How Much Do You Have To Have Right?

When we went to the Philips, Craig, and Dean concert, there was a young man standing in the rain screaming at the top of his lungs that PCD were preaching a different gospel. He did so with fervor and desperation.

My kind of guy. If it weren't raining, I would have engaged him to find out what he was blathering about.

Instead, I looked it up.

They believe that we are sinners saved by grace imputed upon us by Christ's sacrifice on the cross if we repent and believe.

That's the same gospel I believe.

What my fervent friend was frothing about was their understanding of the Trinity. We believe God is three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit; PCD believe God is three manifestations, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

That is a different doctrine (barely), not a different gospel. If we have to have doctrine down perfectly, we're all doomed. I don't think anyone can truly grasp the Trinity (partially because while it is strongly implied in the Bible, it is not directly addressed, and ultimately because it is beyond our physics).

If you get the boiled down gospel above, but are off on doctrine (an understanding of the details of how it all works), I'm thinking you'll be okay, though possibly not as effective. I don't need to know how a cellphone works to use it.

A different gospel would be salvation through works (Jehovah's Witnesses, I think Mormons), salvation through a being other than Jesus Christ (Norse Mythology, Moonies, Muslims), stuff like that. (Catholics believe in the "candy bar" approach, as I've termed it. They wrap grace and works all up in one bar whereas we separate them; I'm guessing they're okay.)

And, y'know, I bet there are individuals in JW and Mormonism who are going to be okay because they just don't get what's being taught and believe the gospel anyway.

As someone pointed out to me, when we get to Eternity, we'll be less surprised by who's there than by who's not.

Anti-Intellectualism

I've been seeing it a lot, lately. From a gossip site slamming Sovereign Grace Ministries to the current Health Care Debate.

Because conservatives are against government controlled health care, liberals claim it's useless talking to us since we're "against any kind of reform since all we want to do is trample the poor and fatten the rich folks." Somehow, saying we're against one kind of reform and suddenly we are against any kind of reform. Ridiculous. That's like saying just because I don't like mushrooms, I don't like any fungi. Oh, wait a minute, I don't... okay, because I don't like onions, I don't like any vegetables. Utterly silly.

Meanwhile, the intellectual dishonesty of former SGM'ers who feel "wounded" by their time in SGM take it upon themselves to make every little move CJ makes to be evil (bwa-ha-ha-ha!). There are entirely consumed by gossip... while castigating CJ as an anti-intellectual because he admits he didn't go to college. As if college is required to develop intelligence. Every stand is pushed to the extremes. And they do this as a "warning" to others. So sad.

Is simple logic that difficult to grasp?

We Shall Never Forget; But We Have

Our Jewish brethren have a saying, "we shall never forget."

There's also an age old question: "If you could go back in time to when Hitler was a boy; would you kill him to prevent the Holocaust?"

Or what if Chamberlain recognized Hitler for what he was and made a preemptive attack and ended the threat of the Reich before it could gather momentum? I'll tell you what. Chamberlain would be vilified. Britons would complain about the folly of sending young men to die in ending a threat before it became heinous. Just as the person who said yes to the second question would be branded a vile murderer of children.

I don't like the Iraq war. I hate that so many of our brave men and women have died. But Hussein killed 35,000 of his own people and mass graves cried out for justice. Right now in dozens of places on the globe thousands upon thousands are killed by warlords and corrupt government. And like Chamberlain, we think it's not our job to end such things.

I'm sorry, my Jewish kindred, we have forgotten.

GI Joe - What Do You Know?

Caught GI Joe as part of a guy's night out with a bunch of friends. For the fellowship alone, I enjoyed it. Not because of the movie, mind you, just for the friends.

GI Joe, originally a six inch toy American Soldier with a beard. Then it became a team to facilitate more toys. Now it's a movie to sell bazillions of more toys.

Problem with movies made from toys is that it is a two hour commercial and business plan for future toys. Which means story and characterization are an afterthought.

GI Joe is no longer American but NATO run -- Meaning the title is nonsensical, but now the toys can be a global phenom. The necessity to have as many weapons, characters, bases, vehicles, costumes as possible makes it chaotic. What few clever ideas they had were drowned in silly toy references.

The actors seemed to know they were second fiddle to the toys so they phoned in their performances. Quaid who is dissappointing regularly is worse here. Branden Frazier makes a bizzarre cameo to say "again?" over and over before disappearing. Everyone else was just... sad.

Stephen Summers, the director, is making a name for himself doing toy movies badly (as opposed to Michael Bay, who makes flashy toy movies adequately).

If you're a fan of GI Joe toys, go and have fun. If you're not, either grab a dozen friends and go or stay home.

Good to Know

I got my irregular notification from Social Security of how much I'm worth to my family if I died.

They'd do alright.

I guess I should feel good about that...

A Fair Question

"If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?"-- GOP strategist Mike Murphy

So true. I doubt McCain would have selected her if she resembled Humpty-Dumpty, but she doesn't and he does, and we're stuck with an albatross in the conservative camp.

Don't get me wrong. I like Sarah Palin. She's got conservative views, an engaging personality, and she ticks off the press. What's not to like?

In many way's she's the exact opposite of our current President (besides black/white and male/female) and I think she'd be just as damaging to the country as he is.

Obama is an intellectual (of dubious conclusions) and completely out of touch with humanity and common sense.

Palin is in touch with humanity, loads of common sense (except when it comes to the perks of office) but is a fairly dim bulb. She espouses conservative values, but would she come up with them on her own? Can she articulate them and studiously defend them? No, I don't think so.

As such, she is not fit for Federal (or possibly State) office. Nor is she fit as a Republican spokeswoman. The GOP can (and must) do better.

Huckabee, probably unelectable and now, as a talk show host, definitely unelectable was the whole package, except he too fell victim to abuses of office--not criminal, but certainly unethical--as the Governor of Arkansas. Could he articulate his platform and defend it from all comers? Absolutely, and with humor as well as aplomb.

People scoff at the idea of dynasties, a la Kennedy, Bush, and the attempt by the Clintons (watch out for Chelsea), but by knowing they're grooming presidents, they know what to avoid early in office. Kennedy had all sorts of personal moral lapses, but his time in office had a purpose. Did Huck and Palin ever consider being president and therefore be careful about milking the office for all it's worth? Doubtful.

Who will the right GOP leader be? I have no clue. I just know they aren't on the scope at the moment.

A Hip and Happenin' Dude

The body is an amazing thing; so different than technology and far more awe-inspiring, yet it's technology that allows us to understand the human machine.

I had x-rays taken of my hips and pelvis this evening. This machine, peering through cloth, skin, and flesh to reveal the essence of my structure. Such odd looking things, bones. My face is highly personal -- to see it is to see me. My bones, however, are anonymous, though unique to me. Stripped of flesh, no one would know how I am, but without the bones, my flesh would be without form and unrecognizable.

My left femoral head (the "ball" of the ball and socket joint) is properly round, though the socket is decaying. My right femoral head is no longer a ball, or if it is, it looks like one my puppies have been gnawing on, and the socket is also pretty chewed up. To my inexpert eye, it doesn't look like it's to the place where it will begin to dislocate yet, though I suspect if an accident pops it out, it will stay out. I'm hoping replacement is still a year or two off and that the constant dull pain won't get too much worse before then.

And yet, technology... I can eventually get a hip replacement that will make it better than new (at least my new, which since the bone disease of childhood, has never been great). A titanium spike driven into the femur from which the head has been cut off, and a titanium ball that fits into a titanium socket. A friend with the same bone disease had his hip replaced five years ago. Because hip pain is a part of our lives, he was able to get back to work three days after the surgery (with a walker, then a cane) and now he feels fantastic. After constant pain, he (we) sublimate so much of it that we don't realize what no-pain feels like.

The coward in me who has never had surgery wants to put it off as long as possible, but to be able to ride a bike again, and ride a horse again, and maybe even ski for the first time... at least until the left hip starts to go... maybe surgery isn't such a bad thing.

And who knows? Maybe they'll inscribe my name on the titanium spike and my bones won't be anonymous anymore. :)

Wonder what a hip replacement surgery is like? Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-e4WhdAImM

The Eyes (don't) Have It

I was flipping through pictures of our cross-country road trip the other day and was surprised to see I wasn't wearing glasses in any of the pictures. In just three years, my eyesight has worsened to requiring glasses all the time.

One eye is far-sighted, the other is near-sighted (which is such a symbol of my psyche I just can't stand it).

What this means is that when I don't wear my specs I have a constant touch of vertigo; not full-scale spinning, just a vague sense of swirling movement which must be caused by each eye trying to focus in opposing depth.

I can't read a screen without everything swimming in hazy water (I can read print, though, go figure) and the dual dis-focus means my depth perception is shot. My daughter tossed me a pillow once when I wasn't bespectacled and it was alarming. One hand went out, the other pulled back to catch it so it fell between them.

Oddly, 3-D movies only work one way for me. I can see "into" the screen, but when others see something project "out" from the screen I see plain old two-dimensions. IMAX? Forget it. I'm too aware of the frames of my glasses.

Oh, and in the dark I have tunnel vision which makes driving at night an adventure.

Just goes to show, the older you get, the less good-looking you are. :)

Never Exhaust Your Puppy

I was intending to post on a fun new event in our family -- Thunder has discovered the pool. When we go in for a swim, he now joins in. He's an excellent swimmer, chugging along, snapping at splashes. The only problem is that we can rest by standing up, but he can't (and wouldn't if he could). We tried to put him out, but he'd just run back in.

Finally, when it was time for us to go in and dry off, Thunder reluctantly left the pool and let us towel him down. After showering and getting dressed, I decided to blog about it. Now dry, he joins me in my easy-chair as I prepare to blog.

Then I hear an odd tinkling sound, like water trickling on cloth...

He'd managed to stand, but not to jump down and go outside. Thunder was peeing on my chair. Apparently he drank a lot of pool water... Poor easy-chair.

OK, You Knew It Was Coming

Michael Jackson. What a tragic life. Christians take heed! This was an extremely blessed individual who got every single thing he wanted. Every whim indulged.

Praise God for a Savior who will say "no." As I yearn for my desires, even those I believe called to by God, I must remember this: His "no" is a blessing as surely as His "yes."

On the cynical side: Jackson's fans should bring a class action suit against the surgeons who wrecked his face over and over again. It didn't matter than he wanted it; it didn't matter that he paid... through the nose... (sorry) for it. Those doctors should have said "forget it." I don't know if all that had anything to do with his death, but it couldn't have helped. Track those guys down and sue 'em!

Living in a Sound Byte World

I've been a cranky Christian lately. I'm frustrated with media Christians who take stances I think miss the point; participating in a sound byte mentality and thereby misrepresenting what I believe Jesus stands for.

Momentary clips do not convey the love and compassion that exemplify Christ's stand on issues. I so struggle with putting things into law. How do we portray the love of God by passing amendments that do not preserve rights? By railing against particular sins en mass instead of one heart at a time? Jesus will establish His reign and exercise his sovereignty someday, but as a man on Earth he did not push for laws; he preached, he touched individuals... Paul called us to live a high standard, but he didn't try to encode morality in the law (that hadn't worked for thousands of years before, why now?)

Abortion activists reaching out to those crossing the line is wonderful, so don't mistake my intention. They ideally are preaching the love of God while showing it.

In trying to make the media work for us, how do we succeed when anything we say is going to be shortened to a 30 second blip of the worst part of the message?

The White OutHouse

In researching 1835 for a screenplay I'm writing, I needed to find out about plumbing and the existence or lack thereof.

Indoor plumbing was spotty at the time and I had to decide if my character's humble abode had a water closet or an outhouse.

From there, my addled brain took a turn to the White House. Which of our august chief executives had the privilege of a toilet and who had to trek out to the Rose Garden for a little hands on fertilizing?

Who knew the White House had few amenities for a long time? Congress apportioned funds for building and renovations, and back then they were spendthrifts instead of today's porkbellies.

When Adams took office (Washington didn't live in the Presidents House... later to be called the Executive Mansion, and only after it was burned down by the British in 1815 and was rebuilt that it became the White House), there was no water at all. Servants had to carry it in from 5 blocks away.

The first toilet was installed in 1902. No wonder so many of our early presidents had sour looks on their faces for their presidential portraits.

Tiller and Roeder

Murder or vigilantism? The church-going late-term abortionist is killed in his church (!) by an anti-abortionist=murder. And a very bad hit against pro-lifers, giving pro-abortionists another straw man to play with.

I have no doubt that Tiller was a murderer in God's eyes, just not legally. Will any babies live who would have otherwise died at Tiller's hands? Probably not, so not only was there no short-term gain, there is significant damage to long-term efforts.

I do understand Roeder's frustration, seeing something so clearly heinous and being unable to do anything about it. Most of us have felt that frustration and helplessness to the point of verging on insanity. Roeder healed over into insanity, though. His actions assuaged his own emotions and harmed the life movement (admittedly, his movement wasn't "our" movement. Terrorism is not a part of pro-life on any level).

If this fight is to ever be won (and I suppose we'd need to agree on what "winning" looks like--some believe victory comes from a change in the law; others of us believe it comes from a change of the American heart), it will be done through love, knowledge, and compassion. Nothing else will succeed. Roeder and his group are hypocrites.

The answer will not be found in doctors, only in the hearts, souls, and minds of the mothers and fathers.

In Response to Sherlock (or, There's No Place Like Holmes)

I, too, saw the trailer for the new Sherlock Holmes. At first I was aghast.

At second, too.

But still, you have to admire the brazen reinvention of Sir Conan Doyle's flagship character.

I mean, be fair. Just because he solved crimes doesn't mean he was a sterling fellow. He was a drug addict, after all, who hung around rather dense friends making him display his genius at every turn. Such arrogance...

And how much respect does Doyle really deserve; he was duped by children crying "fairy!" He hared after every ridiculous notion of the fraudulent supernatural.

It remains to be seen if this new breath of life for an almost-forgotten character to today's generation will be worthy of that life.

What Power a Name

In my job I encounter people with the strangest names. Names that if I had them I would change in a heartbeat. Yet these people don't. I can only imagine what life would have been like in school.

It makes me think about the power of names. Fathers hope their sons will "carry on the family name."

And yet we expect women to change theirs when they get married. And then, they keep that name after divorce--in many cases because they want to keep the same name as their children, but even women without kids keep their married name after a marriage is over. And then there are women who have children out of wedlock and still give the kid the dad's last name. Is a name of less importance to a woman?

How do girls, who presumably expect to get married someday and change their last name, view their last name? Like a temporary tattoo? A hairstyle?

What say you?

Torture and the American Way

Torture has been used in our legal system for two centuries. Sleep deprivation, isolation, light 24 hours a day, repetitive sounds... and it's been questionable at best. It elicits false confessions and causes a whole host of problems. It's antithetical to the American Way in that we have that pesky presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The war isn't our legal system, though, but it's fought on two fronts: 1) the battlefield by our military and 2) investigations by the CIA. In the first, presumption of innocence isn't really a question. People shooting at you are the enemy and the enemy may have information that will save lives.

Remember that Colonel who threatened an Iraqi prisoner of war and then pretended to shoot him in the head but instead shooting past his ear (no contact, just a really loud BOOM). The guy wet his pants and gave up the bad guy's plans, averting a costly battle. That Colonel was reprimanded and retired, as I recall.

How silly. Give the guy a medal. The Iraqi was caught in the act of war; waterboard his head already!

The CIA, on the other hand, bags guys they strongly suspect are terrorists. Even if they are, they may not know anything and torture may give false information that can be just as dangerous as no information. Occasionally, though, they have guys they KNOW are guilty and have information we need.

And that's where I have a problem with torture. Allowing the CIA and the military to use torture "only when it's called for" allows them to use it even when it's not necessary. It could be used out of incompetence, revenge, etc. Torture for the sake of torture is wrong, but how do we trust fallible people to torture only when it can save lives? We can't.

Still, the thing I have not heard in the media is how often torture has been used and saves lives as a result. We see the abuses; something tells me we don't see the successes partially because the media doesn't want us to and mostly because the CIA really doesn't want us to.

So; I am not against torture on principle (the enemy is the enemy and if they have information, they're a fair target... of course, that presumes who the torturer says is the enemy really is the enemy); like the death penalty, which I'm against only because we don't carry it out well (though some folk just needs killin'), I'm against torture because we can't be trusted to do it "properly."

How frustrating is that?

To Boldly Go... Again

A definite 9 out of 10 for Star Trek. Maybe even 9.5. Good enough to see twice, which we did, and it left us looking forward to the next one.

The premise was simple: reset the timeline for more rollicking adventures with the first and best crew. This had it all, fun, action, sci-fi, warm fuzzies, and good old fashioned planet destroying good time. Pure popcorn movie (though to the nay-sayers who complain the original Star Trek was about something; that is that sci-fi is supposed to explore deep themes, I say thhhhhhpppppttttt!)

Without too many spoilers, here's my assessment:

Story - FUN

Concept - Fully realized, we're back at zero ready to warp ahead.

Kirk - Great. While Shatner always managed to beat up people ten time stronger and five times faster (since humanity is the slowest, weakest species in the universe... but we rule, baby!) the new Kirk was everyone's punching bag. And it worked for him. He's the new Kirk, raised without a father and hyper-rebellious. No mimicry of Shatner, he's really a whole new character who is a rebel not a maverick. Same no-no-win scenario, though.

Spock - The weakest of all of the new cast, it's not really his fault. Nimoy's shoes are just too big to fill. Nimoy looked alien. The new guy has a baby face. He looks a bit like a kid playing dress up. Good foil for the new Kirk, though.

McCoy - Great. He was the most like the original but didn't fall into mimicry despite the ease to do so with the McCoy-ish lines. Didn't have enough to do in this one other than follow Kirk around, except for the funniest sequence in the movie.

Sulu - Asian, like Takai, but that's about it. Pilot and fencer, but his own person. No deep voice, no swashbuckling. He took his sword fighting seriously. Didn't have much to do after his two big scenes, but that's okay.

Chechov - The best in show, by far. Love this kid; did everything right. Want to see more of him.

Uhura - Weird looking lady. In fact, everyone in the movie except McCoy looked like there might have been an alien or two in the woodpile somewhere in their ancestry. She's good; an interesting foil for Spock.

Scotty - Second best in show. Terrific, but looked lost in the engine room. No, that's not right, the engine room was lost. A conglomeration of tubes does not an engine room make. This was the film's biggest weakness...

The Enterprise - where are the bulkheads? All the wide open space seemed a waste. I loved the bridge and the glass display boards. Loved the new transporters. The outside was okay, but the inside was mostly atrocious.

Uniforms - I liked George Kirk's uniforms best of all Trek so far. I would have been happy if these were our crews uniforms and their uniforms were George's. Speaking of George, what happened to Jim's brother Sam?

Nimoy Spock - Dude is old, looks even more alienish, and is, of course, fantastic. He was the best thing about the old show and still has it without being overbearing.

The Lack of Shatner - I like Shatner and I'm glad he wasn't in this movie. There is no way for him to be in the movie without taking it over. Notice how easily he stole the movie from Picard in ST Generations, and Stewart is STRONG. The new Kirk would never been "his own" if Shatner was in it.

Sarek and Amanda (Spock's parents). Winona Rider looks ancient! She was good, though. I have no idea who Sarek was. Mark Leonard he was not. Seemed more vampire-like than Vulcan. I don't want warmth from a full-blooded Vulcan. I suppose there's new toys to play with if Sarek and Spock aren't feuding.

Bad Guy - Nero, great villian. Great look. Weird looking ship, but hey, they're Romulans. At this point in "history" humans had never seen Romulans but they glossed over that (the Romulan war could have been different, I suppose, in which humans never saw them, but why would it be?)


JJ Abrams. Knows Star Trek better than even Rodenberry. Make many more!

Dad broke his hip

And he's mad as a wet hen. At 80, my dad is in pretty good shape as long as you don't count his blood pressure, kidneys, and fake knee. He fell in his backyard yesterday and broke his hip clean through. He's in the hospital (of course) and surgery will be followed by a stay in a convalescence home. I spoke to him at the hospital and he sounded awful. I think they'll need to get his blood pressure down before they can operate.

Your prayers are appreciated.

It Comes in Threes

I confess to not know who Danny Gans was before he died (not a big Vegas fan) but I knew and very much enjoyed Dom Deloise.

Truth to tell, I though he had passed away a while ago, so it saddens me afresh. He seemed a very happy man who could communicate that happiness to his audience.

Who will be the third? Or did I miss the first?

Air Force One: A Financial Terrorist

Forget about the insensitivity and naivete of the new administration in buzzing the Statue of Liberty in Air Force One with an F-4 fighter dogging it's tail for a photo-op (after all, insensitivity and naivete are the hallmarks of President O-bow-to-Muslims). Rather, consider the phenomenal waste of taxpayer money instead.

I don't know the actual cost of flying Air Force One and an F-4 but it's in the hundreds of thousands at least. Contrast the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of photographs of AF1 and the Statue of Liberty and making a composite of them in Photoshop would take ten minutes for a semi-talented graphics designer (and the mega-buck photo-op disaster's photos would have to be retouched in Photoshop anyway) and you have a shameful boondoggle.

While I highly doubt BO had anything to do with it, the judgment of his staff is as woeful as his own.

10% down, 90% to go....