarted that week I began reading the Bible in my bed while I was home alone sick.
Later, I would pick up my Bible again and finish John. Then I finished the rest of the New Testament. Then I went back and read the Old Testament. I remember the day when I finished reading the entire Bible for the first time. I drove to the parking lot at church. It was a holy moment for me, and I guess I wanted to be on some kind of holy ground. The church parking lot would do!
Since then I've read through the Bible a number of times, although I don't necessarily try to do it in one year anymore. However, this year, since I am challenging you, I am going to do it, too.
I know what you're saying. "There's no way I can read all the way through the Bible." But you can. I've heard all the excuses, such as...
I can't read through the Bible because I don't have enough time.
How long does it actually take? If you were to sit down right now and read through the entire Bible without eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom--if you were just to read through the Bible straight with no breaks--how long would it take? Two years? Half a year?
Actually, it would only take sixty hours. SIXTY HOURS! How do I know this? Well, I timed myself. No, not really. Actually, I just ran this very scientific study. I went to a local Christian book store and I surveyed the Bibles on CD. The average audio Bible was on 60 one-hour CDs. That's all. That's it. And considering that you can read silently faster than you can read aloud, you can probably read through the Bible in less time than that.
Now, think about this for a second. How long would it take you to read through the Bible if you read for a whole hour every day? Two months.
How long if you read for half an hour every day? Four months.
How long if you read for 15 minutes every day? Eight months.
So get this... If you thoughtfully read the Bible for just around ten minutes or so a day, you can read through it in a year. How much time do you spend watching TV, listening to the radio, playing video games, or whatever you do to unwind. Is it too much to ask to read through the Bible in a year by spending ten to fifteen minutes a day reading God's Word?
If you don't think you will stick to it, make yourself accountable to someone or read through it with a friend or family member. This year, Kathy and I have made it a goal to read through the new Holman Christian Standard Bible together.
So how do you do it? What's the plan?
Well, it's actually pretty easy. The no-brainer way to read through the Bible is to simply read four chapters a day. That will take you through the entire book in about a year.
However, sometimes folks bog down in certain parts. Let's be honest, sometimes a book like Leviticus isn't initially all that exciting to the average reader (personally I find it fascinating, but maybe I'm weird). Therefore, I would recommend to you a reading plan that incorporates readings from both testaments in your daily reading. Consider picking up a One-Year Bible from the book store that breaks readings down into portions from the Old Testament, New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs. There are a number of editions like this in most of the major translations.
Or simply find one of the many Bible reading plans that are around, many of which you can download from the Internet, such as this one from Discipleship Journal: Brp2.pdf.
Regardless of how you do it, just do it. Make 2005 your very own personal Year of the BIble. Experience the power of God's Word in your life completely. I promise you that your life will never be the same.
|
The Real Bible, Part 1
12/29/2004 17:08 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Thanks, Dan Brown...thanks a lot...
I'm sitting in a Moxie Java in Bossier City, Louisiana, preparing to write a blog that I've had in mind for about two weeks. December is just TOO busy of a month, isn't it?
In the corner about ten feet away are three individuals--two female, one male--who look to be about college-age. They're talking about the Bible. I so want to just walk over and butt in, but I've decided to remain silent. I've been in similar situations where I have decided not to mind my own business, but for some reason the moment doesn't feel right.
Anyway, here is the gist of the conversation I have overheard.
"I think the Bible we have is not the real Bible," says Girl 1.
"You mean that you think it's just been translated over and over and over until it no longer says what it originally said?" asks Girl 2.
Girl 1: "No, I mean I think they've purposefully changed it. I think the real Bible is hidden somewhere in the Vatican, and they've given us a copy that says what they want it to say. Like when a preacher says that the Bible says such and such, how do you really know that is what it really says? Maybe it says something is blue when really it's green or something like that. And if a preacher was really reading from the Bible, don't you think he would be speaking in Latin? And then, how would you understand it anyway?"
Oh my. I would need about an hour with these folks to begin to unravel this. And I really wish I had my Greek New Testament with me to demonstrate a few principles about where the Bible comes from.
Thanks, Dan Brown. Thanks a lot.
How common is this kind of skepticism? See this is why books like The Da Vinci Code are dangerous. In his book, Dan Brown mixes enough conspiracy theory and bogus history with real history and folks like the ones in the corner buy it. And they are not only suspicious of clergy, but of the church and the Bible itself.
If you want to read a quick view of the real history that Dan Brown distorts in The Da Vinci Code, see Collin Hansen's excellent article, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code." Or if you want something more in depth, get the little book by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction .
I am am going to come back in a few blog entries and write a part 2 to this entry which talks a bit more about where our modern Bible actually comes from. My fear is that not only does the kind of misuderstanding I overheard a while ago exist among those outside the church, but that at the very least confusion exists inside the church, too.
Silliness like The Da Vinci Code is not going to go away. In fact, it will get even more overblown once the movie adaptation directed by Ron Howard and staring Tom Hanks is released in a year or two. If you are a Christian with any kind of leadership position or if the book has raised questions in your own mind, you owe it to yourself and the people who look to you for answers to educate yourself on the facts. The two sources above are a good start.
And in the end, we might truly thank Dan Brown without the sarcasm. You see, anytime error surfaces, it gives us the opportunity to restate the truth with added clarity. Books like The Da Vinci Code give us a great opportunity to spread the true and historical gospel.
And with that said, let me turn to the subject of the original blog I sat down here to write...
I'm sitting in a Moxie Java in Bossier City, Louisiana, preparing to write a blog that I've had in mind for about two weeks. December is just TOO busy of a month, isn't it?
In the corner about ten feet away are three individuals--two female, one male--who look to be about college-age. They're talking about the Bible. I so want to just walk over and butt in, but I've decided to remain silent. I've been in similar situations where I have decided not to mind my own business, but for some reason the moment doesn't feel right.
Anyway, here is the gist of the conversation I have overheard.
"I think the Bible we have is not the real Bible," says Girl 1.
"You mean that you think it's just been translated over and over and over until it no longer says what it originally said?" asks Girl 2.
Girl 1: "No, I mean I think they've purposefully changed it. I think the real Bible is hidden somewhere in the Vatican, and they've given us a copy that says what they want it to say. Like when a preacher says that the Bible says such and such, how do you really know that is what it really says? Maybe it says something is blue when really it's green or something like that. And if a preacher was really reading from the Bible, don't you think he would be speaking in Latin? And then, how would you understand it anyway?"
Oh my. I would need about an hour with these folks to begin to unravel this. And I really wish I had my Greek New Testament with me to demonstrate a few principles about where the Bible comes from.
Thanks, Dan Brown. Thanks a lot.
How common is this kind of skepticism? See this is why books like The Da Vinci Code are dangerous. In his book, Dan Brown mixes enough conspiracy theory and bogus history with real history and folks like the ones in the corner buy it. And they are not only suspicious of clergy, but of the church and the Bible itself.
If you want to read a quick view of the real history that Dan Brown distorts in The Da Vinci Code, see Collin Hansen's excellent article, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code." Or if you want something more in depth, get the little book by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction .
I am am going to come back in a few blog entries and write a part 2 to this entry which talks a bit more about where our modern Bible actually comes from. My fear is that not only does the kind of misuderstanding I overheard a while ago exist among those outside the church, but that at the very least confusion exists inside the church, too.
Silliness like The Da Vinci Code is not going to go away. In fact, it will get even more overblown once the movie adaptation directed by Ron Howard and staring Tom Hanks is released in a year or two. If you are a Christian with any kind of leadership position or if the book has raised questions in your own mind, you owe it to yourself and the people who look to you for answers to educate yourself on the facts. The two sources above are a good start.
And in the end, we might truly thank Dan Brown without the sarcasm. You see, anytime error surfaces, it gives us the opportunity to restate the truth with added clarity. Books like The Da Vinci Code give us a great opportunity to spread the true and historical gospel.
And with that said, let me turn to the subject of the original blog I sat down here to write...
Invasion of the Secular Snowmen
12/18/2004 00:08 Filed in: Culture Watch
Say hello to the new politically correct symbol of the "Winter Festival Season."
I heard an interesting story from one of my students today. She said that recently when she was at her after-school job, she pleasantly greeted a customer with "Merry Christmas." After the customer was out of earshot, a co-worker sternly rebuked her for using that particular greeting.
"What's wrong with Merry Christmas?" she asked.
"You might offend someone," he said. "Not everyone celebrates Christmas."
Very quickly she replied, "Well, when I hear three hours of 'driedel, driedel, driedel' on the radio this time of year, I'll say something different."
Welcome to the post-Christian holiday season. Whoops. Can't even say that. To use the word holiday may offend someone since "holiday" comes from the words holy and day.
Anti-Christian bias is in full-swing this Christmas season. Don't believe me? Consider this...
- In the city of Denver this year, not only did the mayor ban the words "Merry Christmas" in the local Christmas parade, but also excluded a church from participating because their float is too religious.
- Target stores are not allowing Salvation Army bell ringers for the first time ever. The Salvation Army says they may lose up to $9 million. My suggestion--stay out of Target and let them lose $9 million.
- Lazarus-Macy's stores are no longer greeting their customers with "Merry Christmas" as official store policy.
- Christmas carolers were booted out of San Francisco's Union Square last week.
- A New Jersey school district bans even instrumental performances of any Christmas song , including ones about Santa Claus.
- School children in some schools this year are singing "We wish you a swinging holiday" instead of a merry Christmas.
As I look around the stores this Christmas, I see the words "Merry Christmas" less and less. But I see lots of "Happy Holidays" and references to "Winter Holidays." I feel like I'm living out the movie The Forgotten and pieces of my life are slowing disappearing. Christmas is going away, one carol at a time. Or perhaps you can compare it to some Orwellian vision of a future where words are redefined and history is recast in an effort to manipulate those who might want to think for themselves.
But guess what I'm seeing lots of? Snowmen. That's right, snowmen. Look around. They're everywhere. They're in people's lawns, in the stores, on television, and hanging from the light posts in many an American downtown. Why? Because they are religiously neutral. If we take away all the symbols of the holiday that carry any spiritual connection, all we're left with are snowmen, snowballs, and wreaths.
We were upset a few years ago when nativity scenes could no longer be displayed on the courthouse steps. We used to be afraid that Santa Claus had replaced Jesus as the true center of the holiday. We posted signs that "Jesus is the reason for the season." Well, now even Santa has fallen victim to out-of-control political correctness. You see, even good old St. Nick has Christian roots (Santa Claus = Saint Nicolas ). Christian trees are out, too because they have Christian connections.
But snowmen don't offend anyone, do they? They're happy, friendly, and pretty much a-theistic. Get ready to see lots more of them. I began to take notice last year that there were an inordinate amount of snowmen in Christmas decorations.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. If snowmen are your thing, if you like snowmen, that's fine. They're not of the devil, and if you have a snowman collection sitting on top of your fireplace, I don't think you're some godless infidel. So don't write me saying that I said that. I'm just pointing out the trend. I'm bringing it to your attention.
And I am confident that within a couple of years, some enterprising individual will start marketing a kneeling snowman that you can add to your nativity set.
Is this a big deal? Am I making something out of nothing? Am I being alarmist? Let me know what you think. I believe we are seeing culture shift even further toward a secular model. It's not just Christmas as we know it that's disappearing. Anything that has anything to do with Christianity is starting to be viewed not just with skepticism, but downright animosity.
Are the barbarians truly at the gate? I've got news for you--they've been there for quite a long time, and some have even come through the gate, warmed themselves by the fire, and pitched their tents. But we've ignored them, hoped they'd go away. But they didn't. And now they are starting to run the place.
What can you do about the erasing of Christ from Christmas?
1. When the word "Christmas" is removed from any area of the public sphere, politely voice your opposition. And let others know about it, so they can do the same.
2. Return all greetings of "Happy Holidays" with a "Merry Christmas" of your own. Don't be a jerk about it; just be vocal.
3. Use the secularization of the season as an opportunity for witness to it's true meaning.
4. And don't fall into the trap of commercialization and secularization yourself.
That is, unless you really want snowmen to become the symbol for the season. But I warn you. The snowman is a shallow symbol. Ultimately, although he is pretty to look at on the outside, he is cold and lifeless on the inside. And he is extremely transient when the heat is on...
I heard an interesting story from one of my students today. She said that recently when she was at her after-school job, she pleasantly greeted a customer with "Merry Christmas." After the customer was out of earshot, a co-worker sternly rebuked her for using that particular greeting.
"What's wrong with Merry Christmas?" she asked.
"You might offend someone," he said. "Not everyone celebrates Christmas."
Very quickly she replied, "Well, when I hear three hours of 'driedel, driedel, driedel' on the radio this time of year, I'll say something different."
Welcome to the post-Christian holiday season. Whoops. Can't even say that. To use the word holiday may offend someone since "holiday" comes from the words holy and day.
Anti-Christian bias is in full-swing this Christmas season. Don't believe me? Consider this...
- In the city of Denver this year, not only did the mayor ban the words "Merry Christmas" in the local Christmas parade, but also excluded a church from participating because their float is too religious.
- Target stores are not allowing Salvation Army bell ringers for the first time ever. The Salvation Army says they may lose up to $9 million. My suggestion--stay out of Target and let them lose $9 million.
- Lazarus-Macy's stores are no longer greeting their customers with "Merry Christmas" as official store policy.
- Christmas carolers were booted out of San Francisco's Union Square last week.
- A New Jersey school district bans even instrumental performances of any Christmas song , including ones about Santa Claus.
- School children in some schools this year are singing "We wish you a swinging holiday" instead of a merry Christmas.
As I look around the stores this Christmas, I see the words "Merry Christmas" less and less. But I see lots of "Happy Holidays" and references to "Winter Holidays." I feel like I'm living out the movie The Forgotten and pieces of my life are slowing disappearing. Christmas is going away, one carol at a time. Or perhaps you can compare it to some Orwellian vision of a future where words are redefined and history is recast in an effort to manipulate those who might want to think for themselves.
But guess what I'm seeing lots of? Snowmen. That's right, snowmen. Look around. They're everywhere. They're in people's lawns, in the stores, on television, and hanging from the light posts in many an American downtown. Why? Because they are religiously neutral. If we take away all the symbols of the holiday that carry any spiritual connection, all we're left with are snowmen, snowballs, and wreaths.
We were upset a few years ago when nativity scenes could no longer be displayed on the courthouse steps. We used to be afraid that Santa Claus had replaced Jesus as the true center of the holiday. We posted signs that "Jesus is the reason for the season." Well, now even Santa has fallen victim to out-of-control political correctness. You see, even good old St. Nick has Christian roots (Santa Claus = Saint Nicolas ). Christian trees are out, too because they have Christian connections.
But snowmen don't offend anyone, do they? They're happy, friendly, and pretty much a-theistic. Get ready to see lots more of them. I began to take notice last year that there were an inordinate amount of snowmen in Christmas decorations.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. If snowmen are your thing, if you like snowmen, that's fine. They're not of the devil, and if you have a snowman collection sitting on top of your fireplace, I don't think you're some godless infidel. So don't write me saying that I said that. I'm just pointing out the trend. I'm bringing it to your attention.
And I am confident that within a couple of years, some enterprising individual will start marketing a kneeling snowman that you can add to your nativity set.
Is this a big deal? Am I making something out of nothing? Am I being alarmist? Let me know what you think. I believe we are seeing culture shift even further toward a secular model. It's not just Christmas as we know it that's disappearing. Anything that has anything to do with Christianity is starting to be viewed not just with skepticism, but downright animosity.
Are the barbarians truly at the gate? I've got news for you--they've been there for quite a long time, and some have even come through the gate, warmed themselves by the fire, and pitched their tents. But we've ignored them, hoped they'd go away. But they didn't. And now they are starting to run the place.
What can you do about the erasing of Christ from Christmas?
1. When the word "Christmas" is removed from any area of the public sphere, politely voice your opposition. And let others know about it, so they can do the same.
2. Return all greetings of "Happy Holidays" with a "Merry Christmas" of your own. Don't be a jerk about it; just be vocal.
3. Use the secularization of the season as an opportunity for witness to it's true meaning.
4. And don't fall into the trap of commercialization and secularization yourself.
That is, unless you really want snowmen to become the symbol for the season. But I warn you. The snowman is a shallow symbol. Ultimately, although he is pretty to look at on the outside, he is cold and lifeless on the inside. And he is extremely transient when the heat is on...
Oliver Stone's Alexander
12/17/2004 03:25 Filed in: Movies and Television
From here on referred to as Alexander: The Not-So-Great
After Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came from the land of Kittim, had defeated King Darius of the Persians and the Medes, he succeeded him as king. (He had previously become king of Greece.) He fought many battles, conquered strongholds, and put to death the kings of the earth. He advanced to the ends of the earth, and plundered many nations. When the earth became quiet before him, he was exalted, and his heart was lifted up. He gathered a very strong army and ruled over countries, nations, and princes, and they became tributary to him.
After this he fell sick and perceived that he was dying. So he summoned his most honored officers, who had been brought up with him from youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was still alive. And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died.
1 Maccabees 1:1-8, NRSV
Colin Farrell will not look back on this picture as the highlight of his career.
I really cannot recommend Alexander for entertainment's sake. If you love ancient history as I do, you might get something out of it. Frankly, I breathed deeply as I looked out over the city of Babylon with Euphrates River flowing directly through the middle of the city. The landscapes and battles interest me, but that's about it. I was not pleased with the story written by Oliver Stone who also directed the movie.
Oliver Stone loves to twist history. I suppose that by creating an Alexander with bisexual tendencies, an Alexander with a maniacal obsession to find the eastern edge of the world, an Alexander who was poisoned at his death gives Stone some kind of warped feeling of significance. But as far as I know, Alexander the Great was none of these things.
The movie has an all-star cast. Christopher Plummer plays Aristotle. Anthony Hopkins is Ptolemy and narrates much of the movie. Val Kilmer is an excellent choice to play Alexander's father, Philip the Macedonian. Surprisingly, Angelina Jolee delivers perhaps the best performance of the film as Alexander's ambitious mother, Olympias.
But I am sure I am not the only person who has pointed out that Colin Farrell makes a lousy Alexander. I didn't feel that he ever fit the part, and frankly, it was a distraction throughout the movie. Casting for the younger Alexander was very well done as the boy they selected looked so much like Colin Farrell that you would think they filmed these scenes twenty years ago. Yet Farrell as Alexander was a disappointment.
Alexander is extremely violent and contains some of the bloodiest battle scenes I've ever watched. If you're a hard-core history fan and want to see a modern recreation of the ancient world, you may enjoy at least a little bit of the movie. However, if you aren't the least bit interested in such things, I would recommend that you stay away from Stone's interpretation altogether.
I know of no direct evidence that Alexander had leanings toward homosexuality. It could be possible since he was educated by Aristotle and the Greeks promoted the erotic love of young boys as a viable lifestyle. Note that this idea was not as welcome later in Roman society and absolutely forbidden in Jewish thought. But Stone wants to portray Alexander as a modern person--open to all forms of sexuality and openly welcoming all people, including the non-Greek-speaking (the barbarians) as equal. But it just doesn't work in the film.
Although the battle scenes were exciting at first, there are eventually so many of them that they become routine and trying to line up movie battles with actual historical battles became a bit tedious, if not impossible. By the time Alexander and his troops were in India where the locals charged into battle on elephants, I felt like I was back watching The Return of the King as the" oliphants" attacked.
From a biblical perspective, Alexander was a very significant individual. Alexander is referenced implicitly in Scripture if you interpret him as the third beast in Daniel (Dan 7:6). And he is mentioned by name in 1 Maccabees as quoted above. His real contribution comes from spreading the Greek culture, something that he--like his father Philip before him--had been quite enamored with. In reality, both Alexander and his father Philip were Macedonians, but they saw Greek education and government as something superior to their own.
By spreading a common language throughout the known world, New Testament Christians would be able to spread the Gospel without virtually any language barrier. The New Testament itself was written in Greek. The spread of the Gospel message would have been considerably more difficult had it not been for Alexander's military campaigns and the unifying effect he had on the ancient world.
I have attached an Adobe Reader/PDF file below that contains an article on the real Alexander from the IVP New Testament Backgrounds Dictionary. You will need the free Adobe Reader to access this file.
alexander.pdf
After this he fell sick and perceived that he was dying. So he summoned his most honored officers, who had been brought up with him from youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was still alive. And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died.
1 Maccabees 1:1-8, NRSV
Colin Farrell will not look back on this picture as the highlight of his career.
I really cannot recommend Alexander for entertainment's sake. If you love ancient history as I do, you might get something out of it. Frankly, I breathed deeply as I looked out over the city of Babylon with Euphrates River flowing directly through the middle of the city. The landscapes and battles interest me, but that's about it. I was not pleased with the story written by Oliver Stone who also directed the movie.
Oliver Stone loves to twist history. I suppose that by creating an Alexander with bisexual tendencies, an Alexander with a maniacal obsession to find the eastern edge of the world, an Alexander who was poisoned at his death gives Stone some kind of warped feeling of significance. But as far as I know, Alexander the Great was none of these things.
The movie has an all-star cast. Christopher Plummer plays Aristotle. Anthony Hopkins is Ptolemy and narrates much of the movie. Val Kilmer is an excellent choice to play Alexander's father, Philip the Macedonian. Surprisingly, Angelina Jolee delivers perhaps the best performance of the film as Alexander's ambitious mother, Olympias.
But I am sure I am not the only person who has pointed out that Colin Farrell makes a lousy Alexander. I didn't feel that he ever fit the part, and frankly, it was a distraction throughout the movie. Casting for the younger Alexander was very well done as the boy they selected looked so much like Colin Farrell that you would think they filmed these scenes twenty years ago. Yet Farrell as Alexander was a disappointment.
Alexander is extremely violent and contains some of the bloodiest battle scenes I've ever watched. If you're a hard-core history fan and want to see a modern recreation of the ancient world, you may enjoy at least a little bit of the movie. However, if you aren't the least bit interested in such things, I would recommend that you stay away from Stone's interpretation altogether.
I know of no direct evidence that Alexander had leanings toward homosexuality. It could be possible since he was educated by Aristotle and the Greeks promoted the erotic love of young boys as a viable lifestyle. Note that this idea was not as welcome later in Roman society and absolutely forbidden in Jewish thought. But Stone wants to portray Alexander as a modern person--open to all forms of sexuality and openly welcoming all people, including the non-Greek-speaking (the barbarians) as equal. But it just doesn't work in the film.
Although the battle scenes were exciting at first, there are eventually so many of them that they become routine and trying to line up movie battles with actual historical battles became a bit tedious, if not impossible. By the time Alexander and his troops were in India where the locals charged into battle on elephants, I felt like I was back watching The Return of the King as the" oliphants" attacked.
From a biblical perspective, Alexander was a very significant individual. Alexander is referenced implicitly in Scripture if you interpret him as the third beast in Daniel (Dan 7:6). And he is mentioned by name in 1 Maccabees as quoted above. His real contribution comes from spreading the Greek culture, something that he--like his father Philip before him--had been quite enamored with. In reality, both Alexander and his father Philip were Macedonians, but they saw Greek education and government as something superior to their own.
By spreading a common language throughout the known world, New Testament Christians would be able to spread the Gospel without virtually any language barrier. The New Testament itself was written in Greek. The spread of the Gospel message would have been considerably more difficult had it not been for Alexander's military campaigns and the unifying effect he had on the ancient world.
I have attached an Adobe Reader/PDF file below that contains an article on the real Alexander from the IVP New Testament Backgrounds Dictionary. You will need the free Adobe Reader to access this file.
alexander.pdf
National Treasure
12/17/2004 03:22 Filed in: Movies and Television
I'm sure you know this by now, but Nicolas Cage plays Benjamin Franklin Gates who is the inheritor of a family secret about an ancient treasure that has been passed down from the Templar Knights of the Crusades to the Founding Fathers of our nation. I'm not telling you anything the previews haven't to mention that the key to finding this treasure is written in invisible ink on the back of the Declaration of Independence. But Gates isn't the only one who knows this. And since the bad guys want to steal it, Gates decides the only right thing to do is to steal it himself. And thus, you have the setting for a race to get to the treasure first.
This movie has elements that you've seen before. Mix Raiders of the Lost Ark, Tombraider, Oceans 11/12, and the plot points of a Dan Brown novel and you have National Treasure. But in spite of the fact that it's not the most original of movies, it is a very well done movie, compared for instance with disappointing second Tombraider installment last year. If you like history, especially history of the Revolutionary War era, you will love this movie. I could realistically see a high school history teacher showing this movie to his class and then using it as a catalyst to discuss key events in the founding of our nation.
National Treasure makes a great date movie. It's just long enough at an hour and a half. It's clean, entertaining, and tells a great story.
Napoleon Dynamite
12/07/2004 03:21 Filed in: Movies and Television
"Just follow your heart. That's what I do." --Napoleon Dynamite
Napoleon on girls:
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills...
Napoleon's compliment to Deb:
I see you're drinking 1% milk. Is that because you think you're fat? Because you're not. You could probably be drinking whole milk.
You'll find mixed reviews on this movie. I liked it. Roger Ebert hated it. So who're you going to go with? But Roger, like a lot of folks, will never get this movie. He's uncomfortable with it and compares it to Adam Sandler movies which he also doesn't like. He feels like these movies make fun of certain kinds of people and he doesn't like that. But if you look at an Adam Sandler movie like Water Boy , surely folks know that it is not about real people. Sandler's character is more of a caricature in that film than anything else. Maybe Ebert just feels a bit guilty for picking on the other kids when he was in school.
Napoleon Dynamite is not a caricature. I knew people just like him when I was in high school. Napoleon for the most part lives in his own fantasy world. He's into nunchucks, Chinese throwing stars, D&D, and more than anything else, he is not afraid to be who is.
I remember a friend of mine named Paul in high school. Paul was a bit of a misfit like Napoleon, but a very likable fellow if you got to know him. One day in the dressing room after PE, a much larger guy started picking on him. Paul reached down and pulled out a pair of nunchucks from the front of his pants (yeah, really). He raised them up in the air and struck a pose right out of a B-grade martial arts movie. The bully simply reached down, took the nunchucks from Paul, and hit him over the head with them. I walked over to Paul and helped him up off the floor. My suggestion to him? I said, "Paul, in the future, if you are going to pull those things out, you'd better use them or run."
Anyway, Napoleon Dynamite lives with his brother and grandmother in [the beautiful state of] Idaho. Grandma gets hurt riding dune buggies, and Uncle Rico comes to live with them. Meanwhile, Napoleon befriends Pedro, the only latino and the only guy with a mustache in the school. He decides to help Pedro run against the popular girl Summer for class president. Oh, and both Napoleon and Pedro seem to like the same girl, Deb. That's essentially the plot.
It's really a pretty funny movie. Really.
But you'll either get it or you won't. It's according to what kind of sense of humor you have. Probably guys will like this movie more than girls, although Kathy laughed all the way through it.
I liked Napoleon. He's not afraid to be himself in spite of being very different from his classmates. He's not afraid of being an outsider. He had a strong sense of fairness and unfairness. He's not afraid to stand up for others who are being picked on, and he's a loyal friend.
This movie also has a number of throw-away scenes that have nothing to do with the central plot. There's a scene where Napoleon identifies different kinds of tainted milk for a panel and is extremely pleased with himself that he can get every one correct. This has nothing to do with anything, but it gives you further insight into Napoleon's character.
Kathy and I saw this movie over the weekend at the Village 8, here in Louisville--a theater that shows movies a few months after their release for a lower ticket price. There was a group of folks in the theater who obviously had seen the movie before. Had it not been for them, we wouldn't have known to wait until the credits were over to see the wedding scene.
Napoleon Dynamite is an independent film that was a hit at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. The entire movie was edited in producer Jeremy Coon's apartment on a Mac using Final Cut Pro. Fox Searchlight Pictures picked it up after representatives saw it at Sundance. It was released over the summer and is now on DVD. Rent it, and don't be surprised if you find yourself asking things like "Do the chickens have large talons"?
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills...
Napoleon's compliment to Deb:
I see you're drinking 1% milk. Is that because you think you're fat? Because you're not. You could probably be drinking whole milk.
You'll find mixed reviews on this movie. I liked it. Roger Ebert hated it. So who're you going to go with? But Roger, like a lot of folks, will never get this movie. He's uncomfortable with it and compares it to Adam Sandler movies which he also doesn't like. He feels like these movies make fun of certain kinds of people and he doesn't like that. But if you look at an Adam Sandler movie like Water Boy , surely folks know that it is not about real people. Sandler's character is more of a caricature in that film than anything else. Maybe Ebert just feels a bit guilty for picking on the other kids when he was in school.
Napoleon Dynamite is not a caricature. I knew people just like him when I was in high school. Napoleon for the most part lives in his own fantasy world. He's into nunchucks, Chinese throwing stars, D&D, and more than anything else, he is not afraid to be who is.
I remember a friend of mine named Paul in high school. Paul was a bit of a misfit like Napoleon, but a very likable fellow if you got to know him. One day in the dressing room after PE, a much larger guy started picking on him. Paul reached down and pulled out a pair of nunchucks from the front of his pants (yeah, really). He raised them up in the air and struck a pose right out of a B-grade martial arts movie. The bully simply reached down, took the nunchucks from Paul, and hit him over the head with them. I walked over to Paul and helped him up off the floor. My suggestion to him? I said, "Paul, in the future, if you are going to pull those things out, you'd better use them or run."
Anyway, Napoleon Dynamite lives with his brother and grandmother in [the beautiful state of] Idaho. Grandma gets hurt riding dune buggies, and Uncle Rico comes to live with them. Meanwhile, Napoleon befriends Pedro, the only latino and the only guy with a mustache in the school. He decides to help Pedro run against the popular girl Summer for class president. Oh, and both Napoleon and Pedro seem to like the same girl, Deb. That's essentially the plot.
It's really a pretty funny movie. Really.
But you'll either get it or you won't. It's according to what kind of sense of humor you have. Probably guys will like this movie more than girls, although Kathy laughed all the way through it.
I liked Napoleon. He's not afraid to be himself in spite of being very different from his classmates. He's not afraid of being an outsider. He had a strong sense of fairness and unfairness. He's not afraid to stand up for others who are being picked on, and he's a loyal friend.
This movie also has a number of throw-away scenes that have nothing to do with the central plot. There's a scene where Napoleon identifies different kinds of tainted milk for a panel and is extremely pleased with himself that he can get every one correct. This has nothing to do with anything, but it gives you further insight into Napoleon's character.
Kathy and I saw this movie over the weekend at the Village 8, here in Louisville--a theater that shows movies a few months after their release for a lower ticket price. There was a group of folks in the theater who obviously had seen the movie before. Had it not been for them, we wouldn't have known to wait until the credits were over to see the wedding scene.
Napoleon Dynamite is an independent film that was a hit at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. The entire movie was edited in producer Jeremy Coon's apartment on a Mac using Final Cut Pro. Fox Searchlight Pictures picked it up after representatives saw it at Sundance. It was released over the summer and is now on DVD. Rent it, and don't be surprised if you find yourself asking things like "Do the chickens have large talons"?
The Blog at One Year
12/06/2004 09:21 Filed in: Miscellaneous
A retrospect...
ABOVE: Surely if Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536) were alive today, he would be a blogger...
Blogs are huge.
And yet, a lot of people don't know what a blog is. The spell-checker in my blogging software (iBlog) still puts a red underline under the word "blog" to indicate that it may be a misspelled word. Funny.
After a year, I still get an email occasionally from one of you (in fact, I got one last week--you know who you are) asking exactly what a blog is. Rather than retype my answer over and over, I always point folks to the second blog I penned shortly after I started this thing: "Question: What Is a Blog ?"
Well, if you had to ask, don't feel bad, the folks at Merriam-Webster (the only true inheritors of Noah Webster's dictionary ) report that it was the most frequently looked-up word on their website for 2004. "Blog" outranked other lookups including words such as "incumbent," "cicada," "partisan," and "sovereignty."
Some have called bloggers "citizen journalists. They are credited with being the first to call into question Dan Rather's story about George Bush's National Guard service. In spite of some of the junk found in blogs, sometimes they are now the first source of breaking news.
Some people even lost their jobs over writing blogs last year. See "Blogs May Be a Wealth Hazard" from Wired.com
I started "Ricks' Blog a little over a year ago--December 2, 2003 after two separate individuals suggested I do so. Mid-November last year, one of you (you, too, know who you are) emailed me a short little message out of the blue: "You should start your very own Blog. You could review movies, technology and pop culture." Well, that got me thinking about it, and that very quote led to the name of my blog which is admittedly kinda long. When I sat back and looked at it on the internet for the first time, I thought to myself that I may be trying to cover too much: "RICK'S BLOG: Religion, Technology, Books, Movies & Politics". But if it was already long, it couldn't hurt to make it a little bit longer, so I added a line from Steve Martin's movie The Jerk : "And this lamp...and that's all I need... ."
Here are some highlights in the brief timeline of Rick's Blog:
12/2/2003 - Rick's Blog begins !
1/6/2004 - My death of PageMaker story gets picked up my MacSurfer . Too bad I didn't have the counter going then. I probably got a kabillion hits. You can still find the page by clicking on MacSurfer in the first sentence, and then searching for PageMaker. However, the link is broken because I have restructured the way my blog sits on my website since then.
1/25/2004 - My tirade against people leaving shopping carts in the parking lot gets a huge amount of attention, especially from MOTHERS. I follow-up two days later with a column entitled "Walking a Mile in Another Woman's Shoes ."
2/26/2004 - In true blogger fashion, I went to see Passion of the Christ and posted my review immediately afterwards. Quite a number of you told me that you read my review before you saw the movie. And some said that it was the review itself that made you decide to see the movie.
2/272004 - 5/28/2004 - The blog goes on hiatus after only 12 entries as I push aside anything extra in my world. Kathy and I got remarried on March 26 and I spend the next few weeks getting reacquainted to the things in life that really matter.
6/8/2004 - In an attempt at Mo-blogging (don't ask), I lose all my blogs on the software end of things. I have to manually recreate every blog by copying and pasting from my website. I take the time to do some major behind-the-scenes restructuring.
9/28/2004 - I added HaloScan comments and a counter to the site. The comments allow you to leave feedback beyond just emailing me. It's fun. I feel like we have a bit of community here when the discussion starts to build. Also, when I added the counter, my pride wouldn't let me set it at zero. So I guessed and started it at 700 hits. However, I must've drastically undershot because we've more than doubled that number in a little over two months. Oh well. Plus, who knows what it would have been if we could have counted the kabillion or so hits from the MacSurfer link.
11/3/2004 - I purchased the domain http://ricksblog.net and use it as a redirect to my blog. That's much easier to remember than ../../B992311189/index.html.
And now, here we are at one year! I had three goals for the blog when I started it. Two were stated and one was not.
First, I didn't want the blog to become something of a drudgery. I am glad to report, though, that it never has been. I just don't have enough time to write! However, I have enough ideas in my head that I think I could write multiple blog entries everyday!
Second, I didn't want the blog to become a diary. I didn't want this to become too personal because, realistically, who cares? However, I think I've been successful creating a healthy balance by only getting personal when it's appropriate--like the Thanksgiving Day entry.
Third--and this is the goal that I had made only to myself--I wanted to be able to write a minimum of one blog per week. Considering that there are 55 blogs written in the first year, I guess I reached that goal--if you go by averages. However, I've usually found that I go in spurts. I have a slightly different goal for the second year of my blog. I'll let you know in next year's retrospect.
You may or may not have noticed that in the full title of my blog, I include the word "books." But until last week, there wasn't even a category for books. This has been difficult for me. I am constantly reading and I always have books with me. But admittedly, I realize that a lot of what I read other folks may not be overly interested in, and I have wanted to keep these entries aimed pretty much at a general audience. However, I am going to make a concerted effort to change that. I am going to post more about books in the next year, and I would invite you to do the same. Maybe occasionally, you may want to tell others about a good book you've read. Feel free to submit a guest blog review of something you've read recently. I've already asked one of you (and you certainly know who you are) to write a guest review of U2's new CD, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." If you don't turn that into me soon, I'll just have to include an entry that says "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ never turned in his U2 review."
Thanks for all your help and suggestions. Feel free to join in the conversation in the comments section anytime you want.
In the meantime, keep reading...
ABOVE: Surely if Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536) were alive today, he would be a blogger...
Blogs are huge.
And yet, a lot of people don't know what a blog is. The spell-checker in my blogging software (iBlog) still puts a red underline under the word "blog" to indicate that it may be a misspelled word. Funny.
After a year, I still get an email occasionally from one of you (in fact, I got one last week--you know who you are) asking exactly what a blog is. Rather than retype my answer over and over, I always point folks to the second blog I penned shortly after I started this thing: "Question: What Is a Blog ?"
Well, if you had to ask, don't feel bad, the folks at Merriam-Webster (the only true inheritors of Noah Webster's dictionary ) report that it was the most frequently looked-up word on their website for 2004. "Blog" outranked other lookups including words such as "incumbent," "cicada," "partisan," and "sovereignty."
Some have called bloggers "citizen journalists. They are credited with being the first to call into question Dan Rather's story about George Bush's National Guard service. In spite of some of the junk found in blogs, sometimes they are now the first source of breaking news.
Some people even lost their jobs over writing blogs last year. See "Blogs May Be a Wealth Hazard" from Wired.com
I started "Ricks' Blog a little over a year ago--December 2, 2003 after two separate individuals suggested I do so. Mid-November last year, one of you (you, too, know who you are) emailed me a short little message out of the blue: "You should start your very own Blog. You could review movies, technology and pop culture." Well, that got me thinking about it, and that very quote led to the name of my blog which is admittedly kinda long. When I sat back and looked at it on the internet for the first time, I thought to myself that I may be trying to cover too much: "RICK'S BLOG: Religion, Technology, Books, Movies & Politics". But if it was already long, it couldn't hurt to make it a little bit longer, so I added a line from Steve Martin's movie The Jerk : "And this lamp...and that's all I need... ."
Here are some highlights in the brief timeline of Rick's Blog:
12/2/2003 - Rick's Blog begins !
1/6/2004 - My death of PageMaker story gets picked up my MacSurfer . Too bad I didn't have the counter going then. I probably got a kabillion hits. You can still find the page by clicking on MacSurfer in the first sentence, and then searching for PageMaker. However, the link is broken because I have restructured the way my blog sits on my website since then.
1/25/2004 - My tirade against people leaving shopping carts in the parking lot gets a huge amount of attention, especially from MOTHERS. I follow-up two days later with a column entitled "Walking a Mile in Another Woman's Shoes ."
2/26/2004 - In true blogger fashion, I went to see Passion of the Christ and posted my review immediately afterwards. Quite a number of you told me that you read my review before you saw the movie. And some said that it was the review itself that made you decide to see the movie.
2/272004 - 5/28/2004 - The blog goes on hiatus after only 12 entries as I push aside anything extra in my world. Kathy and I got remarried on March 26 and I spend the next few weeks getting reacquainted to the things in life that really matter.
6/8/2004 - In an attempt at Mo-blogging (don't ask), I lose all my blogs on the software end of things. I have to manually recreate every blog by copying and pasting from my website. I take the time to do some major behind-the-scenes restructuring.
9/28/2004 - I added HaloScan comments and a counter to the site. The comments allow you to leave feedback beyond just emailing me. It's fun. I feel like we have a bit of community here when the discussion starts to build. Also, when I added the counter, my pride wouldn't let me set it at zero. So I guessed and started it at 700 hits. However, I must've drastically undershot because we've more than doubled that number in a little over two months. Oh well. Plus, who knows what it would have been if we could have counted the kabillion or so hits from the MacSurfer link.
11/3/2004 - I purchased the domain http://ricksblog.net and use it as a redirect to my blog. That's much easier to remember than ../../B992311189/index.html.
And now, here we are at one year! I had three goals for the blog when I started it. Two were stated and one was not.
First, I didn't want the blog to become something of a drudgery. I am glad to report, though, that it never has been. I just don't have enough time to write! However, I have enough ideas in my head that I think I could write multiple blog entries everyday!
Second, I didn't want the blog to become a diary. I didn't want this to become too personal because, realistically, who cares? However, I think I've been successful creating a healthy balance by only getting personal when it's appropriate--like the Thanksgiving Day entry.
Third--and this is the goal that I had made only to myself--I wanted to be able to write a minimum of one blog per week. Considering that there are 55 blogs written in the first year, I guess I reached that goal--if you go by averages. However, I've usually found that I go in spurts. I have a slightly different goal for the second year of my blog. I'll let you know in next year's retrospect.
You may or may not have noticed that in the full title of my blog, I include the word "books." But until last week, there wasn't even a category for books. This has been difficult for me. I am constantly reading and I always have books with me. But admittedly, I realize that a lot of what I read other folks may not be overly interested in, and I have wanted to keep these entries aimed pretty much at a general audience. However, I am going to make a concerted effort to change that. I am going to post more about books in the next year, and I would invite you to do the same. Maybe occasionally, you may want to tell others about a good book you've read. Feel free to submit a guest blog review of something you've read recently. I've already asked one of you (and you certainly know who you are) to write a guest review of U2's new CD, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." If you don't turn that into me soon, I'll just have to include an entry that says "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ never turned in his U2 review."
Thanks for all your help and suggestions. Feel free to join in the conversation in the comments section anytime you want.
In the meantime, keep reading...