Nov 2004
Happy Birthday, C. S. Lewis
11/29/2004 00:15 Filed in: Books & Literature
He would have been 106 if alive today...
Happy birthday to C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963).
When I was in college, I was practically obsessed with C. S. Lewis. My goal was to read everything he wrote (something I gave up a long time ago). I read so much Lewis back then that I often got marked off in term papers for using British spellings (favour instead of favor, analyse instead of analyze, etc.). For the longest time, beginning in college and even into my first year or two in seminary, I managed to use at least one Lewis quotation in every paper I wrote. But that got a bit old, if not forced after a while.
C. S. Lewis died on November 23, 1963 which just so happened to be the same day that John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) also died. A few years ago Peter Kreeft wrote a fictionalized account of the conversation of the three on the other side while they waited to stand before God. The book is entitled, Between Heaven and Hell . It makes for a pretty good read on the differences in worldviews of Lewis, Huxley, and Kennedy.
By the way, Perry Bramlett, one of the world's foremost experts on all-things-Lewis, lives right here in Louisville, Kentucky. He speaks year-round at churches and literary groups around the country. If you would like information about his ministry or want to consider booking him for an event, check out his website .
Celebrate C. S. Lewis' birthday by reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to your child or even to yourself. He would like that. Read (or reread) Mere Christianity or The Screwtape Letters. Or if nothing else, insert Shadowlands into the DVD player for a pretty good Hollywood adaptation of the latter part of Lewis' life.
I wonder what other notable people were born on November 29?
When I was in college, I was practically obsessed with C. S. Lewis. My goal was to read everything he wrote (something I gave up a long time ago). I read so much Lewis back then that I often got marked off in term papers for using British spellings (favour instead of favor, analyse instead of analyze, etc.). For the longest time, beginning in college and even into my first year or two in seminary, I managed to use at least one Lewis quotation in every paper I wrote. But that got a bit old, if not forced after a while.
C. S. Lewis died on November 23, 1963 which just so happened to be the same day that John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) also died. A few years ago Peter Kreeft wrote a fictionalized account of the conversation of the three on the other side while they waited to stand before God. The book is entitled, Between Heaven and Hell . It makes for a pretty good read on the differences in worldviews of Lewis, Huxley, and Kennedy.
By the way, Perry Bramlett, one of the world's foremost experts on all-things-Lewis, lives right here in Louisville, Kentucky. He speaks year-round at churches and literary groups around the country. If you would like information about his ministry or want to consider booking him for an event, check out his website .
Celebrate C. S. Lewis' birthday by reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to your child or even to yourself. He would like that. Read (or reread) Mere Christianity or The Screwtape Letters. Or if nothing else, insert Shadowlands into the DVD player for a pretty good Hollywood adaptation of the latter part of Lewis' life.
I wonder what other notable people were born on November 29?
|
Black Friday Should Be Called "Red Friday"
11/27/2004 23:20 Filed in: Culture Watch
Stop the bleeding already...
First the good news: businesses across America saw a combined $8 billion dollar day on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Spending was up 15% over last year. This will be good for the economy in the short term.
Now the bad news. Americans spent a WHOLE lot of money they didn't have which may lead to economic disaster in the long term.
The numbers are still coming in, but it's very interesting what is being said and not being said. Of the $8 billion spent yesterday, Visa is claiming that $4.1 Billion (that's slightly more than half for the mathematically challenged) was processed through its credit cards. Now in all the reports, the folks at Visa are quick to point out that 44% of all transactions were made with Visa debit cards meaning this portion of spending was made with readily available cash from checking accounts.
While that is commendable, what was said nowhere in the reports is that if 44% was spent with Visa debit services, 56% was spent with Visa credit! Let's do the math on that. If Visa is claiming $4.1 billion in transactions and 56% was in credit purchases, that means Americans spent $2.3 billion that they didn't have.
And that's just Visa. Of the remaining $3.9 billion spent on Friday, there's no telling how many folks used their Mastercards, Discover, and American Express cards to buy things they don't have the money for. And this is not good for the economy in the long run because in many cases it will overextend the financial health of American families, and in some scenarios, eventually lead to bankruptcy.
One report that I heard said that the average purchase made on Friday was $64, but the average credit purchase was $85. When you use credit cards--even if you pay them off at the end of the month--studies have shown that you spend more. When you spend cash, you are more aware of the outflow of your resources than when you use credit.
Maybe the day after Thanksgiving is "Black Friday" to the retailers, but it's "Red Friday" to the average consumer who is charging for Christmas gifts that he or she can't afford.
It's been a little more than one year since I said "No more" to living on credit (read my blog, "Searching for Financial Peace" to know more). Take it from an ex-credit addict, just say no this Christmas to spending what you don't have. When you're still paying for Christmas--plus interest, finance charges and late fees--in June, all the people you bought gifts for won't even remember what you got them.
Here's an idea. Why don't you simplify instead? Make your Christmas cards (I received a homemade birthday card today, and it was just fine). Instead of big expensive gifts, give coupons for gifts of time, afternoons or evenings to spend together at the receiver's choosing. Make your husband a scarf and your neighbor a homemade cake. Most of us will feel a need to purchase some gifts, but make a small, yet reasonable limit to how much you're willing to spend and stick to it.
And then tell your family that the greatest gift you are giving them this Christmas is the gift of financial security by not charging things for which you can't pay cash...
Now the bad news. Americans spent a WHOLE lot of money they didn't have which may lead to economic disaster in the long term.
The numbers are still coming in, but it's very interesting what is being said and not being said. Of the $8 billion spent yesterday, Visa is claiming that $4.1 Billion (that's slightly more than half for the mathematically challenged) was processed through its credit cards. Now in all the reports, the folks at Visa are quick to point out that 44% of all transactions were made with Visa debit cards meaning this portion of spending was made with readily available cash from checking accounts.
While that is commendable, what was said nowhere in the reports is that if 44% was spent with Visa debit services, 56% was spent with Visa credit! Let's do the math on that. If Visa is claiming $4.1 billion in transactions and 56% was in credit purchases, that means Americans spent $2.3 billion that they didn't have.
And that's just Visa. Of the remaining $3.9 billion spent on Friday, there's no telling how many folks used their Mastercards, Discover, and American Express cards to buy things they don't have the money for. And this is not good for the economy in the long run because in many cases it will overextend the financial health of American families, and in some scenarios, eventually lead to bankruptcy.
One report that I heard said that the average purchase made on Friday was $64, but the average credit purchase was $85. When you use credit cards--even if you pay them off at the end of the month--studies have shown that you spend more. When you spend cash, you are more aware of the outflow of your resources than when you use credit.
Maybe the day after Thanksgiving is "Black Friday" to the retailers, but it's "Red Friday" to the average consumer who is charging for Christmas gifts that he or she can't afford.
It's been a little more than one year since I said "No more" to living on credit (read my blog, "Searching for Financial Peace" to know more). Take it from an ex-credit addict, just say no this Christmas to spending what you don't have. When you're still paying for Christmas--plus interest, finance charges and late fees--in June, all the people you bought gifts for won't even remember what you got them.
Here's an idea. Why don't you simplify instead? Make your Christmas cards (I received a homemade birthday card today, and it was just fine). Instead of big expensive gifts, give coupons for gifts of time, afternoons or evenings to spend together at the receiver's choosing. Make your husband a scarf and your neighbor a homemade cake. Most of us will feel a need to purchase some gifts, but make a small, yet reasonable limit to how much you're willing to spend and stick to it.
And then tell your family that the greatest gift you are giving them this Christmas is the gift of financial security by not charging things for which you can't pay cash...
Happy Thanksgiving
11/23/2004 10:00 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow (James 1:17, NASB)
I'm posting this a couple of days early because I will be out of town and may not be able to update my blog when I'm gone.
When I started this blog almost a year ago, I stated that I was going to primarily try to avoid the personal stuff. But how can you talk about thankfulness without being personal?
I am very thankful this year--perhaps even much more thankful than in previous years. What am I most thankful for? If I had to pick one thing for this year--for this time in my life, I am thankful for being married to my wife Kathy. I am thankful that we are together. Our life together is absolutely wonderful, and because of things we've gone through, we work hard to not take each other for granted. Everyday when I leave my work and head home, I drive with anticipation for seeing my wife, my love. Every moment I have with her, I consider precious.
What are you thankful for this year? What is the best gift God has given you? Click the comments link below and declare it to the whole world. And if you are thankful for someone or thankful for what someone has done for you, make sure you let that person know.
When I started this blog almost a year ago, I stated that I was going to primarily try to avoid the personal stuff. But how can you talk about thankfulness without being personal?
I am very thankful this year--perhaps even much more thankful than in previous years. What am I most thankful for? If I had to pick one thing for this year--for this time in my life, I am thankful for being married to my wife Kathy. I am thankful that we are together. Our life together is absolutely wonderful, and because of things we've gone through, we work hard to not take each other for granted. Everyday when I leave my work and head home, I drive with anticipation for seeing my wife, my love. Every moment I have with her, I consider precious.
What are you thankful for this year? What is the best gift God has given you? Click the comments link below and declare it to the whole world. And if you are thankful for someone or thankful for what someone has done for you, make sure you let that person know.
Poll: What's Your Favorite Bible Translation?
11/20/2004 16:12 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Although the tag button says vote, it's not really a vote. I would just like to see percentages of current Bible usage from folks who frequent the site. If you choose "Other," email me and let me know which really obscure translation you are using.
I will let this poll run a couple of weeks and then I will post the results.
Is the Message Soft on Homosexuality?
11/19/2004 15:18 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Does Peterson have a secret agenda, or can even a good version of the Bible have a dud verse here and there?
[Corrected 9:45 PM]
After my earlier review of The Message//Remix, one of you emailed me to question Peterson's paraphrase in regard to homosexuality. You wrote:
I read some of Eugene Peterson's The Message, and had concerns. I do not have the passage at hand, but he completely leaves out the word "homosexual" and did not replace it with a synonym. I think he said something like, "sexual sin." It's the passage from Paul, about who will inherit the kingdom. Everyone is on the bandwagon for The Message (so was I, and I hadn't even read it!). Anyway, I saw that you recommended it. Have you looked at the "redefined" passages?
Well, I have read Peterson's entire translation of the New Testament (I've almost completed the Old Testament), but I have to admit that I didn't remember how the passage described above was worded. The text referred to in the email is 1 Corinthians 6:9. Compare it to a more traditional translation side-by-side.
[Corrected 9:45 PM]
I read some of Eugene Peterson's The Message, and had concerns. I do not have the passage at hand, but he completely leaves out the word "homosexual" and did not replace it with a synonym. I think he said something like, "sexual sin." It's the passage from Paul, about who will inherit the kingdom. Everyone is on the bandwagon for The Message (so was I, and I hadn't even read it!). Anyway, I saw that you recommended it. Have you looked at the "redefined" passages?
Well, I have read Peterson's entire translation of the New Testament (I've almost completed the Old Testament), but I have to admit that I didn't remember how the passage described above was worded. The text referred to in the email is 1 Corinthians 6:9. Compare it to a more traditional translation side-by-side.
Two words in 1 Cor 6:9 refer to homosexuality. The word translated effeminate in the NASB is the plural of the Greek term, malakos. This is probably not the best translation of the word but it's a tricky concept to move from the Greek to English. The Greeks, like many other ancient cultures, had separate words for the passive and active homosexual partners. Malakos is actually a very interesting term. When used in non-human contexts, it means "pertaining to being soft to the touch--'soft, delicate, luxurious'" (now you get the pun in the title of this blog!). When referring to humans, it means "the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse--'homosexual.'" The second word, translated "homosexuals" in the NASB is from the word arsenokoitas. This word generally referred to the more dominant male partner of a homosexual relationship.
English translations have tried some very interesting combinations to bring these meanings across. In addition to the NASB pairing above, other options include "male prostitutes and sodomites" (NRSV), and "male prostitutes and homosexual offenders" (NIV). The English Standard Version (ESV) probably makes the best compromise possible by combining the two terms to simply "men who practice homosexuality." Regardless of how it's translated, I don't think there is any getting around Paul's original intent. And in this verse, I don't think Peterson communicates the text accurately.
Granted, Peterson is attempting to communicate in contemporary language, but the issue of homosexuality is front and center in our culture right now. And yes, this is a paraphrase, not a literal translation, but does "those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex" really paraphrase homosexuality?
A while back I subscribed to NavPress' newsletter regarding Peterson's paraphrase, known as "The Message Community." So I simply shot them an email and asked about this issue. Below is the response I got:
Hi there and thank you so much for your support of the Message! We have had a question similar to this before so I'll give you the information we have from our scholars on this passage.
"With regard to the issues of homosexuality, we've encountered some of the same criticisms that you have, and have actually issued a formal statement regarding those claims. I'll paste that information below. For now, here's what NavPress has said about The Message and homosexuality, particularly in reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
"Dr. Klein [Dr. William W. Klein, professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and chairman of a committee of exegetical scholars for The Message] comments: "One could readily argue that adulterers and homosexuals 'use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex,' though of course, The Message does not employ the specific technical terms. On the other had, in this day of pedophiles and sexual harassment, et. al., the more general terms in The Message are more inclusive. God hates all kinds of sexual perversions.""
Now, that may or may not answer the question, I'm not sure but I would be happy to get more information if need be. Feel free to forward your blog friend on to me and I will do my best to get all his questions answered. Thanks for your time and again, thank you for your support of The Message!
Mindy Mills
Message Supervisor
Okay, I understand that by not using specific terms, The Message is more inclusive of all sexual sins. HOWEVER, in the original passage, Paul uses both general AND specific terms. In the quotation of 1 Cor 6:9 above, the NASB uses the very specific "fornicators." However, the NIV more accurately translates the word as "the sexually immoral." The Greek word behind both translations is the plural form of pornos which means "one who engages in sexual immorality, whether a man or a woman, and in some contexts distinguished from an adulterer or adulteress--'a sexually immoral person.'" See, pornos is an inclusive term already in the text. Paul goes out of his way to use both inclusive/general and specific terms in the passage. In my opinion Peterson has made the passage less clear.
So, let's ask the million dollar question: Is there an agenda on Peterson's part by this obscuring of homosexuality in this passage? I would prefer to give Eugene Peterson and NavPress the benefit of the doubt. Peterson has been well-known in evangelical circles for many years. His book, Long Obedience in the Same Direction is a modern-day classic. And NavPress is the publishing arm of The Navigators , an organization founded by Dawson Trotman to further evangelism and discipleship.
Maybe it's just possible that in a very well-done paraphrase, this is just a really crummy exception. Let's compare other passages in the Message and see how Peterson's paraphrase stacks up.
These passages, especially the verse in Leviticus, seem to demonstrate that Peterson has not tried to create a homosexual-friendly Bible. The phrase "sexually confused" in the Romans passage seems especially striking and would be a fairly accurate description of some of the homosexuals I personally know. But before anyone could claim that this phrase is meant to obscure the sin, Peterson spells it out who and what's involved: "women with women, men with men" and labels them "godless and loveless."
Does Peterson have a secret homosexual agenda? I don't think so. The above passages seem to indicate that his version is not overly-soft on homosexuality. However, I do believe that 1 Corinthians 6:9 in The Message is severely lacking when compared to the quality of the rest of the paraphrase and should be corrected in a future update.
In the meantime, I am going to press this issue a bit further with The Message Community, and work for just such a correction. I'll keep you informed of any developments...
*Greek references from The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Editors. Copyright © 1988, 1989 by the United Bible Societies, New York, NY 10023. Second Edition. Used by permission.
Update: Firefox and A9
11/19/2004 00:06 Filed in: Technology
You may remember a previous blog from a couple of weeks ago in which I mentioned a few new internet tools. Specifically, I said you should dump Internet Explorer in favor of Firefox , and I also suggested that you give A9 a whirl in place of Google.
Well, to update you on both of those items, I give you this short blog. Today (November 9) the Mozilla Foundation has released the official final version of Firefox. The previous one was a "preview release," but you can now download the final program--at least the 1.0 final release.
Also, if you go to A9.com , they have released (a few days ago) an A9 toolbar that works with Firefox. Now, you can install the A9 toolbar, and then customize Firefox to remove the Google search window since it will no longer be necessary with the new Firefox toolbar in place.
Firefox and the A9 Toolbar is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X (shown below). The A9 Toolbar does not install any spyware on your system like some toolbars.
ABOVE: Firefox 1.0 with A9 Toolbar installed and Google search removed.
Well, to update you on both of those items, I give you this short blog. Today (November 9) the Mozilla Foundation has released the official final version of Firefox. The previous one was a "preview release," but you can now download the final program--at least the 1.0 final release.
Also, if you go to A9.com , they have released (a few days ago) an A9 toolbar that works with Firefox. Now, you can install the A9 toolbar, and then customize Firefox to remove the Google search window since it will no longer be necessary with the new Firefox toolbar in place.
Firefox and the A9 Toolbar is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X (shown below). The A9 Toolbar does not install any spyware on your system like some toolbars.
ABOVE: Firefox 1.0 with A9 Toolbar installed and Google search removed.
Colin Powell's Departure: Not a Surprise to Some
11/15/2004 22:33 Filed in: Politics
However, it's still significant...
My Dad is in the men's clothing business--always has been. I grew up with magazines like GQ lying around. After I was out on my own, I still got my issues of GQ--not that you could tell by the way I dress. Who could afford that stuff? But Dad still buys me the subscription every year for Christmas. I have to admit that some stay in the plastic, but I always scan the cover for the major articles. The fashion trends don't interest me that much to be honest. But the occasional political article, the bio on this or that Hollywood director, or the piece on some new cultural trend often catches my interest.
When I received the June, 2004 issue (in May), I immediately opened it because of the feature article on Colin Powell. The article described his frustration with Bush's administration, how he felt used for being asked to make the case against Iraq before the UN now that it seems the intelligence was faulty. It mentioned that he might not stay for both terms if the President won reelection.
What's interesting in this article is that most of that information is hearsay. In the article, Powell never makes one unkind reference to the Bush Administration. Yet, his closest friends tell a very different story. When I wrote my blog, "Final Thoughts on the 2004 Election (And a Couple of Predictions for the Future) ," I made this statement in my predictions section at the end: "Expect some resignations on Bush's cabinet and quite a bit more outspoken opposition from among the ranks." When I wrote that, I had Colin Powell specifically in mind. I felt as if he and any others who might be unhappy had stuck things out until the election and soon would head out. But to be honest, I didn't expect folks like Ashcroft to bail. Nor did I imagine that SIX members (and counting) would leave, seemingly all at once.
Now, I've heard said in response to this that it's not all that abnormal. For instance, I've been told that almost no one in Reagan's cabinet stayed for the entire two terms. But those members shuffled in and out over the course of eight years. Is there any precedent for so many leaving all at once? Some of you are better students of political history than me. Please chime in what you know.
Nevertheless, the article from GQ gives some great insight. The writer also interviews Condoleezza Rice, which is now even more interesting since she's been tapped to take Powell's place. Don't discount the source because of the magazine's other content. Read it for yourself. Download the Adobe Reader file below. Then, hit the comments button below and let me know what you think.
My Dad is in the men's clothing business--always has been. I grew up with magazines like GQ lying around. After I was out on my own, I still got my issues of GQ--not that you could tell by the way I dress. Who could afford that stuff? But Dad still buys me the subscription every year for Christmas. I have to admit that some stay in the plastic, but I always scan the cover for the major articles. The fashion trends don't interest me that much to be honest. But the occasional political article, the bio on this or that Hollywood director, or the piece on some new cultural trend often catches my interest.
When I received the June, 2004 issue (in May), I immediately opened it because of the feature article on Colin Powell. The article described his frustration with Bush's administration, how he felt used for being asked to make the case against Iraq before the UN now that it seems the intelligence was faulty. It mentioned that he might not stay for both terms if the President won reelection.
Now, I've heard said in response to this that it's not all that abnormal. For instance, I've been told that almost no one in Reagan's cabinet stayed for the entire two terms. But those members shuffled in and out over the course of eight years. Is there any precedent for so many leaving all at once? Some of you are better students of political history than me. Please chime in what you know.
Nevertheless, the article from GQ gives some great insight. The writer also interviews Condoleezza Rice, which is now even more interesting since she's been tapped to take Powell's place. Don't discount the source because of the magazine's other content. Read it for yourself. Download the Adobe Reader file below. Then, hit the comments button below and let me know what you think.
Do You -Sing- The Preamble?
11/14/2004 14:31 Filed in: Culture Watch
Schoolhouse Rock rocks...
Ask any Gen-Xer to recite the Preamble to the Constitution. Not only will he or she know it, but it will be sung to you. That's from watching Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday mornings between cartoons, one of the most clever educational ideas in the history of television. We learned to sing our math, grammar, history, science and civics.
I still remember in 8th grade when our teacher assigned us to memorize and recite the Preamble. Memorize? Not a problem--already know that song! The only hard part was not singing it in front of the whole class.
Trivia question: technically, there is a mistake in the Schoolhouse Rock version of the Preamble so that it would flow better as a song. A no-prize to the first person who can tell me the error in comments section below.
_____________________________________________________________________
Upcoming Blog(s) This Week: Three New Translations of the Bible You Should Know About
Ask any Gen-Xer to recite the Preamble to the Constitution. Not only will he or she know it, but it will be sung to you. That's from watching Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday mornings between cartoons, one of the most clever educational ideas in the history of television. We learned to sing our math, grammar, history, science and civics.
I still remember in 8th grade when our teacher assigned us to memorize and recite the Preamble. Memorize? Not a problem--already know that song! The only hard part was not singing it in front of the whole class.
Trivia question: technically, there is a mistake in the Schoolhouse Rock version of the Preamble so that it would flow better as a song. A no-prize to the first person who can tell me the error in comments section below.
_____________________________________________________________________
Upcoming Blog(s) This Week: Three New Translations of the Bible You Should Know About
Do You Know the Shortest Verse in the NIV Bible?
11/09/2004 14:36 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Hint: It's NOT John 11:35
Could there be anything shorter than "Jesus wept" (John 11:35)?
A no-prize goes to the first person who can tell me the shortest verse in the NIV Bible. Note the translation. It's not the shortest in most translations, and it's not the shortest in the original languages. John 11:35 wins there, but not with the NIV translators.
If you think you know the answer, click the comments link below.
My students at Whitefield are disqualified because they already know...
Could there be anything shorter than "Jesus wept" (John 11:35)?
A no-prize goes to the first person who can tell me the shortest verse in the NIV Bible. Note the translation. It's not the shortest in most translations, and it's not the shortest in the original languages. John 11:35 wins there, but not with the NIV translators.
If you think you know the answer, click the comments link below.
My students at Whitefield are disqualified because they already know...
Halo 2 to Be Unleashed at Midnight
11/08/2004 22:23 Filed in: Culture Watch
How many will miss work/school tomorrow?
Microsoft is officially releasing Halo 2 for its XBox game machine On November 9th, but stores all over the country are opening at midnight to let buyers get an early jump on the game.
For the uninitiated, Halo 2 is long-awaited (right at three years) sequel to the game called a "platform maker" because people bought XBox machines simply to play Halo. It has never been ported to the PS2 or GameCube.
A mostly male crowd will be lining up at stores tonight to get their copy. I have no idea how to track such things, but it would be interesting to see what male absenteeism will be like in schools and in the workplace around the country on Tuesday. Personally, I can't justify taking time off from my job to play a video game.
However, this might be the first time ever that I would welcome the flu.
For the uninitiated, Halo 2 is long-awaited (right at three years) sequel to the game called a "platform maker" because people bought XBox machines simply to play Halo. It has never been ported to the PS2 or GameCube.
A mostly male crowd will be lining up at stores tonight to get their copy. I have no idea how to track such things, but it would be interesting to see what male absenteeism will be like in schools and in the workplace around the country on Tuesday. Personally, I can't justify taking time off from my job to play a video game.
However, this might be the first time ever that I would welcome the flu.
At the Movies This Weekend: The Incredibles, New Revenge of the Sith Trailer, and More
11/06/2004 18:42 Filed in: Movies and Television
THE INCREDIBLES
You know, I always wanted to be a super-hero. In fact, if I had the choice of super-powers, I think it would be one of these three in order of preference:
1. The ability to fly. I do this a lot in my dreams, but it would be nice during the waking hours, too.
2. The ability to read, write, and speak any language, past or present.
3. The ability to turn invisible at will.
After those would come the normal invulnerability, rays from my eyes, etc.
Well, this is a super-hero movie, and a very fun one. The Incredibles is the newest movie from Pixar , the same company that made animated films such as both Toy Story movies, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, and Monsters Inc. I know I am still the only person in American not to have gotten around to seeing Finding Nemo yet, but it's on my To Do List.
Rabbit Trail #1: Although Disney's name is on this movie, the mouse really has nothing to do with it. Pixar is the company responsible for these movies. Disney just distributes them. They had a multi-movie deal that is now up. Steve Jobs, who heads Pixar (and Apple Computers), tried to negotiate a better deal with Disney in the way profits are shared. Michael Eisner of Disney wouldn't budge on the old terms, and Pixar has now said, "See ya" to them. So look in the future to Pixar movies without the Disney logo. That is unless a new deal is reached or if Eisner is ousted and Jobs is made head of Disney. This could happen.
Oh yeah...back to the movie.
We don't think about the private lives of super-heroes very often, do we? Sure Clark Kent is a reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, Bruce Wayne is a millionaire playboy, and Peter Parker is a photographer. But how often do we see them getting nagged by their wives, stuck in traffic, having to break up fights among the kids? How often do we see them worried about the extra pounds they've put on or whether they can still fit into the old costume?
The Incredibles is a movie that takes place in a world fifteen years after super-heroes have been ordered to go into hiding through government relocation programs. They are trying to blend in with society and lead "normal" lives, but it is not easy. The movie doesn't waste time with origin stories. We have no idea why these individuals have their powers. Maybe it's a mutant issue, kinda like with the X-Men, but the story doesn't worry with such things. Instead, the principle characters are trying to live normal lives and not use their powers so that they can blend in. But it's hard to be normal after the glory days of saving the world from imminent destruction.
Rabbit trail #2: Have you ever wondered why in the movies and on television, people want to hide their powers? Darren always wanted Samantha to not use her powers, and Major Nelson tried to keep Jeanie hidden in the bottle (that was before he gave in and asked to be a Texas oil baron). The Kents never want Clark to let anyone in Smallville know of his "special abiliites." If it were me, I'd be showing off my powers to everyone. If I still had to go to work, I'd fly there. I'd say to the waitress at the Chinese restaurant (in perfect Mandarin, no less), "Hey, I heard what you just said about me, and what's really in the hot and sour soup." And I have to admit it would be difficult not to use my invisibility to my own advantage. Hmm....maybe that's why God doesn't give us "super powers." Spiritual gifts, sure; super powers, no.
The characters have a variety of powers which leads to some very creative teamwork. Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) has a personality that is a cross between Buzz Lightyear and The Tick. His super power is basically super strength and near-invulnerability. His wife, Elastigirl/Helen Parr (voiced by Holly Hunter) can stretch to amazing lengths (think Plastic Man or Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four). They have a teenage daughter, Violet, who can make herself invisible and create force fields. Her younger brother Dash can run at super speed. And then there's the baby who begins to develop his own very creepy powers. All I can say is that it seemed to be a cross between the Human Torch and Hell Boy. Samuel L. Jackson gives voice to a super-hero, Frozone, who can create ice out of the moisture in the air. I kept waiting for him to misquote Ezekiel 25:17, but it never happened. Oh well...maybe in Revenge of the Sith.
Kathy pointed out that the powers the characters had seemed to fit the roles of the individual family members. The father is the very strong leader. The mother has to be flexible to meet the needs of every situation. What teenage girl hasn't wanted to make herself invisible or put a shield between her and others. Every little boy runs here and there and is a handful to keep up with. And the thought of an infant screaming at the top of his lungs seems to match the unique abilities of the youngest Incredible.
Right: Separated at birth? Is it just me, or does Violet from The Incredibles have a freaky resemblance to the ghost woman in The Grudge?
Anyway, I don't want to give away too much of the plot of The Incredibles, but it has great messages about team-work, getting along, and especially finding one's place and purpose in the world. The movie is written and directed by Brad Bird who also wrote and directed another animated great, The Iron Giant . Like that movie, Bird shows a keen interest in robots in this movie, too. The mood in The Incredibles often has a late fifties/early sixties feel to it especially with the big band music that could have come straight out of a Sean Connery James Bond movie.
Take some time to see The Incredibles this weekend. Go by yourself or take the kids. The movie is suitable for all ages, although there is some violence. A handful of people get killed, but their deaths are often more implied than explicitly shown. And even if you aren't normally a fan of animation, everyone enjoys the tales from Pixar, the most creative group to produce animated movies since...well...Disney...
______________________________________________________________________________
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH TRAILER
I was in great anticipation of the first Star Wars prequel, The Phantom Menace a few years ago. But it was such a disappointing movie that I held out no expectations for Clone Wars (which absolutely bored me). Now, I don't know whether its from playing KOTOR or because I watched the original three movies recently and they captured my imagination again. Nevertheless, I am actually looking forward to the third prequel. Maybe the third time is the charm for Lucas.
Anyway, this week Lucasfilm released a new poster (shown above left) and the first real trailer for the movie.
First the poster: it's awful. I suppose that Anakin's cape is supposed to be blowing in the wind to create a foreshadowing Darth Vader image. However, it's overdone and looks more like a giant bobblehead with Anakin looking out from behind. Sheesh. Throw it away and start over. Note that Anakin is sporting a scar. That gives it away, you know, because everyone with a scar is a bad guy...
However, maybe they did poorly with the poster because they were spending all their time on the trailer. The trailer looks pretty exciting and it makes me want to see the movie. Granted, a good bit of it is from the original 1977 movie. However, this is the movie that is supposed to tie both sets of films together.
You've got to see this thing. At the moment you are only able to see the trailer if you go see The Incredibles or if you are a paid subscriber to the Hyperspace section of the Star Wars website .
However...I've got it right here for you. Don't ask me how I got it, but I have it. I'll keep it up unless I get a cease and desist letter from George.
Enjoy.
NOTE (12/8/2004): SINCE THE TRAILER IS NOW FREELY AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AT http://www.starwars.com, I HAVE REMOVED IT FROM THIS BLOG ENTRY TO CONSERVE SPACE ON MY WEBSITE.
______________________________________________________________________________
One more thing. The theater today had an
"upcoming attractions" poster of Leo's new
movie about Howard Hughes, The Aviator.
Okay, here's another "Is it just me," but does
DiCaprio make for a spitting image of an
"in-his-prime" Muhammad Ali in this poster?
1. The ability to fly. I do this a lot in my dreams, but it would be nice during the waking hours, too.
2. The ability to read, write, and speak any language, past or present.
3. The ability to turn invisible at will.
After those would come the normal invulnerability, rays from my eyes, etc.
Well, this is a super-hero movie, and a very fun one. The Incredibles is the newest movie from Pixar , the same company that made animated films such as both Toy Story movies, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, and Monsters Inc. I know I am still the only person in American not to have gotten around to seeing Finding Nemo yet, but it's on my To Do List.
Rabbit Trail #1: Although Disney's name is on this movie, the mouse really has nothing to do with it. Pixar is the company responsible for these movies. Disney just distributes them. They had a multi-movie deal that is now up. Steve Jobs, who heads Pixar (and Apple Computers), tried to negotiate a better deal with Disney in the way profits are shared. Michael Eisner of Disney wouldn't budge on the old terms, and Pixar has now said, "See ya" to them. So look in the future to Pixar movies without the Disney logo. That is unless a new deal is reached or if Eisner is ousted and Jobs is made head of Disney. This could happen.
Oh yeah...back to the movie.
We don't think about the private lives of super-heroes very often, do we? Sure Clark Kent is a reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, Bruce Wayne is a millionaire playboy, and Peter Parker is a photographer. But how often do we see them getting nagged by their wives, stuck in traffic, having to break up fights among the kids? How often do we see them worried about the extra pounds they've put on or whether they can still fit into the old costume?
The Incredibles is a movie that takes place in a world fifteen years after super-heroes have been ordered to go into hiding through government relocation programs. They are trying to blend in with society and lead "normal" lives, but it is not easy. The movie doesn't waste time with origin stories. We have no idea why these individuals have their powers. Maybe it's a mutant issue, kinda like with the X-Men, but the story doesn't worry with such things. Instead, the principle characters are trying to live normal lives and not use their powers so that they can blend in. But it's hard to be normal after the glory days of saving the world from imminent destruction.
Rabbit trail #2: Have you ever wondered why in the movies and on television, people want to hide their powers? Darren always wanted Samantha to not use her powers, and Major Nelson tried to keep Jeanie hidden in the bottle (that was before he gave in and asked to be a Texas oil baron). The Kents never want Clark to let anyone in Smallville know of his "special abiliites." If it were me, I'd be showing off my powers to everyone. If I still had to go to work, I'd fly there. I'd say to the waitress at the Chinese restaurant (in perfect Mandarin, no less), "Hey, I heard what you just said about me, and what's really in the hot and sour soup." And I have to admit it would be difficult not to use my invisibility to my own advantage. Hmm....maybe that's why God doesn't give us "super powers." Spiritual gifts, sure; super powers, no.
The characters have a variety of powers which leads to some very creative teamwork. Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) has a personality that is a cross between Buzz Lightyear and The Tick. His super power is basically super strength and near-invulnerability. His wife, Elastigirl/Helen Parr (voiced by Holly Hunter) can stretch to amazing lengths (think Plastic Man or Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four). They have a teenage daughter, Violet, who can make herself invisible and create force fields. Her younger brother Dash can run at super speed. And then there's the baby who begins to develop his own very creepy powers. All I can say is that it seemed to be a cross between the Human Torch and Hell Boy. Samuel L. Jackson gives voice to a super-hero, Frozone, who can create ice out of the moisture in the air. I kept waiting for him to misquote Ezekiel 25:17, but it never happened. Oh well...maybe in Revenge of the Sith.
Kathy pointed out that the powers the characters had seemed to fit the roles of the individual family members. The father is the very strong leader. The mother has to be flexible to meet the needs of every situation. What teenage girl hasn't wanted to make herself invisible or put a shield between her and others. Every little boy runs here and there and is a handful to keep up with. And the thought of an infant screaming at the top of his lungs seems to match the unique abilities of the youngest Incredible.
Anyway, I don't want to give away too much of the plot of The Incredibles, but it has great messages about team-work, getting along, and especially finding one's place and purpose in the world. The movie is written and directed by Brad Bird who also wrote and directed another animated great, The Iron Giant . Like that movie, Bird shows a keen interest in robots in this movie, too. The mood in The Incredibles often has a late fifties/early sixties feel to it especially with the big band music that could have come straight out of a Sean Connery James Bond movie.
Take some time to see The Incredibles this weekend. Go by yourself or take the kids. The movie is suitable for all ages, although there is some violence. A handful of people get killed, but their deaths are often more implied than explicitly shown. And even if you aren't normally a fan of animation, everyone enjoys the tales from Pixar, the most creative group to produce animated movies since...well...Disney...
______________________________________________________________________________
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH TRAILER
Anyway, this week Lucasfilm released a new poster (shown above left) and the first real trailer for the movie.
First the poster: it's awful. I suppose that Anakin's cape is supposed to be blowing in the wind to create a foreshadowing Darth Vader image. However, it's overdone and looks more like a giant bobblehead with Anakin looking out from behind. Sheesh. Throw it away and start over. Note that Anakin is sporting a scar. That gives it away, you know, because everyone with a scar is a bad guy...
However, maybe they did poorly with the poster because they were spending all their time on the trailer. The trailer looks pretty exciting and it makes me want to see the movie. Granted, a good bit of it is from the original 1977 movie. However, this is the movie that is supposed to tie both sets of films together.
You've got to see this thing. At the moment you are only able to see the trailer if you go see The Incredibles or if you are a paid subscriber to the Hyperspace section of the Star Wars website .
However...I've got it right here for you. Don't ask me how I got it, but I have it. I'll keep it up unless I get a cease and desist letter from George.
Enjoy.
NOTE (12/8/2004): SINCE THE TRAILER IS NOW FREELY AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AT http://www.starwars.com, I HAVE REMOVED IT FROM THIS BLOG ENTRY TO CONSERVE SPACE ON MY WEBSITE.
______________________________________________________________________________
"upcoming attractions" poster of Leo's new
movie about Howard Hughes, The Aviator.
Okay, here's another "Is it just me," but does
DiCaprio make for a spitting image of an
"in-his-prime" Muhammad Ali in this poster?
Final Thoughts on the 2004 Election (And a Couple of Predictions for the Future)
11/04/2004 22:03 Filed in: Politics
Announcement: All candidates, winning or losing, need to pick up your leftover campaign signs by the end of the week...
Left: Bessie proudly wore her "I Voted" sticker on Tuesday. What I can't figure out is how she got to Florida to vote without me knowing about it!
______________________________________________________________________________
I made three predictions about Tuesday night's election and I believe they all came true.
1. Bush won. Yes, I know I didn't publish that one, but it was the third prediction, and a number of you emailed or called me to find out what I thought--so you can vouch for me.
2. Voter turnout was extremely high. In fact, it was the highest on record since 1968 (the Humphrey/Nixon race).
3. The race was not nearly as close as the polls were showing. Iowa is the last straggling state to report it, but it looks like their seven electoral votes will go to Bush (not that it matters much at this point). So that makes 286 electoral votes for Bush and 252 for Kerry. Or you can look at it as 53% for Bush and 47% for Kerry. That's a LOT more than the 1% difference, neck and neck races that the pollsters were reporting. Told you so, told you so, told you so. Okay, I'll be fair. The popular vote was slightly closer with 51% voting for Bush and 48% voting for Kerry. Either way, though that's still not as close as what people were reporting even as recently as Election Day, November 2.
Of course, I believe we should go by the popular vote and completely do away with the Electoral College. I don't think the Electoral College is needed in the modern world, and I have yet to hear of a convincing reason why we should keep it. If you disagree, leave a comment below and try to convince me otherwise.
The other surprising thing that came out of this election is that voters' number one concern was moral issues . Exit polls showed that voters were concerned about moral issues in choosing their candidate over issues such as the economy and the war on terror. Further, of those who were most concerned about moral issues, 79% voted for Bush over Kerry.
Funny that Kerry was not associated with moral issues. I'll be the first to admit that Bush is not my "most favorite" president of all time, but Kerry is a total secularist (despite any stories he tells about being an altar boy and going to mass regularly).
If you remember, I wrote in a previous blog about the vote held in Louisiana earlier this year to restrict the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment to one man and one woman. Despite what you hear about New Orleans, the vote was an overwhelming 80% in favor of keeping a traditional definition of marriage. When I wrote that blog, I said that I wanted to see other states do the same thing because I was convinced that the vote would be similarly overwhelming elsewhere. In Tuesdays election, there were 11 states that had amendment proposals to ban homosexual marriage. I've had a hard time finding one source that put all the totals on this together, so I've compiled my own:
All eleven states passed this. I think most states would. Even states such as Michigan and Oregon which Kerry won voted for an amendment such as this. That tells me that this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is a common-sense morality issue. Interestingly, Utah's amendment proposal was worded to also exclude polygamous unions.
State amendments such as these are a good stop gap measure, but I believe that ultimately, we need a Constitutional amendment to keep states such as Massachusetts or even California from going against the national flow and redefining marriage on their own.
Moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and even the war on terror are important, but if I may add, we need to be careful as a society not to neglect the needy who do still exist for a variety of reasons. For those of you who are Christians, make sure you remember this. Reread passages such as Galatians 2:10 and Matthew 25:31-46 just in case.
Two Predictions for the Future:
1. In 2008, Democrats are going to try to find a candidate not quite so far to the left. Heck, Kerry was so far to the left that he made Clinton look like the moderate he claimed to be. I don't know what that means for Hillary since she is both further to the left than her husband, and like Kerry considered a northeastern elite.
2. Despite a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, Bush is not going to have the free ride making policy that you might think. There are a number of Republicans who have serious disagreements with Bush. They kept quiet during the elections because they wanted a Republican victory. But the election honeymoon is not going to last long. In fact, by the time you read this, it may be already be over. Expect some resignations on Bush's cabinet and quite a bit more outspoken opposition from among the ranks.
As for the next election, I will vote for the candidate who runs on the promise to take down his or her campaign signs in a timely manner...
______________________________________________________________________________
I made three predictions about Tuesday night's election and I believe they all came true.
1. Bush won. Yes, I know I didn't publish that one, but it was the third prediction, and a number of you emailed or called me to find out what I thought--so you can vouch for me.
2. Voter turnout was extremely high. In fact, it was the highest on record since 1968 (the Humphrey/Nixon race).
3. The race was not nearly as close as the polls were showing. Iowa is the last straggling state to report it, but it looks like their seven electoral votes will go to Bush (not that it matters much at this point). So that makes 286 electoral votes for Bush and 252 for Kerry. Or you can look at it as 53% for Bush and 47% for Kerry. That's a LOT more than the 1% difference, neck and neck races that the pollsters were reporting. Told you so, told you so, told you so. Okay, I'll be fair. The popular vote was slightly closer with 51% voting for Bush and 48% voting for Kerry. Either way, though that's still not as close as what people were reporting even as recently as Election Day, November 2.
Of course, I believe we should go by the popular vote and completely do away with the Electoral College. I don't think the Electoral College is needed in the modern world, and I have yet to hear of a convincing reason why we should keep it. If you disagree, leave a comment below and try to convince me otherwise.
The other surprising thing that came out of this election is that voters' number one concern was moral issues . Exit polls showed that voters were concerned about moral issues in choosing their candidate over issues such as the economy and the war on terror. Further, of those who were most concerned about moral issues, 79% voted for Bush over Kerry.
Funny that Kerry was not associated with moral issues. I'll be the first to admit that Bush is not my "most favorite" president of all time, but Kerry is a total secularist (despite any stories he tells about being an altar boy and going to mass regularly).
If you remember, I wrote in a previous blog about the vote held in Louisiana earlier this year to restrict the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment to one man and one woman. Despite what you hear about New Orleans, the vote was an overwhelming 80% in favor of keeping a traditional definition of marriage. When I wrote that blog, I said that I wanted to see other states do the same thing because I was convinced that the vote would be similarly overwhelming elsewhere. In Tuesdays election, there were 11 states that had amendment proposals to ban homosexual marriage. I've had a hard time finding one source that put all the totals on this together, so I've compiled my own:
State amendments such as these are a good stop gap measure, but I believe that ultimately, we need a Constitutional amendment to keep states such as Massachusetts or even California from going against the national flow and redefining marriage on their own.
Moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and even the war on terror are important, but if I may add, we need to be careful as a society not to neglect the needy who do still exist for a variety of reasons. For those of you who are Christians, make sure you remember this. Reread passages such as Galatians 2:10 and Matthew 25:31-46 just in case.
Two Predictions for the Future:
1. In 2008, Democrats are going to try to find a candidate not quite so far to the left. Heck, Kerry was so far to the left that he made Clinton look like the moderate he claimed to be. I don't know what that means for Hillary since she is both further to the left than her husband, and like Kerry considered a northeastern elite.
2. Despite a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, Bush is not going to have the free ride making policy that you might think. There are a number of Republicans who have serious disagreements with Bush. They kept quiet during the elections because they wanted a Republican victory. But the election honeymoon is not going to last long. In fact, by the time you read this, it may be already be over. Expect some resignations on Bush's cabinet and quite a bit more outspoken opposition from among the ranks.
As for the next election, I will vote for the candidate who runs on the promise to take down his or her campaign signs in a timely manner...
New Blog Feature: A Direct Path
11/04/2004 14:24 Filed in: Miscellaneous
I know that sometimes getting to this blog can be tricky if you don't have a link. So, now there is a direct path: http://www.ricksblog.net which will forward you to my blog.
Dave Ramsey Segment on 60 Minutes
11/03/2004 21:32 Filed in: Miscellaneous
This Sunday, November 7, 60 Minutes will air a story they have done on Dave Ramsey and his Financial Peace movement (can I call it a movement?).
As far as I know, this is an entirely positive segment. But with 60 Minutes--who knows? Maybe they've dug up forged documents that Ramsey didn't show up for his radio show last year or something like that.
No, I'm assuming it should be a good piece since Ramsey has emailed folks on his mailing list encouraging them to watch. When he was in Louisville back in the Spring to do his Total Money Makeover seminar, CBS came to film his presentation. I assume that some of the seminar clips that will be shown Sunday night come from the Palace Theater, a Louisville landmark.
If you are a regular reader of my blog, you may remember my own story, "Searching for Financial Peace," regarding the way Ramsey's principles changed the lives of Kathy and me. After seven months of faithfully following the program, we never run out of money at the end of the month because we budget everything. We have paid off a HUGE amount on outstanding bills (ask me in private and I'll tell you, but it will blow you away). And our giving is way up from what it was before. His principles work. I can't encourage you enough to read one of his books or if possible take the 13-week seminar .
60 Minutes will air Sunday night, November7, on CBS at 7PM EST/6 PM CST.