"I'm Batman." COUGHCOUGHACKWHEEZE

Has Christian Bale turned into Emphysema Man? Seriously, I just watched a trailer for his new Terminator film, and he's speaking in the same voice that he uses for Batman. It's that kind of deep, scratchy, I've-been-smoking-for-30-years-but-somehow-I'm-in-perfect-health-what-are-the-odds sort of voice. I like a few of Christian Bale's movies, and I hope he doesn't go off and damage his voice somehow. Then he'd end up being typecast constantly as the Man With The Sandpaper Trachea.

Here are pictures...

Hullo, people. I've created a Flickr account so that I may post pictures on the internet. It may be found here: Flickr

Woooo.

Things I Overhear at Work #2

"Yeah, it's like an aerosol, so you just spray it on your butt when you're wearing a bikini."

I have no idea.

Mere Morality

These are some notes I wrote down while reading the first few sections of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. I have transcribed them here into blogform, so to speak.

After reading the preface, I am already struck by Lewis's cautious, yet purposeful tone. As a layman, he does not attempt to address topics which a should not, and includes only those which will serve the purpose of his writing and be of benefit to the reader. There are lessons to be learned in this, both for the writer and the Christian. Moving on to Lewis's chapter on Moral Law, we can see that Moral Law, according to Lewis, is not an arbitrarily ordained set of rules, nor is it societal "herd instinct," as many a modernist would have us believe. The relativist is stymied in this regard, because to declare that one brand of morality is better than another would be to compare it to some outside standard of morality. Of course, the only option seems to be to label all forms of morality as equals. This, however, breaks down when you begin to examine various divergent forms of morality that are plainly contrary to the way things are supposed to be. Thus, if we are forced to abandon that line of reasoning, we must conclude that there is, in fact, such a thing as Right, or "real morality." However, this Right must not be confused with the Rule of Decent Behaviour. This rule consists of whatever behaviours society happens to approve of. In this instance, there really isn't a "right" behaviour, since the whims of society are subject to change from time to time. Thus, this line of reason might lead us to believe that there is no natural morality, or real Right, and yet the ways in which we are forced to consider the matter compel us to accept the existence of Right.

This is in no way a complete discussion of Lewis's argument, but it was something I was thinking about earlier, and such things are the stuff of this blog.

Forget truth in advertising, I'll settle for interesting.

You have to love the advertising style of the J. Peterman company. Instead of using the ho-hum advertising that many other companies use, they actually paint you a picture, tell you a story, and place their product at the center. This is quite entertaining, not to mention effective. Check out this little scenario concerning a bottle of cologne:

"I was browsing in a Paris antique shop one winter afternoon when a fitted leather train case caught my eye. It contained silver-handled brushes, boot hooks, a straight razor, several silver-stoppered glass bottles... One bottle was different. Encased in yew-wood, with a handwritten date: 1903. Inside the bottle, there was still the faint, intriguing aroma of a gentleman’s cologne. A 'prescription' cologne, custom-made for a rich traveler a century ago. Curiosity was eating at me. I bought the case (the price was shocking) and sent the bottle to a laboratory for analysis. They broke down the residue by gas chromatography. Identified its fingerprint through spectro-photometry. The report said: an 'old woody fougère.' Clean citrus notes, bergamot, 'green notes.' The middle notes: clary sage…cardamom. The dry-down: leather notes, smoky labdanum…elemi, tabac, frankincense. The detective work was impressive. So is the thing itself. Women like the way it smells on a man. Like a symphony that begins loudly, then soon slides into subtle, entangling developments that grow on them. Or so I’ve been told."

Now, doesn't that work better than your average romance-novel-esque cologne advertisment? It's an interesting and unique marketing template, in my opinion. Who wouldn't want to buy a product derived from the last few drops in a strange bottle that was discovered in an French antique shop by a world traveller? What's that, you'd rather buy something from Calvin Klein? Pshaw.

Be Aware

Is there any creature more arrogant and presumptuous than a college student? I think not. The student lives on something that is called a campus, some sort of complex that serves to cut off the student from the world at large. It is within this bubble that the student lives, works, and participates in leisurely activities. Studies and learning are all very good and are not troublesome in general, but the student becomes especially annoying when he or she becomes riled up about this, that, or the other. It is here that the average student is transformed into a fool. A student might take interest in an issue, perhaps something going on in society, and become so excited about said issue that he feels the need to take action. The student will often adopt a rather self-centered attitude, viewing himself as a frontrunner for the future, a new hope of free society and academia, becomes a nuisance. Protests, petitions, meetings, student groups, fliers, fundraisers, and all of this for what? It seems to me that most of the time, this is simply an effort to make the student feel useful while pursuing an education. Students want to matter, they want to be relevant, and yet their attempts to do so are often laughable. They live inside the bubble of academia, among the academics. That is not exactly the real world. But, the students persist. The idealisation of their position as the supposed leaders of a generation compels them to take some sort of action. This idealisation has been more or less ingrained into them. Yes, the children are our future, but not if they are fools. By all means, ignore the wisdom of wiser men, rebel against "the system" by starting a Facebook group to "Save Darfur" or to "raise awareness" for whatever cause you're supporting, and tell me what that accomplishes.

Let's look at this concept of "raising awareness." Awareness, what is it? Being aware? I am supposed to be "aware" of things like gay rights, the war in Iraq, AIDS, Darfur, and the list goes on. BE AWARE, is what I'm told. Very well, I am aware. Now what shall I do with my awareness? If I become any more aware, I dare say that my eyes will pop themselves right out of my head. I want to raise awareness, too. I want everyone to be aware of fish. Not just any fish, mind you. Sardines. Do you know what the fishing industry does to millions of sardines each year? They put them in cans. Tiny little cans. And then they ship them off to countries all over the world, sentencing them to horrible fates. Yes, that's right. Life on a shelf in a grocery store. Is that right? Is that fair? Who speaks for the fish? No one, that's who. So I'm starting a student group for Sardine Awareness at Southwestern University. I'm calling it SA For SU. We want to get the message out so that all of our friends will know about the sardines, and they can tell their friends, and they in turn will tell theirs, and soon, we'll have an entire campus of penniless college students who are aware of the suffering of the sardines. Only then will we have accomplished something.

Knowledge is power, and a bunch of college kids with no experience in the ways of the world, no money, no jobs, and no influence can change the world. As long as they are aware. Be aware.

Note: Although this post is served with a heavy dose of sarcasm, I am being serious as well.

Not the skin of a mole, mind you...

You know you're addicted to Moleskine notebooks when you're walking to class and realise that you have seven of them on your person. Whoa.

Barack Obama is My President

There have been a lot of people saying silly things like, "Well, I might as well move to Canada now that Obama's in power..." Don't be stupid. For one thing, Canada is more liberal than the United States is, you won't fare much better. But on to my real point. Liberals said the same thing when Bush was elected. Remember that? And what did conservatives say? "Oh, don't be such wimps, you're sore losers, that's un-American." Like it or not, Barack Obama is the new leader of YOUR country. You can't say things like, "He's not MY president, I didn't vote for him." That's not the way our country works. Barack Obama is the new representative of the United States to the rest of the world. He will enact policies and pass laws, whether for good or ill. And whether you agree with him or not, he's still your president, and therefore worthy of your respect. As for me, I think that Obama's administration will enable the murder of millions of children. But does that change the fact that Mr. Obama has been placed in a position of authority over me as the leader of my homeland? No, it does not. Let's not resort to childish behaviour, regardless of our views.

"I am a camera, camera..."

I recently purchased a Nikon D60 digital SLR camera, and am so far rather pleased with my purchase.



I've done a lot of research, both before and after my purchase, and I've learned that this is a solid camera, especially for those who are new to DSLR's, like me. One main difference between this camera and Nikon's more expensive models is that a lot of the features are hidden in menu controls, rather than having actual physical controls on the camera body itself. Another thing I've learned is that photography is mainly affected by the skill of the photographer. Even if I had one of Nikon's top models, I'd still be churning out mediocre photos. The D60 is not for anyone who isn't willing to find out how to use the camera properly. The fully automatic modes aren't all that great. You can get all right pictures out of them, but to really harness the capability of the camera and your lens, you should really use the manual modes, which require a little more knowledge about how a camera works. So, if you want a camera for casual purposes, you'd probably do better with an advanced point-and-shoot. And besides, the D60 will cost you around $650, which will get you a great point-and-shoot, one that will probably have more auto-focus capability than the D60. But, for the beginning photographer, like me, it's a really good camera to learn on.

I've also been using Nikon's Capture NX2 RAW processing software, which is really awesome. Since I'm only dealing with RAW, and don't need to make major adjustments, it's a much better option than Photoshop. Plus, it integrates well with iPhoto, making it useful for a Mac user like myself.

Anyhow, enough talk, let's see some pictures. All of these were either taken on campus, or around Georgetown.

(Click to enlarge)








These photos are, of course, much better when they aren't pushed through the meat grinder that is web compression, but hopefully you can get a sense of what I'll be able to do with this camera. I really like it and I think I'll be able to have a lot of fun using it in the future.

The annals of history are the judge

As a young college student, this recent campaign has been abnormally pertinent for me. Not in the sense that there have issues debated which directly affect my way of life, or anything like that. Rather, I have been the target of a specific form of advertising from the Obama campaign. Never before have I seen or heard young people so universally entranced by one candidate. Now, it may be that I just wasn't paying attention in past campaigns, although I do not think that John Kerry or Al Gore provoked any sort of youth rally. The Obama campaign has actually been able to commercialize a politician. It is fashionable to wear an Obama t-shirt or button. I've seen Obama apparel sold in stores at the mall, right alongside Batman posters and Led Zeppelin shirts. I feel like I have not been asked to vote for Obama. Instead, I have been marketed to. That is one thing that bothers me about Obama. I am certain that the man himself would be misrepresented were I to vote based upon the commercialzation. But I cannot help but feel that a vote for Obama would be a vote for a brand. That's essentially what his campaign has turned him into, a brand. When I think of the Obama campaign, the first thing I think of is my peers, all of whom have, in some cases literally, bought into his message. It is more or less assumed that any person my age and in my position would support Mr. Obama, which I find increasingly curious. The Obama campaign really is a fad. That is not to say that all of his supporters are insincere, for I am sure that many of them are. But, I think that many students my age have bought what Obama is selling, so to speak. Reasons I have heard for supporting him are merely parroted from Obama's slogans: He stands for change, he'll clean up the messes that Bush has left. But what does that mean? It's easy to look politically informed without actually knowing what a politician stands for. Indeed, it is easy for a politician to campaign successfully without really disclosing what he truly stands for. I think that many students will become disenchanted with Mr. Obama when the going gets tough. Obama will no doubt have a soaring thrust of popularity for the first few months of his presidency, maybe the first few years. Many will no doubt frantically hold on to the promises of change that were made, regardless of what Mr. Obama actually does. But in the end, I think that many of Obama's young supporters will regret their decision to support him. Let us remind ourselves that many of our greatest leaders have been extremely unpopular, and many still are today. Doing the right thing is not always popular. At this moment in time, defending human life is not the most popular thing to do. But people still do it. No matter what people say about President Bush, he has stuck to his guns. I admire that. He has faced incredible and unwarranted opposition from the rest of the world and from his own countrymen, but he has kept going. I could care less what today's political commentators say about George W. Bush and Barack Obama. I place a much higher value upon what people will say about them twenty years from now. That is the telling factor. See you in 2028.

Weird Statue Prayer Thing

Whoever thought this was a good idea was just not paying attention. Come on... really? There was a group of Christians who went and prayed in front of the bull statue on Wall Street. Exodus connections aside, laying hands on a statue and praying for the economy just doesn't send a good message.

Here's a site with some more pictures. Wow, they've even got a shofar. That's pretty intense. Of course, liberal bloggers are having a field day with all sorts of "Look at what the religious nuts are doing this time" stuff, accusations of idolatry, things like that. They obviously aren't worshipping the bull, it's supposed to be symbolic, but still. This was very poorly thought out.

Powell Endorses Obama

Here is an excellent interview with Colin Powell, concerning his decision to endorse Sen. Obama. While I don't agree with his choice, I think that the concerns he has about the state of the Republican party are legitimate, and it is rare to hear something expressed in clear and civilised manner in today's media. If you look at his reasons for supporting Obama, which he cites briefly at the end, you will find a summary of what most people say about the senator: he can inspire people. Powell says that Obama is a "transformational figure." Only time will tell exactly how our country and the rest of the world is transformed under Obama's administration. (It seems extremely likely that Obama will win, thus I am using language which implies that this is indeed the case.)

Powell interview on Meet the Press

As for my own vote, it will not be cast for Obama. I only need one reason, and that is abortion. I don't like Obama's economics, or some of his policies concerning government programs and spending, but even if I did agree, I would not vote for him. He is radically pro-infanticide, and that is the only reason I need to vote against him.

A Worthy Quote

“Nearly all the historical work worth doing at the present moment in the English language is the work of shoveling off heaps of rubbish inherited from the immediate past.” - Henry Cabot Lodge

Straight out of Akron

I think the Black Keys may have just claimed the title as my favourite band. Out of all the bands I listen to, they have a near perfect balance of talent, musical continuity, and innovation. They are able to incorporate a healthy dose of the blues/soul tradition into their music, while still retaining the ability to create something new. Plus, they put on a great show, and I can say from personal experience that they are pretty nice guys. I really urge anyone who is remotely interested in quality rock music to seriously take a look at this band. The only thing I don't like is my continuing inability to play their entire catalogue note for note. I'm working on it.

Ideas Have Consequences

There are three major problems with the way history is being taught to young adults, and as a student of history as well as a future educator, I must say that this is distressing, to say the least. These problems that I speak of are as follows: An undue emphasis on trade and economics, unhealthy amounts of "chronological snobbery," and the wanton imposition of modern ideals upon the various contexts of history. Let's take a look at these issues, and I shall explain in greater detail what I mean.

Trade. It is undoubtedly an important factor in the development of world events. But if you were to sit in on a university-level history course, you would get the impression that trade was the only factor which affected anything at all. I am currently enrolled in a class called, "World Civilizations Since 1500," an overview of historical events stretching from the late Renaissance all the way up until modern times. I can say without fear of hyperbole that the entire course has been centered around economics. This is not just my perspective, either, I have spoken with a few of the other students in the class who agree with this assessment. Let us take the example of the Enlightenment period. There were many ideas circulating during the Enlightenment, ideas which would effectively cause the destabilization of Europe and in many cases the deconstruction of long-standing governmental structures. These were replaced by new, revolutionary-minded forms of government, the most obvious example being post-revolution France. The ideas behind all of this were extremely influential at the time and also extremely complicated. Yet these same ideas were not really discussed or examined within in the context of my class. We didn't read any of the Enlightenment thinkers, or talk about the details and nuances of the revolutionary philosophy. Instead, we discussed how these new Enlightenment governments affected trade and politics.

What I want to talk about is WHY. Why did these ideas lead to revolutions? What are the consequences of this way of thinking? We were told that the Enlightenment was an age of free thinking, without really being shown what was being thought at the time. Does this make any sense? What is discussed in the classroom is mere FACT. I can find facts on my own, as could any motivated student. Libraries provide the student with essentially the same information that is available to any knowledgeable professor. A history teacher should be able to explain all of the connections and nuances behind the ideas, not merely gloss over their results. This problem exists not only in this particular class, but also in every other college-level history course I have taken. Economics is made the driving force behind everything, and the possibility of any other cause is ignored. The Crusades? Completely motivated by European greed and avarice. There is no allowance for justice or honor as motivators in that situation, and only the desire for land and wealth is "allowed" to control the actions of the past. The Reformation? Simply an ideological movement, something which allowed governments to break away from the supposedly oppressive Catholic church, bringing forth free government, free trade, and free press in Europe. Some of the most important ideas of the last millennium are ignored in favor of mere facts. Facts do not form a worldview, facts do not constitute morality, and facts do not spur the hearts of men to action. Why do we settle for this in the classroom? At the end of a four year education, most students will know nothing about the Reformation or the Enlightenment except for a two sentence textbook summary on the topic. This does not, in my opinion, benefit the student in any way, and I believe that professors do their students a disservice by making gross generalizations and excluding details that are in fact vital to a complete understanding of history.

Another deficiency that can be found in university classroom is "chronological snobbery." This is the assumption that the present is automatically better than the past, by virtue of supposed advances in technology, ideology, or religion. This is an incredibly fallacious way to look at things. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-20. The chronological snob might, for example, look down his nose at a some medieval scholar or logician, one who might have believed that the earth was located in the center of the solar system. The snob will declare said scholar to be a daft old fool, mired in the Dark Ages, and of no use to anyone. This concept can be put into a logical syllogism thusly:

I. You argue that A implies B.
II. A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
III. C is clearly false.
IV. Therefore, A does not imply B.

Well, does that really make sense? Some teachers seem to think it is perfectly all right to go about completely discounting entire periods of time simply because they think that modern man has so vastly improved himself, so much so that silly things like, for example, Medieval Christianity cannot possibly be worth discussing, or even giving credence to. Every period has, as C.S. Lewis said, "its own characteristic illusions." But for professional educators to paint the portrait of history with so broad a brush seems very unscholarly to me, and I'm not sure why more care isn't taken to avoid this problem. The speed at which generalizations are made is indeed astounding, and makes one wonder whether or not some professors even care about accuracy.

The third problem I have seen is that of the modern ideal being applied to the historical context. (It could be said that this is, in fact, an outgrowth of chronological snobbery, so make of that what you will.) One example of this is the modern idea of "tolerance." Tolerance in our day and age is a sort of pluralism, a "live and let live" attitude towards beliefs or customs which differ from ours. Oftentimes, a historical group will be looked at and proclaimed to be more tolerant than other people of the day. We are then led to believe that this makes that particular group somehow better or more agreeable than their peers. But the definition of tolerance used is largely a modernist invention. To the modern mind, tolerance is progressive, tolerance is politically correct, tolerance is necessary for a free society. But is that how the historical context defines things? Was it really a desire for tolerance which prompted the institution of Dhimma within 7th century Muslim law? And should the 4th century Christian church be thought of as intolerant for trying to stamp out Arianism? At first glance, moderns will dismiss feudalism as oppressive and cruel, but is it really? Is that the way it was viewed by the people who actually lived within that context? It seems to me that many times, the vast differences between the modern perspective and the perspectives of the past are completely ignored. History is put into a blender along with modernism, and the result is a watery, revisionist concoction that is more counterproductive than anything else. No attempt is made to break free from the gravitational pull of our own biases. The practice of taking modern ideas and slapping them onto historical events in such a way is just plain old bad scholarship. The willingness of academia to view history through mud-coloured glasses is something which should not be taken with the complacency that so many seem to have towards the treatment of history in the classroom.

It would seem that for the modern university student, history has been reduced to money and power. Ideas are mentioned, but never investigated. Cultures are surveyed, but never explored. If I were to remember only one thing that I learned as a history student in high school, it would be that ideas have consequences. Worldview matters. Philosophies matter. Religion matters. These things affect culture, politics, economics, literature, music, art, architecture, and every other aspect of society imaginable. It amazes me that the most important factors in the development of history are ignored by those who have studied it the most.

"There is a way that seems right to a man..."

"... but its end is the way to death." - Proverbs 14:12

I stumbled upon a five part documentary(link at the bottom of this post) about the Norwegian Black Metal band, Gorgoroth, and more specifically, their vocalist, a man called Gaahl.

On a superficial level, this series really exemplifies a few of the reasons why metal is an inherently un-Christian movement. Putting aside whatever arguments are made for its status as music, the ideas which lie behind metal, and more specifically, Black Metal, are really awful. Members of Gorgoroth freely admit that Satanism is at the core of this band, and at the core of Black Metal. Gorgoroth itself is blantantly anti-Christian. A quote from Gaahl: "Christianity is based solely on stolen souls and lives. So, of course, every trace of them should be erased." The music of Gorgoroth clearly has an agenda, according to the members themselves, and that is to create fear and change the minds of their listeners to reflect the Satanist ideology that is at the center of the band. "The band is spreading fear, and we use that fear to create change and to also get our ideas across," said . "[There are] few bands around with a Satanic message, it's all about the music ... we are not about that, we are about the message."

Gaahl views himself as a Biblical goat, one with free will, unlike the sheep who follow God. This leads us to the humanism that motivates Gaalh. As the documentary begins to examine Gaahl more closely, we see a man whose ideals are more or less the height of humanism. He utterly rejects God, saying that God is within Man. When talking about breaking away from religion, he says, "You will be allowed to focus on the god within yourself, because that's the only true god, the god within everything. That's the only thing that, for me, is worth calling god. It is the highest spirit of everything, and not this control freak that is telling you, you are not supposed to do this, you are not supposed to do this ... God is within man, God is within nature, and nature will always grow, that's the force of all life, to grow."

Gaahl constructs his own morality. He has multiple convictions for violence, one of which involved torture. Gaahl apparently felt it necessary to teach one particular man a lesson for attacking him, and so he restrained his attacker and beat the man for hours, supposedly collecting the man's blood in a cup. He says that this sort of thing is "punishment," meant to teach others a lesson, and has apparently done this on multiple occasions. When Man is given the status of a god, rather than God's image, this is what can happen. If I am a god in my own right, what's to stop me from constructing my own ideas of right and wrong, however contrary they may be to the urgings of my own conscience, and then carrying them out upon others, regardless of the consequences? In a way, that's what Gaahl has done. In a broader sense, Gaahl embodies the reasoning of Man as he fights against God's sovereignty. Although we are loath to admit it, we are all Gaahl in our heart of hearts, however extreme an example he may be. The grace of God, the work of Christ, and the strength of the Holy Spirit enable us to rise above our sinful natures and follow Christ. Praise Yahweh that this is so.

Note: Concerning the video series, I recommend that you watch it to understand the full scope of what I've discussed here. There are some very poignant aspects of this story that I really can't describe. But, also be warned that there are some graphic images of stage props used at Gorgoroth concerts, for example, and also instances of foul language. Just be aware. I still recommend that you see all five parts, it's very interesting, albeit disturbing.

Here is the link: True Norwegian Black Metal

Nooooo!

Brandon Flowers Totally Looks Like Gordon Freeman.

The Hand Jive: That's how you do it.

"Fascinating."

You Can't Legislate Morality

In my College Writing class earlier this week, we were discussing some articles about marriage as opposed to cohabitation, and the pros and cons that are involved. I was struck by some of the things that were brought up. For example, people are supposedly given incentive to stay married because of the fact that having to go through the legal process of divorce is more of a hassle than simply being able to pick up and leave your current cohabiting lover. On the other hand, cohabitation requires no joint finances, no long-term commitment, and can be abandoned at any time. Yet, it is socially acceptable to bring a child into the world within the context of such a relationship. How is this logical? If you are not ready to make the "final commitment" of marriage, as one of my classmates put it, then how are you ready to be a parent? By the same token, I am of the opinion that as a general rule of thumb, if you don't think you're quite ready to be a parent, you shouldn't get married.

But as I was sitting there, listening to what everyone in my class had to say, I realised that if marriage is removed from its status as a divinely ordained covenantal relationship, it is more or less meaningless. Apart from the covenant and Christ's model of what marriage should be, what is marriage? It becomes nothing more than social contract, no different from cohabitation, "life-partner"-ship, or whatever sort of ambiguous title you'd care to tack onto it. Divorce rates are embarrassingly high, so high in fact, that the government has tried to put programs in place to get married couples to stay married. The institution of marriage as we know it is most definitely in danger, and is attacked from all sides by post-modern ideas and blatant immorality.

As Christians attempt to combat things like same-sex marriage and rampant divorce, I wonder if there's actually anything left to defend. Marriage in the United States, at least, the way statistics portray it, is not the same institution that God created in the Garden at the beginning of time. Is such a shallow reflection of God's covenant worth defending? Well, perhaps not. But the question we must ask is this: do things really have to be this way? The answer is a resounding no. It is the responsibility of Christians, now more than ever, to preserve marriage, not necessarily through Constitutional amendments or senate legislation, but instead though the living out of Christ's example. True cultural change cannot be achieved through revolution, rebellion, or activism. You cannot legislate morality. Rather, true transformation is brought about through Christ's Church. That is how marriage is going to be redeemed.

Campus Photos

Here's a few HDR images I captured around campus earlier this week. (Just click on the photos to see them in a larger size.)

From SU Campus

From SU Campus

From SU Campus

I pity the fool who uses Ad Hominem arguments!

All right, here is a message for anyone online who discusses politics. If you employ obscenities and blatantly slander people in the course of your political discussion, I will disregard what you have to say, regardless of how correct or intelligent you are. Discussion on a civilised and intellectual level should be conducted in a manner which reflects that. Saying things like, "Bush is an idiot" will not get you my attention. Apparently, that is an acceptable way to speak about politics, especially for young people, students who are my age. America's youth has become accustomed to the Stewart-Colbert brand of political discussion. While I find Stephen Colbert to be quite hilarious, he is in no way a serious political commentator. What types of programs do they play on Comedy Central? Just take a stab at it. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer? NO! COMEDY! Analysis has become equated with derision and slander, and debate has been made synonymous with crass bickering. The internet is a haven for misuse and oftentimes complete ignorance of rhetorical standards. If you want me to listen to you, speak to me like an adult.

Here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZEWdo-I61M

I stopped the video within the first few seconds. (If bad language offends you, just don't click the link.) This video is also a good example of someone trying to make a point, but never showing me any proof. This gentleman makes several statements concerning the content of speeches made by Republicans, but never shows me any examples. There are videos like this all over YouTube. I'd really love it if I could pound the concept of "ad hominem" into the brains of internet users. It's a fallacy! It's not a legitimate point!

The Internet Strikes Again

Amazing. Misinformation and Photoshopped pictures of Sarah Palin have already permeated the internet's opinion of her. It's completely unexpected, really. The internet is really one of the worst things to happen to political discussion and public perceptions in recent history. Really.

In Which Andrew Proves, via Indisputable Logic, That He Is Gay

Interesting thing happened at work earlier this evening. One of our tables was occupied by a group of high school kids, and some of them happened to be cheerleaders, in uniform, probably coming from a game or school event of some sort. One of my coworkers came over to me and said, "Dude, did you see those cheerleaders, man?" "Yes," I replied. "Awesome, right?" I shook my head. "How can you not dig that?" (He used some expletives here, but I won't bother including them.) I shrugged. "Well, I mean... are you gay?" "No, I'm not," said I. "Oh," he said. And then he walked away.

So. The fact that I don't ogle high school cheerleaders somehow means that I am a homosexual. Hey! I know! Let's do a logical proof! YAY!

1. Andrew does not like objectifying women.

2. All men who do not like objectfying women are homosexuals.

3. Therefore, Andrew is a homosexual.

Logic makes everything more fun. Yay, logic! But really, do you see how absurd this is? I'm sorry, this sort of thing really gets to me, it makes me wanna slap a foo'. I sincerely apologise to the world at large for the fact that I possess moral fibre. Perhaps the thing that most angers me is that because I'm a "prude," because I don't participate in such stupidity, I am considered abnormal. And it's easy for me to get on my high horse and complain, but seriously, this is bleeding ridiculous. And perhaps the worst part is that women EXPECT men to behave like this. Even some of my female friends are surprised when I don't act that way. That is really horrible. The way I see it, this speaks to the number of real men that our society is lacking.

Windows Mojave

Wow. Microsoft is really desperate to change the consumer mindset concerning the latest mutation of the Windows operating system, Vista. They conducted a little experiment in which they demonstrated Vista to consumers who had never seen it before, but called it by a different name. The consumers who participated had heard all of the negative reviews of Vista, complaints from other users, etc., but when they tried out "Windows Mojave," they were apparently quite impressed. They were later told that it was, in fact, Vista.

I'm not going to go all "Mac vs. PC" on you, because I think that entire thing is stupid. But I will say that from a marketing standpoint, this is pretty bad. Microsoft has to resort to disguising their product as something else in order to get potential buyers to even look at it. That's not good. Yes, it was an interesting experiment, but Vista still has a horrible reputation. This new "Decide For Yourself" campaign seems to be an attempt to reverse some of the negative hype that Vista has gotten, but I don't think it's going to be very successful.

An accurate examination of an American inanity

I am no great fan of hip-hop music and culture, but I found this assessment of the "music" of Soulja Boy to be more or less right on the money. The article is a bit long, but I think it's worth reading.

Soulja Boy: In Loco Parentis

Frankly, it is unsettling to me that something that is so blatantly trashy has become so infectiously popular. Hip-hop blurs the line between what is and is not music, but I can say without a doubt that Soulja Boy's product is not music, because it is, in fact, just a product. Just something to think about.

Chris Martin has the answer to everything.

A quote from the latest Coldplay radio single seems to sum up the general attitude of nominal Christians in America: "For some reason I can't explain, I know St. Peter will call my name..."

We don't know why, but every single one of us is somehow going to heaven. Sounds like a winning plan to me. No flaws in that logic, no sir...

Abraham, Martin, and John

Anyone else think that modern-day songster John Mayer bears a striking resemblance to Martin Luther? Check this out...

Luther:



Mayer:



I thought that was interesting, albeit inane.

And just because I can, here's Abraham Kuyper:

"I think, therefore I am... but I Kant!"

Well, I've finally gotten my hands on my class schedule for next semester. My scholastic activities are as follows: World Civilisations Since 1500, College Writing, Latin I, Intro to Islam, and finally, my first year seminar. I'm looking forward to Latin I, especially. I'm glad that they've given me some classes that will actually go towards my degree, instead of boring freshman classes. More details as they come along.

On another note, I bought a copy of a book by Immanuel Kant, a prominent Enlightenment philosopher. I'm looking forward to engaging Kant and examining what he has to say, even though I am sure he and I will be at odds with each other. I also got The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. This is a rather popular book by a modern day atheist, and I'll be anticipating tackling this as well. I'm sure I'll have more to offer on this topic once I've started reading.

"Hey, man, it's a free country..."

I think it's amusing when people talk about "freedom of speech" on sites like YouTube. Last time I checked, YouTube is a privately owned company, not a public forum, thus, no one is guaranteed this freedom under the Constitution, as so many are fond of stating. The website lets users post content for free, but does that give anyone the right to "free speech" on the site? Not so much. Actually, there are a lot of misunderstandings concerning free speech in general. I'm sure many people who post content on the internet could be found guilty of libel and slander, were one to pursue the issue. Many people seem to take the perceived anonymity(or lack thereof) to be a license to say things that would be most unacceptable in, say, a public speech. Some people don't seem to realise that even simple trespasses against the law, even on the internet, can have dire real-life consequences, i.e., getting sued. Just something to consider.

To Die to Self

Note: I really didn't intend to write this much, but I got started with something I saw on TV, and I just kind of went with it.

I am currently watching a televangelist on TV, one Pastor Davis. He is trying to give away this stuff called "no evil oil," a substance which supposedly rids the user of "witchcraft spirits" and the "poverty devil" under the power of the blood of Jesus. Apparently, he and his "prayer family" prayed over this oil for 17 days, somehow consecrating it and changing it into this miraculous substance. Rebellious children, unfaithful spouses, and financial troubles can all be attributed to the witchcraft spirits, according to this man. He just promised a police officer at one of his meetings that he would receive two promotions and get a larger salary, all in the name of God.

I am sorry. This is inexcusable. I don't care what brand of Christianity you subscribe to, this is inexcusable. Even supposedly "mainstream" Christian leaders like Pat Robertson participate in this sort of thing, giving unfounded proclamations of healing and favour with no deference whatsoever to God's will. (Of course, Mr. Robertson is not a trinket peddler like this Pastor Davis person, but nevertheless, I do not appreciate some of the things he does.) Another thing this Davis fellow keeps saying is that he "sees" things. He said that to the policeman, he says to viewers who write him that he "sees" them anointing various people/things with his oil and being blessed. He sees them? What does that mean? He is seriously prophesying to these people. He simply says something and states that God will do it. This is akin to a combination of a BAM! commercial and an ad for a phone-in psychic. You can clean your bathtub and get rid of evil spirits at the same time!

How can we expect anyone to take Christianity seriously when our faith is allowed to be hijacked by people like this? Evangelical Christianity seems to be a harbour for distributors of a cheapened version of the faith. Christianity is portrayed as a quick fix for life's little problems. Self-help is the name of the game, and God is the guru who will set you right. Or that's what we're told. Joel Osteen is one such preacher, a man who preaches a theology of prosperity. He tells us that faith and righteousness will bring us favour from God, and in turn, this will manifest itself materially. Our health will improve, we'll be more productive at work, our stress levels will go down, we'll have happier lives, because these are apparently the signs of God's blessing. This is an incredibly reduced gospel. In fact, there's really not much gospel involved, to be perfectly honest. This is merely Christianized self-help, the American dream, with a Jesus-Fish stuck on the bumper. Like so many other things in our culture, we've taken something, stamped it with God's seal of approval, and supposedly claimed it for Christ, in all of it's postmodern, secular glory, ignoring the fact that it remains virtually unchanged. Is this "taking every thought captive?" Is this "renewing your mind?" No, it's just sugarcoating. Extremely popular sugarcoating.

We are challenged by Peter in his first epistle to pursue spiritual growth. So many people are still content to stay within the bounds of "Jesus loves me, this I know," never maturing past that point. (The aforementioned principle is indeed a wonderful one, but our faith has so much more to offer...) The "prosperity gospel" seems to be nothing more than "Jesus loves me and wants me to have an expensive car, perfect health, obedient children, and a carefree life," as if these are the benefits of the Jesus Club. I am always reminded that Christ himself specifically told us that we would be persecuted, reviled, and cursed for his sake. "To die to self and so to live" is the phrase that I think of, one that implies that the life of the Christian is not exactly "7 Keys Towards Improving Your Life." I am a slave to Christ, not a country club member. But my master is Yahweh, the creator of the universe. He has given me something much greater than the "American Dream," and has promised me an inheritance of incalculable worth.

True cultural transformation is more than possible through the gospel, but only if the entire gospel is put into practice. The gospel that is being displayed to the American public is a shoddy reflection of the true power of Christ. The American church is divided, disorganized, and inconsistent in its efforts. How can we expect nonbelievers to take our message seriously if we ourselves do not take it seriously? The incredible beauty of the gospel is being lost on an entire nation.

Things I Overhear at Work #1

As a busboy, I overhear many things that drift into my ears from nearby tables. I thought I'd begin a series of posts relating some of these bits of conversation.

"You know what I hate about Protestants?"

I didn't stick around to hear the rest of that thought, but I wish I could have. It would've been amusing...

Culture: Politics Internalized?

Do government and politics define a culture, or do the values of a society become the primary factor? This question found its way into my brain as the result of a comment on one of my YouTube videos. This individual said that American culture was vastly different from British culture, and cited politics as one of the reasons for this. Obviously, Britain's policies are more liberal and European than American policies. But is that really a valid cause of cultural difference?

I tend to base my judgements on the fact that (WCS kids, say it with me, I know you've been programmed to do so) culture is religion, externalized. How do politics and government fit into the equation, though? It's a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation. If a culture's values are primarily determined by the actions of government, then what? Or, to pose a further question, are the actions of government really just outworkings of a culture's values? Is it top-down, bottom-up, or simply every which-way? Personally, I don't think that politics is a prime determinant in a culture, but then again, these matters are always quite messy and can never be said to go one way or another. I don't presume to surface with an actual answer, but I thought it was an interesting matter.

Final summation: how can government ultimately affect the nature of a culture?

Thoughts, anyone? Go.

American Faith: 3000 wide, 3 deep.

Ok, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm just not much for topics lately. BUT, here is a worthwhile blog post by Dr. George Grant. Read it here. Consider me your portal to interesting information around the internet.

These men are allergic to razors.

Perhaps someday soon I'll write a post that does not consist of the following pattern: "Here's a link to a website, isn't it grand?" /end post.

At any rate, here's the World Beard and Moustache Championships.

I think it's pretty cool, though slightly strange.

This Has To Be a Joke.

Amish Online Dating

Seriously?

My name is Andrew, and I am a drug addict.

toothpastefordinner.com

Etiquette 2.0

It's communications ala Mad Libs...

The Bureau of Communication

An Interesting Observation

toothpastefordinner.com

Luis Santiago Davalos: A History

Here's the character sketch I wrote for my role, Luis Davalos. I made a whole bunch of stuff up, but that's what I do.

Luis Santiago Davalos

Luis Santiago Davalos began his life as the illegitimate son of an American merchant and a Mexican barmaid.  He spent the majority of his youth in San Lucar with his mother, but ran away from home at the age of 16 to seek his fortune.  For the next four years, he worked with various smuggling gangs who specialized in transporting illegal goods across the Rio Grande and into Texas.  Luis’s experience in the smuggling business made him into a ruthless man, feared and respected by his colleagues.  He had a particular talent for knife-throwing and became very well-known for his ability to kill quickly and silently.  

Because of a series of mysterious deaths within the leadership of the smuggling ring, Davalos rose to a position of leadership.  By the age of 22, Davalos found himself in control of the most powerful gang in the border country along the Rio Grande.  He used this to his advantage, gaining vast profits from the gang’s lucrative smuggling operations.  As the sale of alcohol became more and more restricted in Texas, Davalos’s services as a smuggler came into great demand, and he was soon in control of a considerable fortune.  

Two years later, however, Davalos’s operation was broken up by the Texas Rangers.  Although many of his men were captured and hanged, Davalos himself escaped unharmed, along with twenty-six of his most loyal soldiers.  After many years of absence, the newly dethroned smuggler king returned to his hometown of San Lucar and began to set up a new base of operations.  His wealth made him one of the richest men in the area, and his influence in the town began to spread.  At the age of 25, Davalos was one of the most powerful men in San Lucar, second only to one General Romero Esteban, a man of equally shady repute.  Together, they were known as the “kings of San Lucar.”  Very little was beyond Luis’s reach.  He could have men killed at a moment’s notice with absolutely no fear of repercussions.  He kept Ed Lovett, the talented American lawyer in his employ, the man who would go on to get Davalos acquitted of murder five times.  Davalos respected Lovett’s skill as a lawyer, but regarded him as a fool outside the courtroom, useless for anything except legal counsel.  Davalos was well-loved by the people of the town, who viewed him as a native son, returned home to bring prosperity to his brethren.  Davalos used an alias, the Kinkajou, and became a Robin Hood-like figure, a hero to the people of the Mexican border country.  Soon after his return to San Lucar, he married Sofia Isabel Espinoza, the daughter of the mayor of San Lucar.  He became very protective of his wife, and was more than willing to kill any man who dared to look at her in the wrong way.  

Davalos soon formed a healthy working relationship with Romero Esteban and the two became business partners.  Their comparable resources and similar goals enabled them to work together, although covertly, on various jobs, ranging from gun smuggling and robbery to escort work.  Davalos’s operation as the Kinkajou allowed both of them to maintain their anonymity and kept both of them safe from the law, and the general’s wealth and his influence within the local governments opened doors that would have otherwise been closed to Davalos.  This partnership would prove to be quite valuable to both parties.  Davalos continued to operate in San Lucar for seven years, until he was 32, when Esteban requested his assistance with a bank heist across the Texas border.  This heist and the subsequent intervention of the Texas Rangers would prove to be the downfall of the two kings of San Lucar.  

An example of colour correction

Since this seems to be a topic of interest, I thought I'd post an example of some colour correction that I was working with earlier. I am by no means proficient at this, seeing as photo correction is almost an art form all by itself, but I was able to drastically improve one of my pictures in a few minutes. Here's the original photograph:


And here's the image post-adjustment:


The colours are a whole lot better in the second image, and it's closer to the tones that you'd actually see in real life. Since cameras can't always get colours 100% correctly, colour adjustment is one way to make your images look a lot better. Hopefully, I'll get better at this, I'm sure I could've done a much better job.

Another HDR image...

Here's a picture that I took while in Fredericksburg last night...

And this is the original image, without the HDR technique...

I've also been trying out colour correction on the pictures I've been taking. It really makes a difference... Of course, it takes practice to make the photos look completely natural, but I'm working on it.

"...and then I remembered that I'm a genius."

A YouTube comment, left on a video about Father's Day, written on Father's Day: 

"Lol nice, But fathers day insant until September :s"

WHAAAAA?

"I turn my camera on..."

I have discovered yet another sort of digital medium for me to delve into, and that is High Dynamic Range(HDR) photography. HDR is a technique which uses multiple images, all taken with different exposure levels. These images are then combined into a single image. The resulting photo has a higher level of detail, a greater variety of light, and it closer to what the human eye can perceive. It's really quite fascinating. At any rate, I've been experimenting with this technique. Our camera is by no means professional quality, it's just a simple Sony point and shoot model, but I've been able to get some pretty good results.

Here's one of the more interesting ones. It's just a view down my street...


I like the effect that you can get with the HDR, I was able to achieve a surreal, almost painting-like quality with this photo. Of course, HDR can also produce very detailed, natural looking images as well. It's really good for landscapes and wide panoramic shots. I plan to continue messing around with this, so I should have some more shots to post later on.

"Some kind of employment..."

Well, good news. I have at last procured a job. It took me long enough. I'll be doing more or less the same sort of work I was before, bussing, running and the like. I might also get the chance to do some hosting as well, so that might be cool. The work atmosphere seems relatively laid-back and relaxed, so hopefully it won't be overly stressful. Also, the manager I spoke with seems willing to work with my schedule for the show, so that's a plus, too. I'm scheduled to go in for orientation next Wednesday, so I'll probably have more information then. I've got to get certified by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, but that shouldn't be too much trouble, since I can get it done online. More details as things develop. I'm just glad to be employed again...

I give up.

Well, this is the end, folks. Hillary Clinton is out, Barack is in. I've already presented my views on Obama, so if you'd like to revisit that, see this post. I'm not terribly optimistic about the political future of America. I'd like to say that I could just shut my eyes for the next 4 years, but that's really not going to happen. So, I give up, I really don't have much more to say about that situation. Although, I'm certain I'll go back in my word here in a few months when the campaign starts to heat back up.

On a side note, I absolutely despise modernity and all of the worthless ideologies that have crept into our thinking because of it. Most of the time, we don't even realise exactly how much post-modernism has changed the world, our society and the way we think. 

I think it's safe to say that I am becoming an amateur videographer. My camcorder and my MacBook make me a travelling movie studio. I really enjoy taking footage, editing it and producing a final product, it's really fun. I imagine this will become an even bigger hobby as I get better at it. Fun, eh?

Right to Life, Right to Multiply...

I found this article via my BBC world news RSS feed. It's absolutely atrocious. Here's the article. Basically, the Chinese government has carried out sterilisation operations on their citizens as a part of their one child per family policy. I don't know how mandatory these procedures were, but they are obviously sanctioned and executed by the government. Now, since so many of these families who fell victim to this earthquake have lost their only child(approx. 7,000 children were killed), the government is going to graciously send medical teams to reverse the sterilisation so that these families can replace their lost child. 

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"Zhang Shikun, director of the science and technology bureau of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, said: 'The team, comprised of experts on child-bearing, will conduct surgery in the quake-hit areas to provide technological support for those wanting to give birth to another [child].'"

Technological support? Is that what they're calling this? This is human life that you're playing with, not some piece of machinery. 

God has decided to build his church upon the continent of Asia, where there is a great concentration of pain and oppression. The gospel is growing exponentially in Asia, despite the animosity of communist governments. Praise God that Christ is flourishing in that part of the world. 

Pastor of Muppets

I've got another post topic, but I didn't really feel like going back and putting it into the other post, so this'll be a quick one.

I was listening to the radio the other night, when "Master of Puppets" by Metallica came on. If you know anything about my taste in music, metal is not on good terms with me and I usually despise it in all its forms. But I was struck by the fact that this particular song is actually an effective portrait of what sin does to a person. Now, I do not think that this interpretation was intended by the members of Metallica, but I gained a new appreciation of this song after viewing it in that light. It's a good reminder of what I've been saved from, regardless of the intentions of the song's authors.

"End of passion play, crumbling away,
I'm your source of self-destruction.
Veins that pump with fear, sucking darkest clear,
Leading on your death's construction.

Taste me, you will see,
More is all you need.
You're dedicated to
How I'm killing you.

Come crawling faster,
Obey your master.
Your life burns faster,
Obey your master,
Master.

Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings.
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams.
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master.

Needlework the way, never you betray,
Life of death becoming clearer.
Pain monopoly, ritual misery,
Chop your breakfast on a mirror.

Taste me you will see,
More is all you need.
You're dedicated to
How I'm killing you.

Come crawling faster,
Obey your master.
Your life burns faster,
Obey your master,
Master.

Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings.
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams.
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master.

Master, master,
Where's the dreams that I've been after?
Master, master,
You promised only lies.
Laughter, laughter,
All I hear and see is laughter.
Laughter, laughter,
Laughing at my cries.
Fix me.

Hell is worth all that, natural habitat,
Just a rhyme without a reason.
Never-ending maze, drift on numbered days,
Now your life is out of season.

I will occupy,
I will help you die,
I will run through you,
Now I rule you, too.


Come crawling faster,
Obey your master.
Your life burns faster,
Obey your master.
Master.

Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings.
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams.
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master.
Just call my name, 'cause I'll hear you scream,
Master, master."

"We don't got the news..."

It occurred to me just now that I don't pay enough attention to the news. Being the quasi-intelligent, contemplative man that I am, I should probably be more informed about the world at large. The selection of new downloads on the Apple website does not really count as news, I've found.

I found something that could come in handy. After reading Cassidy's article in "This Week" at church, I decided it might be useful to have a copy of the Book of Common Prayer. So, I went and I found a PDF version of the 1662 edition of the BCP. To a history buff such as myself, this was a pretty cool find. It can be found here, simply click on the picture to the right to download. The psalms are divided up quite nicely into morning and evening prayer, so perhaps this will serve as a vehicle for a more prayerful existence. Everyone could stand to pray more, right?

I've resolved to start using my Moleskine again. It fell into deep disuse when my schedule all but disappeared after the first semester of the school year. But now with rehearsals and such for the musical, it may become necessary to impose order once again. Besides, if/when I start working(the future of Andrew as a working man is still very much in doubt, much to my chagrin), I'll need to coordinate shifts and such, so it will perhaps become more useful. Not to mention next semester. I am sure I'll be kept busy at university, a concept which makes me tired at the mere thought. 

My YouTube video on English Accents keeps getting more and more views. It was at 443 last time I checked. That's the most views I've ever gotten on anything, so that's cool, I guess. According to YouTube demographics, the viewership of that video is 68% female. It's gotta be the hat.

Bono is an Evil Bastard

Here's something amusing that I found:

I knew Bono held a lot of influence, but I didn't think he had *that* much power.

Grrr, technology.

Given the fact that I am once again a Mac user, I have attempted to use the Mac mail program. It's a nice little program, and it'd be great if I could use it. Only problem is that I use Yahoo for my primary email address, and Yahoo doesn't let its normal users have POP servers, that's only for paying clients. This is really annoying, especially since Gmail offers this exact same service to their users for FREE. Whyyyy? Why does Yahoo have to be so stupid? I had heard that Yahoo users in the UK had access to POP servers, so I actually went over there and created a UK account, but to no avail. I'm really tempted to switch my main email address to Gmail, but I don't know if it's worth it. But, I suppose that if there was ever a good time to do such a thing, it'd be now. Perhaps. We shall see... The Gmail online interface isn't really to my liking, whereas I've been accustomed to the Yahoo layout, but that's probably not terribly important. 

Ok, forget it, I'm switching. It'll make for better consolidation, I think.

On a side note, I like the new Weezer song/video. I wish they would've left the train wreck that is Chris Crocker out of it. It's kind of weird seeing all of those internet personalities in the same place, but it's an ingenious idea, nonetheless.

He's a one-man dynasty...

I just thought this picture was incredibly amusing. It's vintage Billary...

"21st century kid..."

Well, I'm all done with graduation and such, which is really, really nice. I'm starting to become more and more comfortable with the notion of going to university. That's not to say that I was in any way uncomfortable about it before, but it starts to sink in a bit more once one is officially done with the high school experience. 

On another note, I've got a new computer, which is rather exciting. It's a brand new MacBook Pro, which may be seen here:

It's a really useful piece of machinery, to say the least. I'm especially enjoying the 512 MB graphics card and OS X Leopard. Good stuff. I've got another new gadget, a Panasonic GS320 camcorder:

As of yet, I am unable to import video from the camera, since I haven't got the right cable, but I shall fix that sometime in the future. (Of course, Panasonic couldn't be bothered to include the right cable, that would be expecting far too much.) 

On another topic, it seems that I can't even turn around these days without seeing something about Indiana Jones. He's even on my Dr. Pepper... I haven't seen the new movie, but from what I've heard, it's rather strange. Perhaps I'll get around to seeing it sometime. On the other hand, I thought the new Narnia movie was pretty good. Of course, being a literary sort, there were things I didn't like, but overall, it was an entertaining film which got the basic aspects of the story, so I won't complain. Besides, Prince Caspian is a very difficult story to put onto film, so perfection cannot be expected. 

I'm sure I'll be posting some more videos once I get this camera business sorted, so keep an eye out for that.

Cheers!

"I'm walking on sunshine, and don't it feel... God?"

Well, I was watching television earlier this evening, when I happened to view a certain advertisement for a Christian program on a local network. The title of the program was "The Gospel Truth," I believe. At any rate, the advert featured a man telling me something to the effect of the following: "God loves you and wants you to be well. Believe in him, and he will bless you with good health!" Of course, that is a loose paraphrase, but you get the idea. I, of course, have some issues with this. First of all, Christianity is not a promise of good health and well-being. In fact, some Christians are among the most afflicted people on earth. If you really wish me to delve into the Bible for an example, I would undoubtedly surface with the testimony of Job, who, though a faithful follower of Yahweh, was beset upon all sides by a myriad of worldly ills. Certainly this man, a steadfast believer was loved by God. Following Christ is not a call to become a sort holy happy lemming, sauntering through life unhindered by the effects of the Curse. On the contrary, Christians are called to die. It is certainly not the most comfortable group that one could join. 

I also take issue with people like Pat Robertson of "The 700 Club." On this television program, Robertson and his colleagues will pray for members of their audience who have sent in prayer requests, and these requests will almost invariably include illness. Mr. Robertson will begin to pray for a diseased or injured individual and say something like this: "Lord, we ask you to just heal this man. *insert name here*, you will now feel the power of God inside you, the warmth of the Holy Spirit, healing you, taking away your injury..." Something like that, I think. Anyways, Robertson has the gall to declare that God is healing someone simply because he said that God would heal them. I find this incredibly presumptuous of him, to make things up like that. Unless Robertson is privy to God's healing roster, it's rather inappropriate of him to make that sort of statement. And it's not just Robertson, this is certainly not an unheard of thing. Many evangelical preachers, Joel Osteen, for example, like to use Christianity as sort of a self-help clinic. But the thing we must remember is that God's definition of happiness and what is good for our lives is very different from our own. Christianity isn't a quick 5-step solution for more money, a perfect marriage and a clean bill of health, though that's how some like to look at it. Yes, God loves us and wants what is best for us, but more often than not, that will involve a lot of pain, something which doesn't often fit into the Evanjellyfish way of doing things.

As I finish writing this, I wonder if my eagerness to point out the "pain and suffering" bits of Christianity is a bad thing. Perhaps. Ah, well.

An excerpt from "On The Incarnation"

"For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father's Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father."

 - Athanasius

Ah, the impetuousness of youth...

Ok, so I was looking around on YouTube and found a series of videos put together by CSPAN in which college students were asked what issues would be important to them in the coming elections. So, I've selected a few that I'm going to comment on right quick. 

Look, kid, getting a job has nothing to do with the government. There were numerous videos about how jobs were scarce and college was expensive. Well, that's generally known as LIFE. Yeah, college is expensive, yeah, getting a job is hard sometimes, but that's what you do. It's got nothing to do with politics. If you're lucky, maybe Barack Obama will descend from the clouds in a golden chariot and help you find a job, eh? Is that what we're looking for?

Mmmkay, so, superfluous spending, huh? Started when the Bush administration took control, eh? You don't say...  Apparently, this kid hasn't met any hardcore Democrats. Shall we introduce him to our friends Barack and Hillary? If this man doesn't want to vote for anyone who will engage in superfluous spending, then he won't be voting at all in '08.

Ok, I love this one. "What's important to me about this election is healthcare, because as a college student, it's very hard to get birth control." WHAT?! Sorry, I just sprayed spit all over my computer screen because I was laughing so much. She doesn't say, "Oh, look at all the poor people who can't see a doctor, the government should help them..." No! She wants birth control! The government should pay for her birth control! Your tax dollars: helping college girls avoid unwanted pregnancies since 2008. Other issues she thinks are important: the state of her economy, what jobs will be available for her... uh... that's about it. Gay marriage, abortion and the war are all just opinion, apparently, so why worry about them? It's not like anyone has morals anymore, what a quaint idea...

Well, well, well. Health care is a natural right? Hm. Honestly, I'm not sure what I think about that. Another one of these videos equated freedom with healthcare. Just because we live in freedom doesn't mean that our every need will be catered to. Besides, I'd like to see the government provide healthcare for every single American. That's the premise, right? Universal healthcare? In 2007, Americans spend around 2.3 trillion dollars on healthcare. Sooo... what happens after we blow the national budget on that? We'll be really healthy, but we'll have to fire all of our government employees and raise taxes or something to fund it. Maybe if we start a nationwide fundraising program, we can work something out. Selling popcorn to the Mexicans across the border, perhaps? Setting up a $5 carwash up in Canada? Sounds like a winner. But seriously, universal healthcare just isn't feasible.

Now, of course, these are only a few dumb college kids, but there were a lot of other videos saying basically the same thing. I may seem overly harsh, but frankly, I greatly dislike the people that are in "my generation," because they just don't think. 

"People try to put us down, just because we get around..."

"That Old Time Religion..."

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher

I think the above quote pretty much sums up the entirety of the "salvation by nebulous goodwill" method of reasoning. Aurelius assumes that a truly just god cares nothing for piety or devotion and requires none from his worshippers. Virtue(which, I might add, was very different for the pagan than it is for the Christian) is enough to please the gods. Of course, this is coming from a man whose "gods" were themselves imperfect, flawed beings, who could perhaps be sated by mere acts of goodwill and nobility. Aurelius seems to think he has his ducks in a row, asserting that diety would conform to his idea of what a "just god" should be. If the "gods" dared to differ from dear Marcus's template, he might simply choose to disregard them, declaring them to be undesirable and more or less unworthy of worship. Upon death, Aurelius might have prepared to step into a great void, (if, as he speculates, there are no gods) leaving behind nothing except a presence in the memories of his loved ones. And when they fell, too, his legacy would disappear, leaving absolutely nothing behind. His life of pagan nobility would have been for naught. 

Even in the simple assurance of salvation that is proclaimed every Sunday at my church, we are miles ahead of Aurelius. We need not strive to win the Almighty's pleasure with our nobility or attempts at virtue, for all who have tried to do so have failed, save Christ. The pagan works all his life to build a deposit in the Bank of Universal Karma, hoping that in the end, it will be large enough to purchase his ticket into Paradise. For the unbeliever, there is no resounding trump as he enters the afterlife, no "well done, good and faithful servant." There is only fear and doubt. The Christian, however, runs towards death with the anticipation of meeting his Lord at last, knowing that his life has been in the service of his King, by the grace he has received through Christ.

Aurelius cannot even definitively say that his gods exist. Their existence is dependent upon him and what he thinks. He has placed his gods into molds and bid them conform to what he views as good and just. Otherwise, he threatens to simply ignore them out of existence, for the power and worth of Aurelius's gods was reliant upon his belief in them. Can he look at these beings and call them gods? Gods who have no authority over their own reality? My God exists whether I want him to or not. He is not controlled by the whims and beliefs of men, his creatures. He reigns whether the unbeliever wants him to or no, something which Aurelius's gods could never do. The modern secularist would very much like to say that the Church and her members have no real bearing on society, simply because they worship a supposedly imaginary and irrelevant god. But Christ has indeed already conquered the earth, and even now rules over it, something which pagans refuse to accept, and many Christians seem to forget. In light of this fact, the Christian lives a virtuous life, not to gain favour with a fickle diety, but because he has been given new life in Christ. Virtue is not the cause of salvation, but the effect, and that makes all the difference.