Amazing Grace - Well named...

I recently read a review on another movie that seemed to lament "all these faith-based movies." It seems to me that Hollywood might accidentally be catching up with reality, instead. I don't know if AG was an indy or not, but you don't have to be Christian to be blown away by this movie.

Let me nit-pick just two things: This is so completely unfair of me, BUT... casting Mr. Fantastic from the Fantastic Four horrible movie as Wilberforce was a little off putting. For one thing I don't think he's a very good actor, not bad, just not good; for the other thing - as much as I hate stereotyping - I kept getting pulled out of the movie because I'd think "wow, this is fantastic" and get slapped in the face by an associative memory of rubber-guy in a bad movie.

Second nit-pick was using Wilburforce's illness to symbolize the on-going, toll-taking journey of the abolitionists. He did historically struggle with great pain, but it was his determination over years of failure upon failure that needed more development. As many MP's were brought to the light by Wilbur's unceasing argument - they all wore down long before he did - and I would have liked to see that. A few subtle touches like their wigs being more frayed as time went on while Wilbur remained kempt; eroding arguments (in the beginning, the opponents would drone on and on in argument. As time went by their arguments got shorter and shorter. In one instance, Wilbur ranted beautifully, and his opponent stood wearily up, searched for words, couldn't find them and just said "no."

Fox and Newton stole the show. In fact, the whole cast was stunning (except for the star. Daniel Day Lewis would have been incredible as Wilberforce), but they made up for him.

The audience applauded at the end, and so they should have.

A+ (I can't even bring myself to ding the rating for Ionne). A must-see for every American old enough to appreciate it.

The Swanson family has grown by one, yet again. Unlike the Wilcox's who like to do things the natural way, we buy our additions ;)

RJ is a dachshund/besinji mix. If you'll recall, Rainey was the same mix, though they have different proportions of breeds.

Rainey was a bit longer, with the deeper chest of a Dochy, but his ears stood up strait as did his tail. Rainey was also all black until his age caught up with him and salted his beard and eyebrows. And he could bark, despite the African Barkless dog of the Besinji.

RJ, a year old, is shorter in length, longer legs (though still smaller than Rainey), and has the tightly curled tail of the Besinji. His ears flop over in the middle like the Dochy, and he has the brown and black mix of that breed. We've been told that he is barkless, though. So far, that's been true. He can whine and growl (once, in protection of Ben), but not bark. He's fairly docile, too, but still likes to mix it up with Grizzly from time to time.

Grizzly is not so sure, though. They get along, but Grizzly is a bit prickly.

We got another dog because A) Grizzly could use a mentor and playmate, and B) because Grizzly is Lynette's dog, whether she wants him or not. I wanted a dog who liked me as more than the maintenance man.

No such luck. He loves Lynette and Ben and tolerates the rest of us. So now Lynette, who barely can handle one dog following her around, has two in constant attendance. She can't complain, though, because she picked RJ out (and named him. His old name was Anubis).

Meanwhile, I'll still be alone in my office.

Maybe I'll get a Chia Pet...

A public "Thank You" to home group leader, Erik (not to be mistaken for Eric, who is also a great home group leader, but I'm speaking of the little Nordic guy). You always put a lot of thought, prayer, and time into home group. They are thought provoking, spirit lifting, and all around fun evenings.

THANK YOU!

Wild Hogs

Needed to see something funny this week, so we caught Wild Hogs with Tim Allen, John Travolta, Martin Lawrence, and a really familiar character actor who's name escapes me.

It's a mid-life crisis on motorcycles. City Slickers was mid-life crisis on horses, and it's the benchmark of all mid-life crisis comedies. This wasn't a City Slickers, but despite what the critics say, it's an enjoyable movie that goes over the line from time to time just a bit (more naked male butts than I ever want to see again... which wasn't many, but I don't want to see any...)

Look, Tim Allen isn't Billy Crystal, so set your expectations accordingly. The cast was full of likable characters, doing what they do best. Yes, the trailer is funnier, but all trailers are, so get over it. City Slickers had it's message scene ("the key to happiness is just one thing, doesn't matter what that one thing is..."). Wild Hogs also has it's message scene, and it's a good one, though it gets a little lost.

The ending was a little Deus Ex Machina for me; had they made one simple decision earlier in the script, it would have provided motivation for the bad guy and a more satisfactory ending.

Bottom Line: Enjoyable, Funny, Crude... B+ (this grade is based on the kind of movie it is, and is not be construed to make it on par with B+ movies of other genres. It is what it is what it is...)

One Night With the King - A Movie Review

Curious name, since she had quite a few nights with the King... This movie was vaguely based on the book of Esther. Vaguely.

Before I go on, let me state that I understand the need to amplify Bible history for the screen. Movies have different requirements than Biblical stories. To shoot an accurate rendition of Esther would be a tad boring. The only ticking clock in the real story is Haman's proclamation to kill the Jews - several months distant. A good movie has a ticking clock to heighten urgency, high stakes to make losing dangerous, and collision course characters to make it dramatic.

I just didn't care for the Director's choices for all of these. First, he tried to make it a love story with a dash of intrigue. Esther isn't a romance, it's political intrigue with an unlikely heroine. The movie confused the conventions of both and was so neither. I did like most of the characters, I just didn't like the directorial choices.

I thought the changes to Haman were interesting. I don't know if the vengeance angle had any merit, but he was an Agagite, so... okay. The actor spoke so gutturally, though, that I couldn't understand him most of the time (which was a problem with the whole thing. I couldn't hear the gutturals of Haman and the neat eunuch, nor the whispery voice of the King. So figuring out what was going on was quite tricky). Other than needing to gargle, he was a good actor. His actions, though, were perplexing. They took forever to set things up, then flew through the important stuff like they were rushed at the end. The whole war thing, and slaughter the Jews for their possessions was just silly. It caused more problems than it solved (it was the ticking clock decision - and a poor one).

Xerxes looked like he'd been ripped off the cover of a Romance novel. Still, I liked him. He did the whole wounded expression very well. I just don't think the real Xerxes was such a wimp. Nor do I think he was all that in love with Esther. Liked her, maybe, but bodice ripping love? Probably not. He was playing Hamlet, not Xerxes.

Mordachi: Great. Love this guy. He's lost a lot of weight since Raiders of the Lost Ark, though. Hope he's okay.

Esther. An engaging young lady who acted well, but again, I don't think the real Esther was anything like this girl. She was too strong. Still, she and Xerxes did have nice chemistry, and they made me believe their love for one another (until he came back from wherever and suspected Esther was unfaithful - right, she'd be dead if he did. And she's mad because she thought he had a concubine? Didn't all kings have them???)

The Eunuch. My favorite character, if only I could understand what he was saying... More could/should have been done with the wonderful relationship between Esther and him. I could see this relationship raising the stakes more than the war.

Beautiful costuming and sets. Flowery script that told too much and showed the wrong things. Muddled directing. Good cinematography.

I've noticed a bad trend in Christian/Bible movies: Poor directing (exception: Facing the Giants). It used to be bad scripts, actors, directing and tech. Actors have improved (exception: Facing the Giants and any Left Behind). Scripts are pretty good to great. Tech has even improved, sometimes drastically. Just bad directors (to stave off the inevitable thoughts, no, I wouldn't direct well. I think I could get the story and actors working, but staging and cinematography? Not a hope).

So, my bottom line on One Night With the King. Confusing, a little boring, pretty to look at... C-

Going from East coast to West coast is fairly easy.

Going from West to East is very difficult. When the three hour time difference is working against you, your body clock gets completely messed up. Can't sleep at night, can't wake up in the morning...

I am discovering that if you can force yourself out of bed and exercise, that helps. Hopefully we'll be fully acclimated by Saturday, only to struggle some more with Daylight Savings Time.

Ah well, if that's all I have to complain about, I'm doing pretty well...

A new low for airlines...

But first, the adventures of flying on AmAir. As we walk through the airport, notices that the threat level has been elevated to Orange assault us. Then we get on the plane, settle in and notice a tick-tick-tick sound coming from the ceiling. Sounds like a count-down, if you know what I mean. A stewardess says, "what's that sound? I've never heard that before." A passenger notices that the transponder light is blinking in time with the ticks. "Oh," she says. "that must be it."

A steward walks up and hears it and worry wrinkles his brow. He starts to reach for the overhead rack handle and the first stewardess says, "don't worry, it's just the light out there."

This soothes our steward who says, "huh, over a 100 flights and I've never heard that before." And he walks off.

Maybe they didn't know the threat level was Orange...

So we take off without incident and we discover the new low for airlines: Stewardess offers us a drink. We accept and inquire about peanuts or crackers, the usual snack on a flight. "We do have snacks," I'm told. "Would you like to purchase some?"

You pay for snacks now on a six hour flight (probably on all flights, but you get hungry in six hours and $2.00 for a small bag of chips is hard to swallow after plunking down $700 for tickets, y'know?)

We got in okay. Got our car and headed out on the highway.

Then it started snowing.

In Stanwood it was really coming down. "Don't worry," my sister says, "It's not going to stick." Maybe not, but the inch of white stuff on the road sure looked like sticky snow...

We arrived without incident to my parent's house. We got another couple inches in the night, but it melted the next day.

Things are going apace for the funeral. My sister is an amazing woman and she's doing better than I ever could in her circumstance.

Rule of thumb: Pack snacks for all future flights.

What a blessing that we can take so for granted the depth and richness we have in Christian fellowship. Do we realize what we have when at any time we have dozens of close friends willing to jump into any gap when we find ourselves under a storm cloud? That we have counselling, consoling, and encouraging friends in any crisis?

Don't get me wrong; Church is about the worship of God, but to be with so many people who realize that worship takes so many forms. Do any of us comprehend the vast resources free for the asking, that the world has to hire at premium costs?

You all are an incredible blessing to me. Thank you for your fellowship.

Started my weight management program today. Can't give too many details in a public forum, but this is the program of one of my clients. I've been looking forward to this for awhile. I could have started last Monday, but with my 16th anniversary and V-Day last week, today seemed better.

I got my bow-flex cleaned up yesterday. Swallowed a handful of supplements and drank a big glass of water. Took my mile walk with Lynette this morning, did a little muscle training (not really, I'll learn the right way soon; for now I just did a few sets for arms and chest). And I enjoyed my first meal replacement shake for breakfast.

It wasn't bad. A little gritty, but the taste was good. I got a brain freeze with the first sip, then it went down smoothly. I don't know if it does what it says it will, yet. I've rarely eaten breakfast, so I don't get hungry normally until lunch. I'll have another shake for lunch after a mid morning snack and a lot of water. If I'm not hungry at two, then I'll know if it really works (but I'm sure it will. I've got a ton of confidence in my client).

My goals are pretty simple. I bought a pair of 501 jeans a year ago that fit for about two weeks. My goal is to fit in them again.

My body comp said I need to lose 40 pounds and gain 20 pounds of muscle for a net loss of 20 pounds. Motivation has always been my downfall, but this program addresses that through knowledge - more so than any other plan I've seen. It's already working for a number of people, so I'm excited to see what it will do for me. More important than the physical dimension is the mental component. My memory has been slipping, as well as my reasoning abilities. This program should give a lot of that back.

Can't wait. :)

Conviction from a ten-year-old...

We had the son and daughter of some good friends over yesterday. Ben played the daughter a game of chess with her little brother watching. Ben was winning, and the little brother - who doesn't know the game - was giving advice to his big sister on every move. Unfortunately the pieces couldn't move the way he wanted them to, so the advice was never taken.

Not once did his big sister bark at him, tell him to stop, tell him to go away, or yell at the top of her lungs. She either ignored him or patiently told him why that wouldn't work.

This little girl passed a character test that I would not have if the little brother had been one of my kids or a sibling. Ben and I discussed it after they'd gone. We both decided she was an amazing girl with fantastic parents and a healthy helping of the Holy Spirit.

I'm blessed to have a lot of older friends (and a few younger) that I can be inspired and challenged by; it's humbling to have ten-year-olds who can do the same thing.

I know the outlaw said he'd review Facing the Giants, but I saw it last night and wanted to say a few words.

What a great movie!

We were cruising through the listings of movies the other day and very few looked any good (Copying Beethoven will be a DVD rental in the future; we did see Night In The Museum, which I'd recommend as a fun family film, though explaining the whole "why don't the mom and dad live together and how does mom having a boyfriend work" ((it's great having friends with kids who really don't know anything about divorce)). Finding movies I like has become more and more difficult.

I didn't have high hopes for FtG, because the Christian movies I've seen have been pretty bad. The Left Behind movies are terrible and the good ones tend to be done by secular studios. We borrowed it and set about watching it. I loved it. It was inspiring, the camera work was good, the acting was uneven, but it was a great script and solidly directed. It was evangelical without being preachy (well, it would be to unbelievers, probably, but it was an extension of the coach's faith, not the director's).

Movies, by their nature, are predictable. It's the journey, not the goal. You knew they'd get all their hopes and dreams, but HOW they got them was the game and it worked well.

We'll have to make one. Makes me want to rework my rom-com-dram into a Christian rom-com-dram. Should be easy to shoot, too. Hmmmmm....

Clive Cussler is suing the producers of Sahara. They're suing back, of course.

The movie cost 160 million smackers and took in 68 mill domestic. Because it was a bad, boring, slow, flat movie. I looked forward to it coming out, because it looked like a fun adventure story. It wasn't.

Cussler disowned the movie (though he made 12 million dollars off of it). He corrected several scripts, approved four of them, and then the producers commissioned someone to write a completely different movie. The director, meanwhile, couldn't decide if it should be an adventure movie, a shoot-em-up action movie (which is darker than an adventure movie), or a mystery. So he took the worst aspects of all of them and threw them in a blender.

Did I mention it was a sad, terrible movie? Good actors, mind you, but everything else was awful.

This is the danger of selling your story to Hollywood. Normally, I'd happily laugh my way to the bank over such a disaster, if I were the writer, but Dirk Pitt is a franchise movie. Now, personally, I'd be happy with 12 mill, but Cussler has written dozens of DP novels, all of which can be made into movies. Sahara was a franchise killer, and lost him several hundred millions in future earnings. He says it's about the story, which I can understand, and probably it is. You have to love a character to write that many books about him. Cussler has so much money that the future earnings aren't that big a deal, but not getting his stories to the screen? That could be a big deal. It's just when you're talking so much money, it gets surreal quickly...

I was listening to 4Him's "Great Awakening" and thought how cool it would be to experience a revival? Not where a person or two come to the Lord, but thousands. A Peter-on-the-steps-of-the-temple kind of revival. An Edwards or Finney kind of revival. The kind where you look out the window and people walking by spontaneously break out in song, dancing in the Spirit, prophetic proclamations. Business meetings turn into prayer and confession; everyone extolling praise for the Lord.

Then I look honestly at myself and question if I would truly find it cool or not. New believers, especially thousands of new believers, exhibit a zeal that I could find threatening in my complacency. I realize I need revival as much as any unbeliever. Within all of us exists unbelief that God wants to revive into solid belief. We're all potential for revival. A great awakening among the wakeful dozers.

Now THAT would be cool.

Fear of Failure.

I'm not alien to the concept, of course. As a freelancer I'm always wondering if I'll be able to support my family. I try not to let it paralyze me, though, yet in the past I have. In a conversation with a person of EXTRAORDINARY talent, fear of failure was raised as a reason not to move forward.

Shall we examine fear of failure? Back before "getting it 0ut there" was my means of earning a living, I would write, say, a screenplay and never send it out. Part of it was not being sure of the process, but most of it was confidence that no one would pick it up any way, so why try? That's defeatism, though, not fear of failure. I've had a book picked up by a publisher only to have the publishing house sold and my property not sold with it. Again, not my failure.

I've written things people have hated. Poor deranged people, I can live with that. What about the the thought "What if it's no good?" Well, it's incumbent on people who say "that's no good" to also say "this is why." So it can be improved...

Your thoughts on fear of failure, please.

Superbowl Sunday

Believe it or not, I like watching football - at least the big games (and any game at M&M's). This one, though, while a blast because of the company I was priviledged to share it with, was dissappointing.

First, Billy Joel's grandpa sang the national athem (they said it was actually Billy Joel, himself, but I know what Billy looks like and this wasn't him).

I loved the first quarter. I was rooting for the Bears (because I think any group of guys from Chicago should be able to beat anybody in any other city. Anybody remember Capone? Probably not the best rational, but I used to pick the team by who had the coolest looking helmet - so the Rams and Chargers should have been in every Superbowl). A touchdown off the kickoff and I thought I had a sure thing. No such luck, but fumbles were fun to watch.

The best thing about the Superbowl is supposed to be the commercials. There were only a couple (Rock, Paper, Scissors with a real rock, and the Doritos commercials). To be fair, we skipped the GoDaddy commercials because who needs filth on a Sunday (or any day?)?

And Prince. Remember when he could sing? No? Maybe my memory's bad, as it is with everything else. Again, to be fair, it was raining. No one was electrocuted, which I'm sure dissappointed the Bears...

Before the game we saw a little bit of basketball. Better known as snoreball. Baseball is all-American, football is romanesque in a gladitorial kind of way, and basketball is just plain booorrrringgggg no matter where it's played.

Is it ironic that God, for whom time is an option, is a God of timing?

Wayne spoke elegantly last night (as always) of "staying on mission" and doing all that we do in light of pleasing God. And this morning potential for opportunity presents itself that, without that timely word last night I could easily, in my always persistent flesh, focus on the wrong aspect and get excited by the wrong thing.

It is through such things that God presents Himself with a smile and a wink. "What good does it do a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" Or more colloquially, "Don't get ahead of yourself; take My hand and stroll in My pleasure." May it always be so, Lord.

This is especially poignant now because back in Seattle, a bright and beautiful 15 year old girl lies in a coma, experiencing horrible seizures whenever they lessen her medication. Her parents don't yet know the Lord; and yet even in that, while the bigger picture leaves us wondering, God inserts little moments of His precious timing that says "Even here, I AM."

Those incidents of God's obvious presence and timing must sustain us through the difficult times when God is not silent, but we are deaf. Our ears must turn inward to the voice of faith. For this, too, pleases God.

I attended a masterful sales presentation yesterday. Stores Online is a company that helps an individual build an Internet business. They have a good system, great tools, and moreover they were completely open and honest. It was billed as an Internet Marketing Workshop and they delivered. As far as I can tell, they never lied, stretched the truth or did anything shifty. They laid everything out, said every time they showed a website that was theirs, they'd inform us.

What I'm about to discuss is not a slam on Stores Online. They have an excellent product, offer great support, and they are very reputable. All I'm discussing is the sales technique, which was impressive.

Understand that their target market is aware of the Internet but not web-savvy. The people who buy in are people who would NEVER be able to do this without them. Their prices seem a little high, but not excessive. It's a good company.

Without ever hiding the truth, this is what they did. To the average non-tech person (and I'm not all that advanced, but I've got a little knowledge) they set out to overwhelm you with information. They told you that's what they were doing.

Many of their tools are actually free websites they don't own. They just link their Merchant Services to them. They did not say it wasn't their website (remember, they said they'd identify which are theirs, not which are not, so they were totally fair and open). They even gave us the website addresses - the uninitiated wouldn't know it was not their website. There was only one tool that was proprietarily theirs, but it is an analysis tool that you can do yourself in the same amount of time, and if they have it now, someone will offer it free in a year.

Whenever they talked about building websites, links, embedding keywords, they called it "programming" which it is, but it's a perjorative word (programming sounds difficult). They were totally up front that you had to provide your own graphics, without mentioning that graphics and design are the hard part (it's okay, they provide tech support).

And it was overwhelming. A couple of us, in our own informal private groups, dismantled it into key parts. None particularly hard to do, you just had to know it and do it (easier said than done). For every person there who bought, the thought running through their head was "I could never do this on my own, it's too hard, too much." And they were probably right.

Further, the company owners never hyped it. They gave you cold facts, well presented, and had a customer do the bulk of the instruction and he did some hype (but always balanced it with truth). All testimonials were at least 4 years old, an eternity on the web. Could their success be copied now? Maybe, probably not - at least not in those areas.

It was masterful, ethical, honest and fair sales work. People outside their target audience saw the man behind the curtain, but the buyers didn't. It was a little bit like watching an illusionist who tells you what he's going to do, does it, but you don't know how. Those taken in don't see the wires; those that do, don't buy.

Equally impressive is that they knew who was who. They didn't waste any time on Bill H. or myself, or the people we were sitting with. A questionaire I'd filled out before with very mild questions "do you have a product, a current website, did you build it yourself, are you experienced with the web?" Yes to all and I wasn't bothered by anyone. I'd even signed up for a consultation, but they didn't call me down.

Even so, they delivered what they said. I learned a lot, it was worth my time, and I wish them and their clients well. I'm sure many of them will make a lot more money than I ever will on the web.

Sorry, this simply has to be said:

Bowling is not a sport.

All those reports saying bowling is the fasting growing sport in high schools around the country are wrong. It. Isn't. A. Sport.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bowling. I'm sure setting up and knocking down pins is at least as much fun as watching cars drive around an oval. (And, yes, NASCAR is indeed a sport.)

Bowling is a game. For it to be a sport, the other player would have to stand on the lane and try to stop the bowler from hitting the pins. Which might actually make it more interesting to watch.

Golf is a game. Chess is a game. Ballroom dancing isn't even a game, let alone a sport, so why it's in the Olympics, I couldn't tell you.

Track and field events are "athletics" but they aren't sports either. Tennis is a game. Ping-pong: game. Darts: Game. Poker: Game.

A sport must have a defense as well as an offense, otherwise it's just a compitition; may the better player win. In sports you must overcome the other player not just obtain the objective faster or better. It's mano-a-mano (or womano-a-womano, I suppose). It isn't enough to achieve, you must prevent the other guy from achieving as well.

Sports are the offspring of war. Games are the offspring of whatever the noblemen were doing when they weren't making war.

It had to be said.

The Illusionist

Now this was a good movie. Great complicated script, great complicated directing, wonderful acting... I know you're all waiting for the other shoe to drop, but nope, I really liked this.

The director made a couple of wonderful choices that made the movie work exceptionally well: Eisenheim wasn't flamboyant and it wasn't his story. The cop was the main character, the protagonist, the one who changes. While I saw most of it coming (wouldn't be much of a movie if it went anywhere else) it was still a great show.

My only complaint is with the DVD extras. I'm assuming the consulting magicians didn't allow the practice sessions to be filmed, but it would have been great fun to see Edward Norton learn sleight of hand. Most of the illusions were digital tricks, but he had some real sleight of hand in there as well. I'd also like to know if the illusions could be, in fact, be done without camera effects. They had the compelling problem of normal magic tricks being ho-hum to the sophisticated viewing audience, and without the flamboyant persona, regular tricks that would still thrill an audience back then, wouldn't now. So they "pushed" the tricks further digitally. Or so I assume; can modern magicians do these tricks? I don't want to know how they were done, but it would be cool to see "real" magicians do the same tricks for the extras. Edward Norton wasn't even in the extras.

Really good stuff. Lynette even liked it.

Why is it the sound of crickets that suggests there's nobody out there? Why not mice tittering or owls hooting? How about the little man in the moon whistling a long mournful wail at being alone... all alone... so very, very alone...

Hark! Was that a tree falling in the forest?

Here I stand, clapping with one hand...

...alone...

...all...

...alone...

No regrets - well, not many...

Okay, folks, come clean. If you could go back and learn something as a kid that you didn't the first time around because you didn't think it was worthwhile, what would it be?

For me, music and math.

I would have stuck with the trumpet, keyboard, bas and guitar that I only flirted with (ok, keyboard was actually a full-blown relationship for three years, but then I quit and now I can't play a note. Same with bass; I was in a garage band that was truly awful, but a lot of fun when we weren't fighting).

And drums. Drums are the height of cool. You can even wear a British flag diaper and look cool playing drums (ask your Dad, Sherlock... and no, it wasn't him...) I can't help but think worship would be a whole 'nother experience if I could be playing as well as singing badly.

As for math, if I hadn't been lazy, worthless and all around shiftless, I would have applied myself and learned the kind of math you don't do on your fingers. Nothing worse than sitting in your college Chemistry or Physics class, realizing that this was the way to understand the universe... then getting hopelessly lost when I found out a mole wasn't only a blind, black mammal tearing up the front yard. Science, my first love... the class that never even hinted at math in High School, is founded in the math I couldn't understand because I never pushed myself to learn anything difficult. Could have, but didn't.

Children, take note!

So sorry, more political stuff...

I've been reviewing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and I've come to a few conclusions. Probably not popular ones, either.

Both the Left and the Right are correct. Both of them.

The Left believe we should never have gone into Iraq. They figure we don't have real reasons to go in (nevermind that everyone thought they had WMDs). We should go it, they say, because the whole Middle East is a powder keg. Once you go in, you can't get out. There is no exit strategy. They're right.

The Right says let's get in there and take out an evil man. Let's establish a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East and see what happens. They are correct, also.

Saddam H. was an evil despot. His sons were worse. He SHOULD have been taken out, he was, and it was us who did it. It was the Correct Thing to Do. It may not have been politically correct, but it was CTtD.

Now we're stuck there, the Middle East is still a powder keg waiting to explode, and you know what? That's okay, too. It's taking longer than expected to bring the Iraqis to a place where they can take care of themselves, but as soon as they do, we should step out.

It's a little bit like teaching another person's child to walk. The parents haven't, the child is arguably ready, so you hold their little hands up and when the kid thinks, "okay, I can walk now" you let go. The kid may start walking or he may fall on his butt. You gave him the opportunity he wasn't getting, maybe the parents have learned something and maybe they haven't. You aren't obligated to help that child any further.

There are native people who want democracy in the Middle East. We've held their hand and when they're ready to give it a try on there own, it is not our responsibility to make sure they succeed. Get this, IF DEMOCRACY FAILS IN THE MIDDLE EAST IT IS NOT AMERICA'S FAULT!

We should have gone in there Because It's The Right Thing To Do. When we leave, we can do so with clean hands, in my opinion. If Iraq ends up falling to a Civil War, that's their fault and their problem. If the Middle East doesn't take this opportunity to join the Civilized World, that's their problem, not ours.

The kid analogy falls apart because Iraqis are not children. They're adults and responsible for their own choices. If they don't like freedom and give it away, it's on their heads, not ours. They were given a platform, by us, to make a free decision (inasmuch as I don't believe in Free Will, of course).

If they make the wrong one, no skin off our nose. Really.

Wow! Saddam has been executed. That was far quicker than I thought it would be. To be fair, he didn't crumble at the end. The guy was evil by any measure, but that doesn't mean he would be simple to understand. How does someone justify to themselves what he had done? By every account, his kids (the psychopaths) and grandkids (not so much) describe him as an excellent father and grandfather. How can this be? How can a person perpetrate such evil and then go home and bounce the kids on his knee? Is that massive rationalization, or is evil so innate to man that we can section it off like an orange? The latter, I suppose.

Gives one chills...

Senator Siplin, who for some reason is still in office (don't ask me why), is sponsoring a bill to make it legal for felons who have served their sentence to be able to vote again. Self interest on his own felonious self, or just a good idea?

Maybe both. Recitivism aside, large segments of poor communities are peopled by ex-felons, and in a few, overwhelmingly peopled. Between illegal aliens (who shouldn't have the right to vote ever) and felons, poor communities - who most need a voice - don't have a legislative voice. I'm not sure what the fear is for ex-felons voting; do they have an agenda that we don't? I'd think those that do wouldn't vote anyway.

They've served their sentences, so give them back the ability to vote.

Your thoughts?

Christmas is an amazing time. Nothing blunts the spirit. Not the year I was whipping up our traditional enough-food-to-feed-a-third-world-nation breakfast, and as I was cooking, the kids start throwing up, then Lynette follows, leaving me the sole person able to eat this monstrous breakfast... that was 2003, and it was still a good Christmas (even the rest of the family enjoyed it once they felt a little better).

This year we spent the day at SeaWorld... well, part of the day. It began to rain and even our rain slickers didn't keep the wet off. Still, we had a great time, came home and made a fire and played the game of Life while pigging out (a Christmas constant). The kids said "this was the best Christmas EVER" like they do every Christmas.

The secret to that overwhelming spirit of Christmas is, of course, no matter how much goes "wrong," no matter what tragedy befalls us, we start from such a high platform of blessing that any response other than "best ever" is an exercise in futility. Imagine the most prolific blizzard ever, snow drifting to continental levels... that's our level of blessing.

Christmas, the commemoration of the blessing of all blessings, the babe in a manger, is also a reminder to look back and forward and exult in our God's goodness and mercy.

"Embarrassment of riches" is one way to say it, but that embarrassment forgets that these blessings aren't accidental happenstance, but intentional gifts from on high. That transforms embarrassment to wonder and awe, the proper response to every day, not just Christmas.

(Another blessing of Christmas, I forego my usual rants for gentle musings...)

As you age, your memory turns into swiss cheese (which isn't to say my brain has become holy, but holey). I'd forgotten my password, but really I'd forgotten my username, which is different than my screen name, which Lynette wants me to change because she doesn't do the blogger thing and feels the same way about blogging that I do about Christmas lights. (Anybody now how to change the screen name?)

So I'll be back to posting soon, I think.

Perhaps about Mannheim Steamroller, who puts on a GREAT concert and props to my in-laws for being unbelievably generous! What a fantastic night! All the kids want to play instruments now (and this big kid).

I've figured out why I like MS so much but not other Christmas music. Mannheim gets rid of the sentimental sappy stuff and fills it with innovation and power. I LOVE seeing talent infused with brilliance infused with passion.

:)

Somebody explain body piercing to me, please.

Ear piercing is vaguely okay, I guess. Silly, but okay (though I think people with pierced ears can't complain about body piercings as "immoral" as some have. Ears or naval, what's the difference?).

Nose studs are simply disgusting. It's like a sparkly zit. Look, noses are necessary items, and a bad honker can be a real bummer for the owner, but really, noses aren't supposed to draw attention to themselves. A nose stud says "hey! Look at me! I produce snot and mucus, so can you imagine what the other side of this stud looks like?" And what happens when you sneeze? Does the person beside you suddenly get shot by a snotty stud? And when you have a cold, it's bad enough to have things running out of the two natural holes, why add a third?

Eyebrow rings or barbells anywhere: things that get crusty should not be impaled on your body. This applies to bellybutton rings, too. Exactly why do you want people looking at your midsection? Does naval jelly really need to be stapled in?

Tongue jewelry: I don't need this explained. I don't WANT this explained. It's a form of advertising I can do without.

Restaurant owners - have your servers remove all piercing jewelry before they come to work - accept maybe earring studs (there is a difference with ear studs. They don't draw attention to the ears unless only one is worn or it's really gaudy. They subtly frame the face and are therefore acceptable.) I, for one, find them grotesque and they put me off my feed... good for my flabby tummy, but not for your revenues.

Tattoos can be okay as long as they're subtle and out of the way, and if the wearer takes into account skin drift so they don't end up somewhere strange or misshapen. Big ones, multiple allbody ones or rude ones just advertise the wearer is shortsighted. Same rules for necklines should govern tattoos: think about where they draw the eye. "V" shaped tattoos point the eye down; if your sure you will always want people looking at your butt - even when you're fifty years old - then go ahead at your own risk. Tasteful tattoos of small size that will fit EVERY occasion that they are seen for the rest of your life are okay. I've seen a few that are quite pretty, normally ankle tats of a rose or other tasteful flowers. I saw a Tweety bird ankle tat at a formal meeting once that seemed inappropriate for the occasion, so choose wisely if you choose at all.

If you DID have a tattoo, what would it be? I once told my nephew that he should pick something that applies to him now and would always apply. At his age, I would have picked either a Superman symbol or a Comedy/Tragedy mask. Supes would be out of place too often, but the masks, if in a subtle shade on my shoulder would be cool. Even the changing size of my skin there could have an interesting effect. I'd probably do it if Lynette wouldn't mind, but she does so I won't. You?

Speaking of perspective, I put our Christmas lights up today. I do this for Lynette and the kids. Not sure what is missing in my DNA, but Christmas decorations are of no interest to me. It has nothing to do with them having little to do with the birth of Christ, or even that they consume kilowatt hours. I don't hate them, or love them. They exist in an emotional null state for me. Take 'em or leave 'em.

I can't even watch movies about outdoing the neighbors in lights and decorations. The motivation totally escapes me.

There are certain "Christmas" things I can't stand. Oversize plastic Nativity scenes. Eggnog (what the heck is that stuff?). Christmas songs on the radio (except for Manheim Steamroller - those guys ROCK). Fruitcake (but everybody does).

So while the entire neighborhood goes light-crazy, the only thing that moves me about it is confusion. Like I said, there's something missing in my DNA.

There is ONE Christmas decoration I think is amazingly beautiful. Snow. The real thing, not the Miami export. Seattle is packed with it. My family is enjoying (!) an unseasonal couple of feet of the white stuff.

Speaking of my family, we didn't have a lot of Christmas traditions. The most beloved is molasses popcorn balls. I'm afraid to eat them because I'm fond of keeping my teeth, but that says "CHRISTMAS" to me unlike anything that lights up (except my kid's faces Christmas morning. We're foregoing presents this year for SeaWorld annual passes, though, so they'll be beaming at Shamu instead of presents.)

If you were to shrink down, down, down, past the atomic level and into the quantum foam, you would encounter the uncertainty principle, and just by observing things bring them into being. Supposedly at the quantum level, possibilities flit about like hyperactive fleas, and just the act of seeing one changes the probable to a certainty.

Complete and utter balderdash, of course (and therefore probably true...)

You encounter the same phenomena every moment of every day without shrinking at all. I am convinced that reality is only 3% "real" and 97% attitude.

If life were an Everlastinggobstopper, that little tiny seed center is barren fact and the bazillion layers of sugar and coloring is all how we FEEL about it. If we believe life is glorious, it is. If we believe life is a hoover, it is.

Think about it: try to strip perception down to just the .03 that is real. If you think "wow, it really is glorious" you haven't actually gotten to the 3%, you're still layering attitude on it. That .03 is pure, uncolored, unemotional fact. It is the real creation with no nod to the Creator. I suspect it's what lower animals exist on (not higher animals, like dogs, who also color their world good or bad, or cats, who believe they ARE the world) and that we can never even approach.

Hindus believe that existence is completely illusion, at the will of the gods. While close, I can't agree. I think each individual existence is an illusion at the will or unconscious of that individual. There is a bedrock fact of reality, created by God, and there are 6 billion illusions created by each person (though influenced by God's sovereignty). My illusion is not your illusion, and both religion and its successor "civilization" strive to synch the illusions up (the failure of which is responsible for the current war - which has its own uncertainty principle since it is whatever people think it is, which certainly isn't the same in any two cases).

Christianity, which I don't believe is a religion but a relationship, aligns the illusions to God's reality, which is more than just earthly fact and is in fact the unifying theory that brings together physical and metaphysical (containing emotion, spirit, supernatural and natural) but does so in part here, and complete in heaven. The sad thing is that even in the church a plurality of illusion exists, almost completely unidentifiable as differing until the proper divination of the Word - that terrible two-edge sword - cleaves them apart. Not just denominations, mind you, but individual understandings within the same pew.

Praise God our inclusion in the body of Christ is a work of God and not ourselves. Heaven would be pretty empty if it was.

Ah, voter frustration.

I was on my high and mighty horse, with the full intention of NOT voting for Ric Keller. His campaign was moronic, his ads insulted the intelligence of the voters (though the ads that WEREN'T from his campaign, but were in favor of him anyway, were quite good) and I was going to pointedly not vote for him (as much as I like Charlie Stuart as a person, I wasn't going to vote for him either, because of his politics. I was going to write in Bill Hufford or John Stemberger because I both like them and admire their politics. With Keller, I think he's slime even if I do agree with his politics... say, is that libel? Or since I can back up the slime assertion, is that okay????).

So I make my way through the driving rain to cast my unvote for Keller and mostly reluctant votes for the other republicans (I don't like many of them, either, with the exception of Katherine Harris, whom I do like and will probably lose)...

... and Keller isn't on my ballot. I'm not in his district.

Righteousness belongs to the Lord; self-righteousness is doomed to fail.

Sigh.

We have a Japanese neighbor who, with quite a few of his countrymen, has a near obsession with Bonzai trees. The Bonzai is a small plant that the gardner carefully snips and binds to shape into a very personal expression. Bonzai clipping is a form of active meditation.

Many Americans have a similar obsession, though it tends to be informational rather than meditative. We carefully shape it with the same diligent care as the most meticulous Japanese gardner. It is uniquely us. Very personal, and highly revealing: it is our Favorites list.

Think about it. Just by clicking the icon, I can read all about you. Mine, for example, has several writing sites and blogs, church sites and blogs, business sites, a few comic strips, some educational addresses and the library. Sums me up pretty well.

A good friend and former co-worker had a list that spanned a dozen columns. It was almost beyond the use of a Favorites list and into a Internet Listing. Which described him well... or wells :)

What does your Favorites say about you?

My legion of fan has requested a new post....

I'd like to dig into something meaty, but I've got drywall to hang.

Okay, cosmic coincidink, bad luck, or is Someone trying to teach me a lesson?
Jennifer, a wonderful friend from Seattle , is out for her annual visit. She's done just about everything here over the years EXCEPT SeaWorld. So, today's the day, BUT first we had to buy the tickets.

Things to ponder:

* Buying tickets online rocks.

* Not reading everything doesn't rock; in fact, were it not for a phone call, it would be quite expensive. I'm buying a ticket for Jennifer (she's reimbursing me, so it's not generous on my part or anything) - a couple nitpicks - you've got to search all over for a single day ticket. It isn't in Out of Town visitors, it's in International visitors, AND you can't buy a Resident ticket in the same transaction as the International ticket - so I'm filling out the forms, and fill out what looks like the "name on the card" section, but it's not. It's the name of the ticket holder. I bought myself a ticket when I'm not going. Oops.

*Customer Service rocks. I call them and she says she'll catch it when it comes through and cancel. She does an hour or so later and calls to confirm. She asked if I have any other questions: I ask if she, as an Anheiser-Busch employee gets free beer.

* A-B employees get free beer! I don't like beer, but that's quite a benefit (free checking is nice, but...)

* So we buy tickets for today, which is the last full day she's been here. So, what happens that hasn't happened in months? It rains. Hard.

Hmmmmm....

Allow me to quote a venerable document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (italics mine for emphasis.)

Okay, since in the past I give my opinion and get blank stares for responses, the responses have to come first...

Are these rights, as stated, true? Are we equal, and do we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Give it some thought - you too, ol' lady Young - and post your responses.

Hmmmm?

(and a corollary: if you don't believe in a Creator, do these enumerated rights belong to you?)

"Blog" is not in the Blogger Spell Check.

Were it human, that would be a fascinating psychological telltale...

I'm probably going to get killed for this, but...

Warning: Totally Politically Incorrect.

Look at the different continents: Europe - heavily influenced by Christianity; Eurasia (Russia) moderately influenced by Christianity. (Parts are influenced by Islam, which other than the extremists desire to kill everyone else, has a very strong moral base).North and South America - heavily influenced by Christianity.

Africa - Little to no influence by Christianity.
Asia (Occidental) - No influence by Christianity.

Africa - Unless a cheap cure for AIDS is discovered soon, Africa will be no more. The pandemic so devastating now will doom the next generation and all thereafter.

Asia - Those without totalitarian governments are so perverse, so decadent, it defies description. The practices of Thailand alone are Hell on Earth (and because I know some young people read this blog, I won't enumerate them).

I'm not saying they are cursed by God, rather cursed by the unrestrained depravity that IS restrained to a large degree in the Christian-influenced nations (yes, there is horror even here, but it is NOTHING next to Asia).

I have had conversations with people who think the Church has had little influence in our society, but I think Asia and Africa put the lie to that. There are ministries in both places, to be sure, though none have risen to a national influence yet. Also interesting, is the different "flavor" of Asia and Africa. Asia seems to delight in decadence, whereas Africa (despite horrific violence) has somewhat innocently adopted promiscuity into their culture. So prevalent, in fact, that AIDS can't be halted (partially because of ignorance and largely because once Pandora opens that particular box, closing it is impossible).

What will the rest of the world look like after the Rapture, if such a thing exists, when all Christians are removed from Earth? Secular morality is based in what's good for society; so what happens when society breaks down?

If the Shining City takes residence on the Earth without wiping other cities out, what will that world look like?

I believe strongly that totalitarian governments are evil... still, they halt - in their legalism - a complete slide to decadence (except in themselves). The Biblical ramifications are fascinating...

So, the kids are swimming in the pool, happily screaming and playing while the DOG runs like a maniac around and around the pool, desperate to play but terrified to jump in.

Metaphor for life?

Could be...

Hey, by the way, blogs are supposed to be commented on. It isn't just my opinion, it's yours, too.

So comment already!

Infatuation vs. Love

There’s no such thing as love at first sight. Infatuation at first sight? Definitely. And I suppose that infatuation can segue smoothly into love making it feel like love at first sight, but I am convinced that love takes years to fall into.

What got me on this train of thought was someone’s contention that love is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Something goes off in your brain and someone you wouldn’t look at twice before is suddenly the most exquisite creature on earth. Doesn’t matter who, it was just the first opposite sex member (in most cases) that you laid eyes on.

Patent hogwash, but it does raise the question of why we are attracted to someone. It can’t just be looks, because ugly people fall in love (thank the Lord. Thank you, Lord). As you might have guessed, I think I know. It could be Divine Intervention, but that aside, I think it is body language. Yes, pretty helps, but I believe subtle mannerisms, expressions, gestures and body movements are what attracts us, and, in fact, infatuates us.

Body language consists of thousands upon thousands of tiny and large movements. We subconsciously catalog body language of people we spend time with, assigning them values. That funny person we really enjoy moves his shoulders just so? Mom crinkled her eyes in that peculiar way? And thousands of attributes, most so subtle you don’t even consciously see them, from people we really care about (and those we don’t) go into our mental computer and creates a subconscious list. The reason your buddy has a girlfriend who makes you shake your head and wonder “what does he see in her?” is that she had a preponderance of checkmarks on your friend’s list (there are other things on that list as well, of course, but once a certain threshold is reached we become infatuated).

So what is infatuation? It’s your subconscious saying this person has the hallmarks of someone who can get our motor running. Infatuation is potential; love is the reality. Love is complete knowledge of, and complete acceptance of another. God has the “complete” part down, and we lowly humans have to substitute “some knowledge” and “mostly acceptance”. Infatuation knows little and ignores much. Love that knows and tolerates isn’t love. Moving from infatuation to love takes time and more time (knowledge isn’t gained in a day).
Men and women handle this transition differently, however.

Women will give and give and give to be accepted.

Men are happy to take and take and take just for the greed of it.

Women want the acceptance more than to be known (but you can’t have one without the other) and many will do anything to get what they think is acceptance.

Men want sex, and give counterfeit acceptance and forego knowledge and quite often food to get it.

Yes, we’re shallow creatures. Pity us.

What does this mean? It means that if you get intimate before marriage, the guy isn’t ever going to move from infatuation to love, and the girl isn’t going to be able to tell. She sees love as him wanting to be with her, talk to her, etc. He gives all that to get what he wants, which ain’t love, baby. He’ll say it, he’ll even likely believe it, but it isn’t love. Proof: if the intimate girl breaks it off with the guy, he then has to evaluate a few things: Is she worth waiting for? Quite probably he’s going to look at the reality that is his girlfriend for the first time and do a quick tally of good and bad. If he doesn’t try to restore the relationship then the bad outweighed the good. If he comes back then either the good outweighed the bad or he’s desperate or too lazy to look elsewhere. IF they get back together and resume intimacy, he’s not going to move forward. If they get back together without sexual intimacy, he can finally get on the road to figuring out if he loves the girl or not.

I’m willing to bet that a lot of men aren’t really in love with their wives when they get married. They think so, but they probably haven’t done the math yet. Forever changes things, though, and so does marriage. Necessity makes both of them whip out their calculators as they get to REALLY know each other (dating doesn’t do it, living together doesn’t do it, marriage is its very own kind of animal) and now they have to figure out if they can accept each other. This is, I think, the reason for the divorce statistics.

The safe bet, then, is courtship, with the emphasis of actually getting to know each other without the blinders of sex getting in the way. It’s risky because you reveal yourself (to be known) and acceptance isn’t guaranteed to follow. My wife and I are proof that this approach works. We made conscious decisions to get to know each other, and there were critical junctions when acceptance had to be carefully weighed. We called it off twice to gain the distance to really figure it out, obviously getting back together each time. Lucky for me. J

The really cool thing is that in a vibrant, growing relationship, the rush of infatuation can co-exist with love, because there are always new frontiers to learn about each other, and marriage is a covenant to accept anything in the other even if (when) it’s difficult.

Capital Punishment

I’ve finally figured it out.

Some background: Capital Punishment as a concept gives me no problems, I believe the State has the responsibility, or at least the authority, to condemn someone to the first death for such things as murder, treason, child abuse, and rap music to name a few.

Take a step closer, though, and I start struggling. In reality it isn’t the State executing someone, it is a person doing it. People killing people just isn’t good. Even within war, where it is a necessary evil, it’s still evil (though I believe no judgment is levied on the soldier). Even if you develop a machine to do it, whoever turns on/plugs in the machine is the executioner.

Another step closer and I see some of the scum on death row, I think death by dull spoon is perfectly acceptable, but that’s neither here nor there.

I’ve figured out the answer.
We have someone provide the means of life – not death – to the death row prisoner. A study is done to figure out the minimum amount of dirt, nutrients, sunlight, water and seeds is required to sustain someone on a vegetarian diet (both for them and the garden. Minimum levels, only). And that’s all they get. We can even give them a book saying how to do it, I suppose, and leave them alone forever. If they can manage to get their garden to produce, they can stay alive. If they can’t, they die.

Ah, you’re thinking death by dehydration and/or starvation is cruel and unusual punishment. Not so. The Terri Schivo (sp) case took that argument away (and if you say, ‘but she was brain dead,’ then you’re saying conditions excuse C&UP, and isn’t THAT a dangerous precedent. I could say the death-rower is morally-dead and there you go.)

No one, then, is responsible for the death of the condemned except himself. By virtue of (or lack thereof) their crime, they have said they want to live outside society, and this simply fulfills that. If they are diligent and disciplined, they can make a go of it. If they still have a crop failure, that’s an act of God and who are we to stand in the way of that? (Also, to qualify for the DP, physical evidence as well as - or instead of - witnesses is required. Witness only means a maximum of life imprisoned).

Whaddyathink?

Wheee! The Primaries are over and there is absolutely no one worth voting for.

Two democrats are running for governor (one just calls himself a republican).

The Cheeseburger Congressman gets another shot to do absolutely nothing of value for another few years.

Florida will be in the hands of liberals and do-nothings.

Oh.

Joy.

I love the fall. September's okay and October rocks (and not just because I was born smack dab in the middle of it).

I love theme parks. They're a lot of fun, good family stuff, and a lot of fun (I'm easily amused).

I just don't like them together. In the fall, theme park billboards - which are normally quite creative - give way to the most vile of graphics.

When I was a kid, the Johnsons at the IGA store mounted what was to my child's eye a humongous Frankenstein Monster on the end of aisle 4. It flat out terrified me. I knew it wasn't real, I knew it was harmless, but I hated it. It was just a big, green stereotypical monster.

Not so the theme park billboards. Universal Monsters were great. Far removed from real life in fantasy and time, the were the ultimate escapism. But serial killers, bloody hands holding bloody cellphones, psychotic vagabonds with grotesque expressions, demented grandmas bearing knives... these are neither fantasty, nor removed from our time. Why glorify these things?

If they want them inside their theme parks, no problem; but on billboards that we drive our kids by? Along the highways I drive to work on?

No thanks. No thanks, at all.

Not sure if this is against the rules or not for blogspace, but in shameless self-promotion, I published my third manuscript with Prevail Press.

Burning Meadows is a screenplay I wrote 3 years ago. It's a little weird, even for me. Check out www.prevailpress.com and click on the screenplay to go to the shopping cart where you can read an excerpt. Feel free to buy it, of course, but it isn't a G-rated script. Today it would be a PG, but I'd consider it a PG-15 or so.

Took the kids to see "The Wild" at the cheap theaters.

I'm not going to bother reviewing this movie (other than the Computer Animation is amazing, if the directing and script are only so-so. There were times I wasn't sure it was animation. That and wasn't this movie already made as Madascar?) Rather, I'm going to use it as a springboard to decry the loss of Disney Animation, and the degeneration of comedy in general.

Disney's 2-D Animation truly transended the medium. What it lacked in visual depth, it made up for in emotional depth. Even the turgid Pocohontas gave the characters a detailed character arc. These things weren't just cartoons; they delved into strong themes, explored deeply into the human condition - even when they were "only" animals. The humor was often intelligent, and motivations were complex. They inspired Dreamworks to reach for the same in their 2-D movies.

Then came computer animation.

To be fair, Pixar has avoided the pitfalls of the CGI trap, and Ice Age and Polar Express strove for more than yucks... but most of the imitators have fallen into the clutches of today's pathetic excuse for comedy.

I tuned into a radio show trying to pick the top five funniest movies of all time. As soon as Porkies was entered as a shoo-in, I changed the channel. "Stupid" comedies have replaced intelligent comedies - largely because Adam Sandler, today's biggest star by box office grosses, has proven the market for such atrocities.

Consider what passes for sit-coms these days. Even the smart ones quickly devolve into purient bedroom humor and bodily function funnies. Grace Under Fire, The Drew Cary Show, Sports Night, to name a few, had strong first seasons with smart humor... then they quickly devolved into sad, unwatchable trash.

Some might say it can't be done -- keeping comedy out of the toilet is too demanding. But Barney Miller, The Dick Van Dyke Show, M*A*S*H (arguably), and a dozen others that stayed smart and clean because the censors said they had to, came out with the funniest series of all time.

And so producers look around at what's successful (because there aren't many alternatives) and decide Computer Animated movies are too expensive to risk being too smart (which says so much about their opinion of us) so they save money on script and concept and dash out something that rakes in the bucks but not the accolades.

It remains to be seen if anyone will recognize the void that Disney created in leaving the stories that only 2-D animation can master, and start creating 2-D movies with depth again. I admit, my hopes aren't very high...

I admit to feeling a bit discouraged last week after Children's Ministry. I was teaching the 4th and 5th graders and started talking about the Gospel. I got a few blank stares, so I threw out the quicky questions: "What's the Gospel?" expecting several kids to answer quickly so we could move on.

Blank faces.

A raised hand.

"The Word of God?"

"Jesus?"

"The Bible?"

Okay, maybe I wasn't asking right. "What is the Gospel message?"

No answers.

"Gospel means Good News. What's the Good News?"

A tentative hand. "God loves us?"

"Give me a little more, please."

Finally, my daughter answered "We're all sinners, but because God loves us, he gave Jesus on the Cross to die for our sins so we can be with God forever." (Proud father moment: She's a helper in the class, so she isn't supposed to answer the questions unless no one else can.)

We discussed this for a bit, then I asked a question about a key concept that we had just spent fifteen minutes discussing in detail. No one could answer (except Charli. Wow. First anger in the post below, now rampant pride.)

Is Children's Ministry really just babysitting? Do parents not feed their children breakfast on Sundays, starving their brains from working? Am I a lousy teacher (I admit to trending mostly to lecture - spirited lecture, but still lecture - because the purpose of that class is to prepare the kids for sitting through a sermon)? Or is this to be expected?

Feedback, please?

Things that really BUG me about traffic!

I'm in the car 1 to 2 hours a day, depending on traffic and my always errant sense of direction, and every day I see things that cheese me off.

In assending order:
10) Nose pickers. You'd think every adult would know by now that windows are see-through and the index fingers are NOT the finger to use to mine for "gold". Roll your nostril with your thumb - it's just as effective and as long as you don't turn your nose inside out, it's not as offensive.

9) People on cellphones. How can they expect to brake for me when I'm on mine?

8) Putting on make-up when you drive. It's not so bad when women do it, but men? Knock it off!

7) Eating. Look, certain foods aren't meant for driving and eating. String cheese is a n0-no, as is a foot-long sub with no wrapper. And especially not "gold" from number 10...

6) Reading. Okay, I read just about everywhere. Walking from car to work, at meals, in certain rooms that shall remain nameless, but NOT. IN. THE. DRIVER'S. SEAT!

5) Public displays of affection. 'Nuff said.

4) Rap "music". There are seismic faults around here and one of these guys is going to set them off!

3) Kerry/Roberts stickers. YOU LOST! (Being a loser is bad enough, advertising it is a whole 'nuther level...)

2) Hummers (sorry Mike). Those with soldier envy should go to Iraq.

and the number one thing that REALLY. CHEESES. ME. OFF...

1) SMOKERS! They are the reason I don't drive a Hummer because every time I see one of these idiots toss their butts out the window I wanna go all Smokey Bear on their butts - Down shift, climb some chrome and crush all those cigarettes they haven't lit yet - those ones in their soon to be squishy pockets! Somebody tell me why there isn't a bizzilion dollar fine for incendiary littering? They're DNA's right on the cancer end of the butt (and why would anyone stick something called a "butt" in their mouth????) it's not like we couldn't prove who's being a jerk!


Coincidently, the sermon last Sunday was on anger, but I was teaching so I didn't hear it. Cannya tell?

Grizzly Prancer-Spot has joined our family. The 3 month old, full-blooded Chi has already wormed his way into our hearts (wait, don't use the word "Wormed" in a sentence about a dog...)

In a twist on computer dating, we found our new puppy online with Petfinder.com. I didn't realize the posted picture was life-sized...


Rainy will never be forgotten, but I'm sure he would have welcomed Grizzly as whole-heartedly as we have.

Pirates – the Dentist’s Nightmare

Y’know, it’s sad when the guy who edits the preview knows more about what makes the movie work than the director. This movie felt like a nice, big, roomy house stuffed to the rafters with moving boxes. Really dirty moving boxes. Pirates is a crowded film.

SPOILER WARNING, AND ALL THAT JAZZ

Back when CGI first hit the screens, the question became “when will CGI replace actors?” This was a broad step in that direction, and I liked Davy Jones a lot more than anyone else, and I didn’t really like him all that much. Loved the way his face moved, and the accent was kinda cool, but I’m left wondering how in the world they forgot what made the first Pirates movie so much fun?

Curse of the Black Pearl had charm. The thing about pirate movies is our ironic suspension of the knowledge that pirates were hard-butt, evil creatures. We romanticize them something fierce, and part of the romance is that a pirate ENJOYS being a pirate. That’s what “swashbuckling” is all about. Jack was a dastardly fellow, but he LOVES being dastardly.

No one enjoyed themselves in this movie. It started out dour (and I admit to missing something. Was Liz upset because her wedding was rained out? Or was Will arrested and prevented from showing up? I felt like I was missing something a lot in this film). And our beloved Captain Jack Sparrow never enjoyed himself after getting the black spot on his hand (the “I can still see fine” joke went over everyone’s head at the sold out theater we were in. Partially due to poor delivery, but mostly to mis-editing. Did they gloss over it for the kid’s sake? But no child should see this movie…) It seemed Davey Jones’s goal to crush out enjoyment because he had none, but that’s the quality that a villain must have to be engaging, not just special effects.

The writers of this movie are a team for whom I have a great deal of respect, so I’m assuming the whole cannibal section has a purpose in the next film, because otherwise it was a half-hour of useless stuff. A half hour to cover the story point that Jack had to be stationary for awhile so Will could find him?

And how is it that the monkey is still undead, but Barbosa is not? Was that the bit at the end of the credits in the last one? He stole a piece of gold, so he’s cursed again? How (and why) did Jack get him?

Bootstrap is back, but now I have to go back to the first script to see if I can recall exactly why his blood was needed to break the curse. I actually felt for him, though. Being tied to a cannon unable to live and unable to die… a chilling image. Myth building is a strength of Pirates and they came through again (though why the Flying Dutchman? Legend has it that it was a Dutch captain twirling around the Cape of Good Hope, forever doomed to sail his ghost ship because of his blaspheme. I suppose since most know the name and few the legend, that T&T squatted on the mental real estate of the Flying Dutchman to give it some resonance).

I’m notorious for blasting movies, and it appears I’ve infected Lynette. While everyone around us was praising it as a good film, we looked at each other and said, “huh?”

The next movie should be better, though. No one knows how to chew the scenery like Mr. Rush...

Poseidon - SPOILER WARNING

I was pre-disposed and the director used that to his advantage. Unlike Superman, which was sunk by the baggage, Poseidon got tricky with it. I loved the original Poseidon Adventure, watching it on TV as a kid several times. It was a star studded cast, most notabley Ernest Borgnine, Shelley Winters, and Red Buttons. In my memory, at least, Shelley was a pathetic, annoying woman who did a long underwater swim. As I recall she wasn’t a survivor (but I have a bad memory. It could be I just didn’t want her to survive).

In these survivor movies, the director introduces his characters (in this movie a little too fast and formulaic in my opinion, but it served…) and the audience makes its list of who lives and who dies. In a remake, you also try to match up who is playing who in the update. (Incidentally, I really like every one of the actors in this cast – the main reason I saw it.)

My list was:

Josh Lucas: He’s going to live.

Kurt Russell: He’s going to die.

Richard Dryfus: He’s tricky. As a jilted gay man who wants to kill himself, he could well be a twist on the pathetic Shelley Winters character. While it would be ironic if he lived (since he originally wanted to die) I thought he was going to die, heroically. The director really played on this. Richard ended up being Red Buttons. Fooled me.

The Boyfriend: I was figuring he would live, but thought he could die. Wasn’t sure. Again, the director played well on this.

The Daughter: Absolutely has to live.

The Mother: Also has to live.

The Little Boy: Absolutely-absotively has to live.

The Stowaway: I (forgive the expression) missed the boat on this one. I thought she’d live, because she had reason to live (her sick brother). Her claustrophobia edged her over to pathetic, though, but by THAT time I was convinced Richard was Shelley.

The Crewman and Lucky Larry may as well have worn red shirts ala Star Trek, because you knew they’d be the first to go. (Do NOT like the way the crewman went. Understand the choice, just disagree with it.)

Because of the rinky-dink start, I thought we had a poor director. Again, I think he used that well, because from then on I was underestimating him. By giving the stowaway good reason to live, I figured Dryfus had to die. So much so that when the stowaway lay there getting mouth-to-mouth I figured she had to come to. It was a race through the first and second act to see which would live and which would die – Dryfus or the girl. By making it the stowaway who died, the director was putting everyone on notice. “See? She had reason to live and she didn’t live! No one’s safe!” From that moment on, this movie was a winner. If he could kill her, then he could kill the kid (but, no, not really. Movies haven’t changed that much…)

In my opinion, there was only one major flaw (besides the convenient raft beside their departure tube – better would have been a ton of life boats. All empty.)… and that flaw was magnified by the strong cast. Where this movie was weak was finding the humor. You’ve got Dryfus, who is one of the funniest actors available, Russell and Lucas who are both very comedically talented, and the daughter (don’t know her name, sorry) who had a flair for it as well. Yes, it’s a disaster movie, but humor finds its way into anything, and the director should have trusted his actors to find the balance. As a result, the movie was good, but not great… and I think it could have been great.

Characters: C+ (they had to be stock characters, but these actors could all deliver more)
Director: B
Story: B+
Effects: C+
Overall: B

Movie Review Rationale

If I’m going to do movie reviews on this blog, then I’d like to lay some straight sticks to give readers of this blog (both of them) an understanding of my presumptions and process. Movie making is really hard.

No one has any idea what will be a hit and what won’t. There are some good ideas out there, and there are some stinkers. I’m thinking if you’re going to spend between 45 and 250 million dollars on a film, then for the investors alone (let alone the viewers) you should do the best job of bulletproofing everything that you can.

And that isn’t easy. A hundred thousand things can and will go wrong. The actors phone it in, are difficult, can’t act, can’t act today; the effects don’t work (which made JAWS a better movie, since it meant showing the shark less and building suspense more), the weather won’t cooperate, the star won’t cooperate… So you’d think nailing down the one thing that CAN be nailed down would be a safe bet.

That, of course, is the script. I understand that what’s written isn’t often actually shot, but it should be a good road map for the director. And it’s all about the director. A movie is a director’s medium. A good director can make bad actors good and good actors bad (anyone remember Tightrope? The director is SO BAD he makes Sean Connery boring. Something I wouldn’t have thought possible). You may think it’s a good actor that pulls a bad story along but if the director doesn’t use that footage, the actor’s in soup.

Tim Burton aside, most directors understand story. Nail that down, make sure you shoot it, and make sure the editor cuts it and you may not have a blockbuster, but you should have a good movie (not necessarily an enjoyable movie).

So my reviews will occasionally look at the actor, often at the director and ALWAYS at the story. And it won’t be often, because I don’t have much time to actually see very many movies...

Splashing in the Desert

Let's all take a lesson in patience. The ugly battle in Israel and Lebanon are the siblic splashing of kids in a pool. One splashes the other, the other doesn't like it and pretty soon water's flying everywhere while the UN plays the part of the little, smelly neighbor kid sitting on the steps yelling, "Nana-nana-booboo!" (with about the same effect).

And why is this happening? Because Abraham and Sarah tried to rush things by throwing Hagar into the tent. Next thing you know, Ishmael - father of the Arab/Muslims - is stirring up trouble. Don't blame the kid; he didn't ask to be born (though upon reaching majority he should take SOME responsibility). That leaves Abraham with egg on his face and us with shells all over the floor. The brass kind.

As a branch grafted onto the tree, I don't have any real understanding beyond shallow metaphors. Largely because the solutions that glow in the dark are still beyond my will (though, admittedly, it wouldn't take much to edge me over into the plutonium crowd. ANY more Ishmaelites leaving a stink on our doorstep and I'm all for the Middle Eastern black-glass parking lot.) No diving, no running and NO SPLASHING!

JetSki's Rock! Went to some wonderful friend's home for lunch after church and ended up jetskiing all afternoon. They know what they're doing on ski's; Lynette and I puttered around and felt like thrill seekers by rolling over small waves. Meanwhile, Mike a Malissa spend as much time in the air as they do in the rootbeer colored water. The kids fried like bacon despite 30 spf sunblock and Lynette has eyestrain from looking out for gators. This, more than anything, said we were back in Florida. Sure, they have jetskis in Seattle, but you have to wear forty layers of neoprene to avoid frostbite.

Wound up the evening at a kid's program of music, singing and stagework. Kudos to the directors for getting two dozen kids to work together, and even more fun than the performance was seeing what two dozen kids thought was "cool". Too good!

Superman Returns - A Review

SPOILER WARNING – I’m going to talk about details of the film, so if you haven’t seen it, don’t read any further.

NITPICK WARNING – I’m going to make a lot of picky comments about the movie, so if this kind of thing bugs you… be warned.

SUPERMAN RETURNS AND ISN’T THAT “NICE”

Story: C
Effects: A+
Characters: C-

I enjoyed the film. It was okay, not great, not epic, not iconic, just okay. I think Singer made a mistake in trying to follow the Donner film. As good as it was at the time, it doesn’t play well as a modern movie. As a result, Singer was saddled with way too much baggage to make a great movie, since most of the problems stem from that baggage.

Things I Really Liked:
The effects were fantastic. You really can believe a man can fly (a quick nit-pick, though. Flying is incredible, floating has all sorts of problems. Has to do with Supes looking lighter than air. Way too much floating…)

Sound editing was absolutely fantastic. Effects and Sound make this movie worth seeing no matter what the story.

Lex Luthor – As much as I love Gene Hackman, his Luthor was the pits. He was an egotistical clown who showed no menace whatsoever. Somehow Kevin Spacey took the same approach and made it work wonderfully. This was baggage turned into art. I wanted a better reason to have Kitty around, but at least there was no Ned Beatty this time.

Jimmy Olsen – This guy deserves an award. No one has ever made Jimmy work, in my opinion, but this guy makes him the most likeable character on the screen.

Heart and Soul – When the kid starts plunking this out, you expect that at some point in the film Clark will take up the other half. Having a bad guy do it was even better.

The costume – Routh is too skinny, and the cape needed a yellow S on the back, but I liked it anyway (except for the S’s on the heel of the boots. The belt, okay, cool, but the back of his boots?)

Problems:
Where to begin? It’s going to sound like I hated this film, which I didn’t, but the problems! Oy!

It’s clear from the Kansas scenes and the New Krypton stuff that Singer was going for an epic feel. Unfortunately, he failed. Maybe the extended version will make that work. Singer doesn’t understand “epic” obviously. The shots of Kansas were beautiful. New Krypton was expansive. That’s scope, though, not epic. Singer tried to use silence to indicate great depth of soul and character, but all he got was a stiff Superman. We should have started on the graveyard of Krypton (a reference, which while evocative, doesn’t make much sense. The place blew up, what was there to return to?)

Let’s examine Story for a moment. Any story is constructed of story points. A story point is vital packet of information that you need to go onto the next story point and so on and so on. How a storyteller conveys that information, ideally with power, imagery and creativity, makes a story art. Singer skips over the first story point entirely (the information that Superman still considers Krypton “home”) and only alludes to the second point (Krypton really is dead and now Superman KNOWS that Earth is his home, which should make it a whole new ballgame, baby! Only it doesn’t). The third point is that Superman Returns! And that’s where things fall apart.

(Another nitpick while I’m there: Jor-El says he’s been dead for “thousands of your years” meaning he shot baby Kal-El off thousands of years ago, but Superman gets from Earth to Krypton and back in five years. ????)

The way it should have worked is Superman is back, he’s finally ready and excited to really take part in life on Earth so the very first person he should have sought out was Lois, expecting a joyful reunion… only to get a slap in the face (no physical pain for him, but tons of emotional pain, not to mention breaking Lois’ hand…). Wounded emotionally, he discovers that people who used to revere him are angry that he left. Then he discovers that Lois kicked it all off with her Pulitzer Prize winning article. That drives him back to Kansas and his mother where he finds the fortitude to go back and win what’s his.

Only that’s not what we get. He lands in Kansas first. Avoids him mom for awhile and remembers his boyhood (which was cool, but what was the point????).

The whole Lex Luthor thing was great (despite Kitty the ditz. Why did he have her around again?)

Then we have the constant problem of Clark Kent. Who is Clark? Is he the real thing and Superman the mask or is Superman the real thing and Clark the mask? He’s too bumbling to be the real thing, but isn’t Clark who he is to interact with the world on a human level? Even sticking to the Donner story, he had the perfect excuse to come back from Lama land as a new guy – he “found himself” on the mountains. No, instead he’s still lame, and while he gets his job back on the strength of former employment, he never DOES anything. He doesn’t research the story he was assigned. He doesn’t do ANYTHING but moon over Lois. And I don’t know about you, but if my former immoral girlfriend from five years ago has a five year old son, the investigative reporter should probably have some alarm bells go off. Man, LEX figures it out before Superman even wonders (and why didn’t Jason react to Kryptonite?).

Lois. Yeah, whatever. If she bounces from Superman to Richard quick enough that no one suspects it isn’t his kid, then she’s got some issues, doesn’t she?

Richard. Same actor who does the X-Men’s Cyclops. He was okay, I guess.

The kid. Good job. Liked him. Not sure I’m thrilled about Superman and Son in the sequels.

Superman. I bet Brandon Routh is a good actor. He managed to capture the essence of Reeve’s Superman well, but he didn’t have the chance to actually do much besides play on wires and grimace when he’s in pain or lifting New Krypton. My complaints are with Singer’s choices. Superman and Lois had an intimate relationship and he’s distant and cool with her when they first meet (yes, a great homage to the Donner Lois/Supes interview, but we’re talking story here). Sigh.

The problem with Superman is always going to be how do you have anyone menace him? When a machine gun – while pretty to watch – presents no conflict, where can you go?

The dramatic question was “Does the World Need Superman?” Five minutes after the question is posed, the answer is graphically answered “YES!” and the movie is over five minutes into Act Two. After a night like that, the question then becomes “How Did the World Survive WITHOUT Superman?” and that’s never answered.

The whole Lex thing was fun to watch, but New Krypton didn’t look like such great real estate. Who wants to live on a crystal? Further, if Superman was so moved by the graveyard of Krypton, shouldn’t there have been something there about the difficulties of destroying the last vestige of his homeworld? That would tie it into the epic theme of home that this film should have embraced.

Another question is “Is Superman a Cad?” Answer: Yes. He just takes off to Krypton without telling anyone (re: Lois) why or what he’s doing? Because it’s too difficult. Wimp. Clark, meanwhile, tells everyone he’s off to Tibet but still comes back unchanged. Then Superman finds out he has a son, does some peeping and takes off. Lois wants to know if they'll ever see him around. “I’m always around.” I guess there has to be something for the next movie, but come on! Superdeadbeatdadman

So, Lois and Clark – non-starter
Lois and Superman – Cold and distant
Lois and Richard – Doomed
I could go down the list, but not a single relationship is in any way resolved. Superman is adulated again, but has no friends or loved ones and he’s leaving the two who need him.

It’s as if the director really doesn’t understand real relationships… oh, wait. It’s Bryan Singer. Silly me. Of course he doesn’t…

Still, go see the movie. It's pretty, it's a good ride, just a poor story.

We're home!

I've got a lot to learn about blogging... I posted a couple on the Homeschool site that said we're home, but that was an error. Shoulda posted here.

We're home! Our housesitters scrubbed the house clean before they left, so they can housesit anytime they want for us. Even when we're still here!

Now to work. Lots to do, lots to do. A trip isn't over until everything's unpacked...

Greeting from Bozeman, MT. WOW is Montana pretty. It's almost enough to make one want to move here... maybe not almost even... hmmmmm.

We're two hours away from Yellowstone, so we'll have a leisurely morning and meander on down to the splendor of a place full of hot air and water (sounds like me...)

We leave Seattle in two hours. The trailer is hitched, most of the stuff is packed, and we'll be booking soon.

Had a quiet get-together with my sisters at Katie's house last night, which also happened to be her birthday. Too bad Katie's in Texas, but we had a good time anyway. :)

I've got a cold, Lynette is getting one, Aly has a rash, but we're going to enjoy our journey across America!

First Idaho, then Montana, Yellowstone for two days, Mt. Rushmore, Kansas City, Mammoth Caves for two days and the HOME!

Jennifer, something may be coming to house by FexEx or UPS this week. I'll see if I can get it delivered when we get back, but just in case, can you leave a note on the door for any deliveries to go to Terry (if that's okay with you, Terry).

Thanks and see you all soon!

We are down to our last week before the long drive back. We've felt like we've been running the whole time we've been here, but there's so many things to do and people to see that we haven't been able to fit in. We seem to get more stuffed in when we're here for a couple weeks than when we're here for over a month. Go figure.

Jon has taken it upon himself to try and resurrect our yard back home. Jen is clearing out the party animals as we speak. SunTrust is thoughtfully piling on the deadlines for July. My side clients are doing the same. My Orlando life is so full and we're not even there!

My sisters have covered every need, lavished us all with love, made us welcome at odd hours in their homes, and made me thrilled all over again to be part of this family.

Bi-coastal blessing! Hard to beat that!

We needed to pour some more concrete to finish the stream in my parent's back yard, but considering the previous weather and the dark sky (going from ash grey to jet black clouds) we didn't dare risk it.

So of course, it's the one day it never rained. Of course, if we HAD mixed the concrete it WOULD have rained. In the Northwest you actually have that kind of power over the weather...

The fam is back from Portland! We're together again for the first time... (and wait until we get back to see what I mean...)

Mom asked me when we were heading back to Orlando and cried when I gave her the answer. :(

I never would have guessed this could go so fast...

A week and a half before driving back. !

It's drizzling.

Not again... still...

Well, maybe there were a few breaks. Like two nights ago when we were leaving Lynette's cousin's house and saw the neighbors lined up looking at the sky. I was thinking UFO, so I scanned the sky carefully. A neighbor saw me looking and breathed, "isn't it beautiful?"

I looked again and said, "what? The sunset?"

A ripple ran down the watchers. "Oooo! It's called a 'sunset'!

The little girl next to me asked, "Mister? What's a sunset?"

"It's... when the sun sets over the horizon..." I answered.

She seemed to chew on this for moment, then asked, "What's a 'sun', Mister?"

As one the crowd swivelled around to catch my answer.


Lynette and the kids are in Portland, Oregon visiting a good friend. I'm working. We've put 10,000 miles on the van since we left Orlando and I'm doing so much work for SunTrust that I'm considering putting in an expense account for mileage. At 35 cents a mile...

Hello from the great Northwest! Remember that the camera adds ten or twenty pounds to anyone wearing a red baseball cap...
Florida folks: the white stuff is SNOW. :)

It's drizzling here. That's rain you can see but can't really feel. You can walk through it and barely get damp. It's like the moisture in the clouds became bored and decided to just hang around in the sky.

Lynette and the kids are off hiking with her dad and I'm at my sisters working and pirating someone's wireless network.

Have I mentioned what a wonderful family I have? And I'm not just saying that because they read this. It's almost enough to make us want to move back (but I refer you to the first paragraph which discusses a whopping reason I don't want to move back.).

The kids have now seen snow for the first time. Ben found it to be too cold...

We went camping with my sisters and brothers-in-law, they in their beautiful campers and we in our tent. We had a great day driving over the pass, seeing the most gorgeous countryside God ever made. The kids counted 111 waterfalls on the way there.

My sisters - bless 'em - will forever see me as the baby-brother, babying me within an inch of my life. It means we get good food, camper bathrooms instead of outhouses, and offers of money "in case I don't have enough." Life is good.

The rain didn't set in until the second night around 3 in the morning. Our tent, it seems, is a good one; it didn't leak (nor did the air mats provided by the Splitters). Packing up was messy, but the food was terrific and so were the margaritas.

Had to replace the tires on the van and recharge the air system. We're installing a hitch and renting a trailer for the drive back in just three weeks. Our stuff seems to be growing...

Lynette's father came up to Mt. Vernon to help design and create a waterfall stream in the back yard of my parent's house. That's the second big hole I've dug this trip, and miraculously my back is fine. We got two days into the project, mortaring the stones in place when it started pouring rain. We covered it with tarps and hope the mortar sets up. It's a lot of work, and Leonard is a saint to help with this. I believe it will bring a lot of peace to my mom and dad. I'll take a picture when the project is completed next week and post it.

Talk to y'all later.

Lynette's father came up to Mt. Vernon to help design and create a waterfall stream in the back yard of my parent's house. That's the second big hole I've dug this trip, and miraculously my back is fine. We got two days into the project, mortaring the stones in place when it started pouring rain. We covered it with tarps and hope the mortar sets up. It's a lot of work, and Leonard is a saint to help with this. I believe it will bring a lot of peace to my mom and dad. I'll take a picture when the project is completed next week and post it.

Talk to y'all later.