Adventures is Ambien

Ambien is a prescription sleeping pill. Being a complete insomniac without Lynette, they are the only way for me to get any sleep (the only night I attempted it without, I was wide awake all night).

It's a fascinating drug. I take it a half hour before I want to be asleep and either read or watch a DVD episode. It's amazing, the next day I remember reading or watching, but I've forgotten everything else. If I finished a book, I had no idea how it ended.

Even more fun is the relative clarity of being on it before laying down. I feel awake and alert, then I stand and WHOA NELLY! The bottle says it causes dizziness, but really it turns you into a giant Weeble that wobbles but doesn't quite fall down. The upper body moves faster than the lower body, then you overcompensate and lean perilously back.

I haven't fallen down, yet, but last night I broke a mirror. Our full length mirror is now a half length mirror. No one was hurt, although the dogs wouldn't come out of their walk-in closet bedroom the rest of the night.

Cleaning the mess up while on Ambien was an experience. I didn't want to cut myself, but the floor seemed to be moving at a different speed than the walls. I had to clean it up though because their were shards all over the place and the dogs have eight bare feet among them. No cuts, and the only shards I missed were those that somehow made it onto the bed.

Lie down and you got out instantly, then you wake up the next day at 7:45. It doesn't matter what time I go to bed--11, 1, 3-- I'm awake at 7:45. The first couple weeks I wasn't groggy in the morning. I am now a little. And I think there's a little fuzz throughout the day.

This time without my wife and kids, while no fun at all, would be torture without that little pill. I hope I don't still need it when they get home (in TWO WEEKS!).

"24" seems to be all the rage for so many of my friends. I finally borrowed the DVDs from a friend and watched the first several episodes.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. For all the action and frenetic pace, it's boring. (I'm also amused by "everything happens in real time" which must mean that every location in the city must be a thirty second drive away.)

I might watch a few more to see if I can get into it, but not so far.

Biblically, we each have a guardian angel. While I have no interest to promote angel worship, what do you think they do, and how do you think they do it? Any guesses on what they look like?

The kidlings in Seattle (and a friend). :)

It's my daughter's birthday today. Charlene is 11 years old. They are going to the Woodland Park Zoo to celebrate. Wish I could be there. Ah well, they'll be back in little over a month.

Hollywoodland Review

Caught this on DVD the other night. I would say it's an art film with pretensions to commercialism.

Okay, to reveal my own bias, I like George Reeves as the almost original Superman (there was a guy before him, very forgettable) and as a Hollywood actor. He was a classic Hollywood leading man who couldn't rub sticks together and quite get a spark. He had the goal of being one of the heavyweights, but it just didn't happen (or it purposefully didn't happened with some background help from his sugar momma, Toni Mannix).

To the positive side of George's character, he was a sincerely charming man with a great love of kids. He felt a responsibility to the kids who idolized him, even though Superman was not his ideal job. Despite it being "just television" he was a talented actor who shone as Superman.

The downside of his character is that he drank and partied heavily (a prerequisite to Hollywood success at the time) and he was a "kept man" accepting favors, money and a house from the woman he was having an affair with (she was married, not him).

I think the movie played too much to his downside and not nearly enough to his upbeat side (it wasn't a biography, so they didn't have to, but it would have been nice).

Ben Affleck received rave reviews for his portrayal as Reeves, but I don't see it. He was Affleck with a rubber nose. Charming, but nowhere near the real thing. The parallel construction between Reeves and the P.I. investigating his death was interesting, but again, the Reeves story is so compelling that the P.I.'s story pales in comparison (which is saying something because Brody is very good).

Was Reeves murdered or did he commit suicide? Personally, I think he was murdered, and that's the feeling the movie leaves you with. Reeves had three suspicious car accidents in the weeks before his death, any of which should have killed him. One with another car, the second with a cut brake line and a third as a pedestrian where he barely got out of the way. The movie mentions on of them, but that's all.

Here's the thing: Studios and Hollywood execs at the time of Reeves death habitually paid off police to keep things quiet, so what really happened is anyone's guess. There were enough power players around Reeves, enough dicey situations and mangled relationships that murder is very real possibility. Unfortunately, there was enough personal issues that it could have been suicide. He'd had some bad years and a career that didn't go the way he wanted, but it was picking up far more than the movie indicated. He was drunk and on painkillers (from the car accident) and that can mess up one's mind. There were a number of suspicious things at the scene, tons of bad guys and girls with motive and opportunity, but there were people in the house, so how would a killer get out? Of course, they didn't call the police for 45 minutes after it happened...

As with so many things, years and poor crime scene technique has muddied the water (and oddly, the facts of Marilyn Monroe's death and Reeves' death are often mixed up... you'll hear that Reeves was found face down - though not in the movie - which is odd for suicides by gun, but it was Marilyn who was found that way; and people mess up the kind of drugs each had taken... I suppose us conspiracy nuts follow the same cases...)

So, for the record, I think Marilyn Monroe and Vince Foster were murdered (both by presidents, oddly enough) and I want to think Reeves was also murdered, but might not have been.

As for Hollywoodland (originally titled "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but a lawsuit prevented that; why they changed it to Hollywoodland - which was taken from the famous Hollywood sign... originally Hollywoodland sign for a real estate promotion, but the "land" fell down) I wouldn't waste your time. I found it disappointing.

Transformers Review

Okay, the things you do for friends. I went entirely because Brian C. was so excited about this movie (and spending time with Mike, Brian, and any other friends is worth the time).

Very glad I did. Let's say the movie "transformed" my outlook. Having no experience with the original Transformers, I didn't know if I could get into it. But is was funny, action packed, well paced, well acted (maybe a little over the top from John Torturro), and overall impressive.

A couple of the funniest bits are not for kids, though. At least not for our kids. I suppose more worldly kids know all about this stuff, buy mine don't and won't need to for awhile, so Transformers isn't a kid's movie - a shame, since the toys target kids, but Michael Bay, like Brian C., were into the Transformers as a child and wanted to update it to make it fun for the 30 somethings who originally adored the toys, comics, and cartoon. Make it "just for kids" and you'd loose the largest paying audience, or at least disappoint them.

For Action/Adventure I give it an A-

Institutionalized racism can be very subtle.

I received a map of the rezoned high schools in my area which showed the old zone and the new zone for each high school AND a breakdown of race in each school. It looked like this: (numbers fictitious)

W: 54%
B: 41 %
H: 5%

W=White, B=Black, H=Hispanic. Why the racial breakdown was necessary, I don't know, but is not, in itself, racist - it's just information (though poor information; how are students of mixed heritage represented? Is the son of a white mom and black dad white or black? I'm thinking he would be considered black, but why? Because any other color is considered a dilution of white? Maybe it is racist - especially since Adam and Eve were most likely black.)

It's the ORDER that's racist. The mapmaker could say it's in order of majority to minority, except that Edgewater High School has a majority of black students, then white, and finally Hispanic. Was the order changed? No. The mapmaker could say that would be confusing; you don't change the order for a single listing.

No, you use a different classification for your order. Alphabetical, not majority, which would make it consistent for each list.

B: 41%
H: 3%
W: 54%

One has to wonder why the list was there to begin with. Does knowing the racial mix serve a purpose? Too many of one "kind" and you'll yank your kid from that school?

Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer

With the understanding that this is a low expectation movie... I liked it.

I don't think it's PG, and I won't let my kids see it because of suggestive comments, unnecessary scenes, and some inappropriate questions, but get past that and it's a fun movie.

You'll also have to get past Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman who is just painful to look at. Is there anything on her body that hasn't been surgically enhanced? It doesn't help that she's not a natural blond and doesn't have the coloring to be a blond - nor acting talent... but she's good when she disappears.

It was fun and several times they really looked like the Fantastic Four from the comics. The Thing is smaller, but they did a much better job with this version than the first version. He doesn't look like he's made of waffles this time.

The Torch was fun and the show stealer again.

Reed was played by an actor who either couldn't take it seriously or just has low talent (though he did okay in Amazing Grace).

Silver Surfer was great. Doom was Doom. Galactus was inspired, though nothing like the comics version (thank goodness... though there was a nod to the comics version in the shadow cast over Saturn).

The effects were much better. Story, better. Everything, better.

How that for a fairly positive review?

Who do you say that James Bond is?

This won't be of much interest to my younger readers (and probably not for my older readers...)

007 has a sticky wicket; every few years you need a new actor, and no matter who you pick, some will love him and some will hate him. And that's fair. Who you think James Bond is determines if they made the right choice for you.

For example, is your James a heroic, licensed to kill, gadget guy with a thing for the ladies? Or is he the cool nerved spy, good at everything... and everyone?

My take is a suave, GQ fellow. The type who looks like he belongs in a photo shoot, but is really the genius lady killer, and um, bad-guy killer, too. He must have the Austin Martin, the Walther PK, and martini -- shaken, not stirred, and neato toys made by Q, flirting with Moneypenny, and verbal fencing with M. Above all else, he is flash and flair, devil-may-care.

The latest movie is impressive. It has amazing chase scenes (always good), the Austin Martin (with only a few gadgets), and the beginnings of the guy we know. This actor is very talented (better by far than almost all the others)... but despite direct hits and near hits on almost everything, he's not a GQ fashion plate. He has craigy good looks, I guess, but blond hair? He's a great 00x, but he's not Bond. I cab believe this fellow would get into and come out on the winning end of a bar room or back alley fight. James is supposed to be able to clean anyone's clock without spilling a drop of martini. He isn't supposed to look like he'd be in a back alley, let alone fight in one (though he'd win if he did, of course). This is completely my own take on the character, though, so it's just me shooting myself in the foot.

Sean Connery - Quintessential Bond.
Roger Moore - Not even close
Timothy Dalton - I always liked him, but they were poor movies.
Pierce Brosnan - Probably the most spot on in my definition, but only a TV actor and it showed.
New Guy (Craig someone? Someone Craig?) - Great actor, true to the book but not the stereotype. Quintessential Bond Movie, missing Bond but with another 00 who thought he was Bond. Raised the bar on the movies, though, because it was really good if you don't mind the violence and naughty bits (which were pretty tame for a Bond movie) and non-Bond Bond.

Y'know, I just can't be happy. Not with iconic movies. Don't listen to me, I'm impossible.

Pirates of the Caribbean - The Story Without End

I don't know where to start. It was looooooonnnnnggggggg. Some of it was boooorrrrrinnnngggggg. Some was witty and clever. There was a little fun.

Dunno, it moved you through the story without too much trouble. I could watch Davy Jones all day long-a -- He's the most fascinating visual and vocal character I've ever seen, even if I don't care about him.

And that is the problem with Pirates, I think. Jack, Barbosa, Jones, and Elizabeth are interesting characters. Turner is a bore, and the pirates are a bit fun... but despite all the amazing effects, convoluted story, dashing swordplay, and stage dirt... who cares? I mean, it wasn't a secret to anyone that the unspeakably dull Turner was going to get killed and helm the Flying Dutchman, and he was - did I mention? - unspeakably boring, so he gets a sword run through him. Ho hum. Ho hum, a pirates sleep for me... who cares? (Personally, I think it would have been far more interesting if Miss Swan got the deep six and helmed the Flying Dutchess, but that's just me).

They were fun to watch when it wasn't being gross, but engaging? No. The first Pirates I went right out and purchased on DVD as soon as possible. The second one I wanted the theater to give me my money back (no DVD, no wasting of two hours to borrow it and watch it again). This one, I don't need my money back, but I won't buy the DVD, and if there's a fourth, I'll see it in the cheap theater if it all.

My rules of pirate movies:
1. They must have fun! Otherwise, they're filthy, immoral, thieving murders. If they don't enjoy their own evil, why should I?
2. There must be pathos, dilemma, and an emotional crisis at stake (else no one and nothing to care about).
3. SOMEONE SHOULD OWN A TOOTHBRUSH! All these strong, healthy teeth with shoe black all over them was a bit much. Rotten teeth, okay, but just dirty teeth? Yuck.
4. Clashing swords is fine and dandy, but make it a contest of skill, not just hack and slash.

That's it. Thanks, and have a Ho Ho Day.

Republican Debates

A whole buncha fellas with three rising to the top.

1. Romney - Good looking guy, good presentation, Mormon... might win, might not.
2. Gulliani - Not good looking, good presentation, smart, unique, pro-choice... he might be the guy. I almost hope so.
3. Huckaby (sp)- I like this guy. A lot. He stood out from the pack, I agree with him on most levels, but he's a former Governor of Arkansas, and that will ultimately shoot him down.

Of the three, I think Gulliani would be the strongest, oddest president. I'd like to see what he can do.

Spider-Man 3

Sorry, Josiah, I have to disagree with you. I enjoyed Spider-man 3 a great deal.

I do agree that Tobey M. makes a lousy Peter and Kirsten D. makes a lousy M.J., and considering it's their movie, it's saying something for Raimy that I still liked it. The ideal cast for these two would be a young Julia Roberts (circa Pretty Woman) as M.J. and maybe Ashton Kutcher as Peter (he could pull off the nerd and the funny super-hero well, I think).

My original concern was that fitting the black costume/Venom, Sandman, and Goblin Jr. all into the same movie would be an impossible task, but Raimy pulled it off extremely well.

Black Costume: I'd have preferred the black costume with the white spider from the comics, but the creepy crawly aspect worked well.

Venom: Don't like the character in the comics, but thought he was pulled off really well in this. Scary, creepy, twisted... yup, works fine.

Sandman: One of my favorite comic bad-guys, and I liked him in this. The stab at motivation worked up until he agreed to take out Spidey when Venom asked - which didn't make sense - but he stayed true to the comic version for the most part. I like Church, and I loved the sandman effects.

Goblin Jr.: I've forgotten the actor's name, but his acting in this was vastly superior to the last two movies. He makes a better Goblin than his dad.

I didn't feel any pacing problems, though if you don't care for the Peter/M.J. relationship, I can understand thinking it was uneven. While I don't like the actors, Raimy hit on enough real life aspects to make it work (he said/she said, poor communications, baggage dragged into the relationship, a geek thinking he's cool... been there done that). The riff on Pulp Fiction was funny, the conclusion worked for me. I just wish the actors had the chemistry to pull off what Raimy was attempting.

Fight scenes were great, if a tad repetitive. The Spidey scenes work so much better on film than in the comics. The comic relief was used more deftly than in the past two films.

As I recall, McGuire signed on for three films, which are now completed. Will he sign on for more? We haven't seen the Lizard, Electro, Mysterio, Rhino, Shocker or the Vulture yet, so there's still more to explore. Gwen and Captain Stacey are still alive, though it's Green Goblin and Octopus who kill them in the comics and with both of them gone, do these characters have a new lease on life? Betty Brant (the secretary) has a brother who becomes the Molten Man, and we saw John Jamison who becomes the Man-Wolf. You could do a creature feature with Spidey against Lizard, Man-Wolf and Vulture...

Raimy has used the M.J./Peter relationship as the spine of each of his movies, so he could conceivably explore the newlywed foibles if the two of them get around to marrying. If Dunst and McGuire don't sign on, we could find better actors to play them and really put some new life into the series...

Ah, well, geekiness aside, $9.50 is just way too much to pay for a movie, so maybe it's better if the franchise ends now...

Back to Firehouse Dog for a moment. As noted before, when we saw it at the cheap theaters, the book mic was dropping down into view constantly. At least a third of the indoor scenes had the unwelcome microphone.

Now we've spoken to several people who have seen it at the regular theaters and they didn't see the boom mics. Lynette believes there are two different versions of the film; I can't imagine why they would have two versions. Yet people don't see them?

The first Sister Act had the same problem, though not to the same degree.

Come to think of it, the movie was off kilter originally. The heads were being cut off until the projectionist lowered the film into the screen. Does anyone know if the actual projected film bleeds over the screen? When the heads were cut off, the lower portion of the screen was still filled. Did the projectionist lower it too much?

See, thinking out loud on a blog can lead to discovery...

On Right and Wrong

(I may have discussed this before, but that's the problem with semi-prolific blogging and a 43 year old memory. Things happen - again and again...)

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the fruit of knowledge, they gained the ability to discern right and wrong.

Interesting. What is that? Is that truly a gift we all have or is it perhaps misunderstood? This says that animals don't know right from wrong. On the surface of things, that seems true. But what about pets?

When Grizzly makes lemonaide on my nice wood floor, he "knows" he's done wrong. He certainly avoids me for awhile. Isn't that knowledge of right and wrong?

No, it is not. It is knowledge of consequences to a specific action. If we let him, he'd make the whole house his little-dog's-room (which, come to think of it, he does...) Going inside and outside is no different to him, except inside he gets scolded and outside he gets blissfully ignored.

Knowing right from wrong is different than that. No, cynics, it isn't still fear of what God will do to us, it's more than that.

At least is should be. I'm not convinced for most of us, it is, though.

The Fall tells us two things: There is an Absolute Right, and we are capable of discerning what that is.

It's just that most people don't do it. Instead, too many of us deny an Absolute Right (either literally, as in Atheism; or functionally, as in ignoring it or not getting to it). We do what is "right" when people are looking and whatever we think we can get away with when they aren't.

I can imagine some piety going on now: "I don't do that." Yet you have to ask yourself, do you abstain from wrong because it is wrong or simply because it doesn't interest you? Example: illicit drugs have no interest to me. Getting high, stoned, or messed up is not a good time. As a result, I don't get to "is it right or wrong" because it's just not for me. If it WERE something I enjoyed, would consequences have the higher place in my life before getting to right or wrong? I don't want to get arrested, so I don't do drugs?

So it could be an order problem. What comes first in our consideration? Interest, then Consequences, THEN Right and Wrong? Or is it first Right or Wrong (and therefore nothing that follows matters).

Lack of interest of a thing might be a ditch around that thing. Fear of Consequences could be considered a fence around that thing (as could laws, rules, commands). Evil people might seek to build bridges over the ditch to entice the uninterested in crossing over, and if interest is already there, then we don't need anyone else to entice us to scale our fences...

... but look around that kind of world. Ditches and fences everywhere. That is certainly the Old Testament method, with the Israelites even building fences around their fences.

The New Testament method, though, says to fill in the ditches and tear down the fences. Instead of navigating through life bumping and avoiding; navigate through the knowledge of right and wrong (bolstered by the Grace of God). It makes for a clean landscape and a better journey.

Jerry Falwell Dies at 73

I think the power of the media first truly hit home with me when I saw Falwell on a talk show with a gay woman. I expected fireworks, rudeness, and intolerance. I expected that from Falwell, since the only thing I knew of him was from news reports and people talking about the news reports.

Instead, he was warm, humorous, humble and did nothing but show this woman (who was rude, nasty and arrogant) the love of Jesus. I was impressed, it changed my view of Falwell and humbled me about believing the media.

The next day, the news reports were blathering about how Falwell had been rude, nasty and arrogant to this humble gay woman. That's when I realized the power of the corrupt news media.

Rest in peace, Mr. Falwell.

Firehouse Dog

This was a fun movie, marred only by the boom mike dropping into almost every scene. I hope they didn't pay that sound crew. Otherwise, it was a fun movie.

We saw it at the dollar theater, which means one guy in front of us coughing out a lung, little kids chatting animatedly throughout the movie, and babies being rocked in squeaky movie chairs.

Good family flick, worth seeing. Polling the five children we took with us, one saw the mikes and knew what they were, one saw them and didn't know what they were and none of the boys even noticed them. They could have developed movie star Rexxx a little bit more at the beginning, but otherwise it was pretty good (you have to get through the concept that dogs were movie stars in an otherwise realistic world, but then, the boy and his father never heard of the dog movies, so maybe it was an underground cult thing).

C- sound boom
B+ effects
A- Family film

I had an interesting conversation with a professional golfer the other day, a woman whose name I forget, in which she literally sniffed at the concept of a freelance writer. She felt competing in golf was a much more difficult task than being a successful writer. Naturally, I disagree.

In golf, the path of success is straightforward. If you're really good, you enter a tournament, and if you win you move forward until you're playing Tiger Woods for best in the world. In golf, the best are the most successful.

In writing, and in art, the best are often unpublished. Stephen King is arguably the best writer in America, not just in sales but also in skill. I'm willing to bet, however, that there are dozens who could be equally great (no, not myself, I have no illusions that I'm anything more than an adequate writer who can't spell), but the process of publication is a mystery to them and so their work never sees the light of a bookstore. Especially today, when new writers often need to bring their gigantic market with them, or they won't get published (publishers say really great writing will always find a publishing house, but even they don't say it with conviction). Have a market and you can get drivel published.

So writing and any of the arts is harder than golf because a golfer needs to know how to golf and a writer needs to know publishing, business, marketing, and last-and-very-much least, writing.

Is this sour grapes on my part? ... yeah, maybe. But it's true.

Well, the family is rolling out of our driveway in a brand new Toyota Sienna. Not a purchase, a rental since I wrecked our old van.

Driving to 10-31 from church, a little silver coup decided to over-steer a lane change into a left-hand turn. Unfortunately, that put him perpendicular to me and we struck him pretty hard. One of the odd things about this kind of accident is that you see the faces of the driver and passenger (both oblivious to my van or the impending collision) as they react to the impact, arms flailing, heads screaming and glass from their blown out windows showering onto our windshield. Scary all around. From my perspective, the car just appeared about twenty feet in front of me, drifting across my path. A thousand thoughts passed through my head between realization and impact - it's amazing how fast the mind works.

My right headlight struck his coup between the front and back driver-side door. They rolled off the front of the van and spun into a deep ditch as I pulled over to the far side of the road. Charli and Aly were both with me (Lynette and Ben had stayed home). No injuries other than seatbelt bruising, as far as we can tell, praise God.

No such luck for the other vehicle. The driver and passenger were taken away in an ambulance. The emergency response was phenomenal, by the way. Ocoee police, fire trucks and aid car all there within ten minutes, all wonderful, calm, helpful and polite. Several witnesses to the accident stopped and helped us, and Mike Y. came immediately to watch over the girls and coach me in the right things to do (I was rattled, and fairly scattered).

The other fellow got out of the hospital the next day. He was fully insured and at fault, so the van is being repaired. Right quarter-panel, bumper, hood, and passenger door were banged up. I'll find out about structural damage today, probably. I'm amazed at how little damage was done to the van from such an impact (the air bags didn't deploy, thank the Lord). Unfortunately,I will be surprised if the other car isn't totaled.

God's grace and provision through this whole accident is abundant. Join me in praising Him!

Can't believe I haven't spoken about this yet; where has my opinionated mind been?

The Orlando Science Center is running an exhibit of bodies. Real, dead, human bodies. Some stripped of skin, others sectioned off to see the inside, and other gross things. Or so I'm told by people who have gone. I won't. Though you have to look at the billboards of pealed people.

Yech!

I am not particularly squeamish. It isn't the ghoulishness of the exhibit, it's the raw disrespect of it all. Presumably these are the bodies of people who donated their flesh to science. An exhibit of posed, drawn and quartered people doesn't fit that donation concept.

Nor are all the bodies of adults. Some are children of varying ages. What got to me was driving by one of those billboards with the country song "I Think About You" which is about a man who now views women differently because he has an eight-year-old little girl. I wouldn't want my kids, young or as adults, up there, so I don't want these people who once walked around, dreamed of DisneyWorld, and enjoyed the sunshine to be objects of display.

I especially don't want billboards of them.

What's your take on adult education?

The government spends a lot of our dollars on education; while I think that should be the responsibility of the parents, I do think the government has a role in adult ed.

Consider that the vast majority of people in prison are uneducated, many don't even have a high school education. So when they are released, the best jobs they can expect to get are entry level, non-skilled jobs: Wal-Mart, Fast Food, etc. Recidivism is no surprise under such conditions (that means they commit crimes again, landing them back in prison).

I'm uncertain about what kind of re-entry to society programs exist for felons, but it seems education should be a big part of that. Not everyone would be interested, but those that are could be seen as trying to make a go of reformation.

Should the government be involved with educating those people who failed to take advantage of public school to begin with?

I had a great conversation with a friend at church, discussing sovereignty and total depravity (the latter greatly aids in understanding the former).

Total Depravity states the core truth that we're stinkers at heart. To begin with, we do nothing to deserve birth, and all our actions are designed around a self-centered viewpoint thereafter. Gallileo was wrong: the world does not revolve around the sun, it revolves around me, or so we each believe. We want what we want when we want it.

"Wait" you say. "We're not all sociopaths!"

And yet, maybe we are. An infant screams and tantrums to get what he/she wants. As the infant grows older, either through individual observation or parental input, the infant learns to avoid a less desirable outcome by couching demands as requests; balancing "get it" behavior with "avoid trouble" behavior.

Imagine that self-centered, me-at-all-costs core of our being as a dirtpile. We construct structures over that core. Social mores, religious trappings, civil laws, all to enable us to function in our chosen societies better (to get what we want as saftely and easily as we can).

This was no problem through much of history. The trappings were rarely challenged outright, and change tended to come slowly.

Today, however, science, religion (cults), and philosophies change dramatically and often; sometimes as quickly as a publishing season delivers fresh books. The structure is ripped apart and rebuilt, sometimes well, sometime not. Sometimes safely, sometimes not.

There have been no utopian societies in our world outside fiction stories. This alone should tell us the truth about ourselves. We have had and still have despotic societies. Nazi Germany fed a lie that our wicked core enabled to spread (had people been good at heart, the lie couldn't take hold, but it did and still does), slavery was another evil that a broken structure enabled, and the list goes on.

Worse still, sometimes society's structures have gaps. Not everyone fits, and those people fall down through the cracks and sink into their own wicked cores. I'd hazzard a guess that the Virginia Tech and Columbine monstrosities were examples of this. While I have no way to confirm this, I'm willing to bet in each case, the perpetrators couldn't accept the structure that was supplanting their own that had "worked" til then, and fell into their wicked core. "I can't have what I want, so I'll take it away from everyone else, too."

As the structures blur and change ever more rapidly, more people will fall through the gaps and take it out on those around them. We all have that inside of us. We're all capable of heinous, selfish things because we were made that way.

Judaism and Christianity are the only religions to recognize this tainted core. Both faith systems (and only these faith systems) recognize that the first step is to recognize that wicked core (that's what repentence is "Lord, I am desperately wicked and lost without You. All the seeds to my own destruction are inside me, not outside me.") The Jews then gave sin offerings to the Lord until the Lord put an end to that, offering His Son as the only sacrifice. That's what makes Christianity different, by the way. Every other religion or philosophy says the power to improve is in you; Christianity (and Judiasm before it) says the problem is within, but the Answer is outside ourselves, in God Himself. All we need do is believe God did what He said He did.

Isn't there a Christian structure? Yes, there is. That structure is called Sovereignty. God is in control. Why doesn't He prevent all these horrible events from happening? For one thing, those events point to the truth of our corrupt souls. Those evil people are the best picture of who we truly are beneath our selected structures. As for the victims, this isn't meant to be cold, but we don't deserve our births so anything we get beyond birth is pure blessing. It's horrible what happened to those kids and their families, and my prayers are with them. The proper (though difficult) response is "thank you, God, for the time You gave me with them." (It would take me years, if not life, to get to that response myself if that every happened to ones I loved, but it is the proper response. Grief is another thing entirely, one God will hold us through, if we let Him).

Also important is the understanding that salvation happens before the Christian "structure" in our life. From the moment we confess our wickedness, and our belief that Jesus's death and resurrection covers us, we are forgive. We don't have to "do" anything else for salvation, but true belief will result in the Christian structure being created (and fixed and modified as we grow, of course). If we think we need works to save us, we haven't believed what He says: "my Grace is sufficient for you."

The Christian "structure" has fairly open architecture. Truth does not shake it, and lies will not take hold for long. As science presents its findings, we can accept the truth (and disallow the speculation). As for antithetical structures in other people, God has told us to love them as we would ourselves. Anger, hatred, and violence are never appropriate; they indicate our core is creeping up, and our structure needs to change to end it (in other words, repent and believe God).

Bit more of a sermon than the simple musings it was meant to be. I hope your structures can allow that...

Views on Failure

Hey, anyone reading this post: Please give me your thoughts on failure. Does it paralyze you? If yes, why? Is it a positive or negative thing in your life? If a friend of yours experienced catastrophic failure, what would you tell them (catastrophic is relative, of course. Failing a test might be horrible for one person, losing a game for another, losing a job, etc).

Do you allow fear of failure to prevent you from attempting anything?

Rocky Balboa - A review

I finally caught this on DVD. It's a bit slow in the beginning, so it would bore teenagers, probably. The movie is rated PG, which it earns until the fight. I'm old-fashioned enough to think that that much blood should at least rate a PG-13. The message, however, was more than family friendly.

Rocky is a man brooding over the past with the loss of his wife, Adrian. He spends his days and evenings recounting stories of the glory days to diners in his restaurant, while continuing to invest heavily in the people around him. Rock isn't the smartest bird on the wire, but he understands right and wrong, and his philosophy of life is outstanding.

Sly is clever in that he knows the whole time we're thinking, "come on, an old guy can't do this" so we never see him with his shirt off until the actual fight. I'm guessing every aging actor despises Sly Stallone for raising the bar so high, because when the shirt comes off, yes the skin is old skin, but the muscle beneath it is perfection. He was more cut and muscular than the heavyweight champ he was boxing. Sly is either late 50's or early 60's, but I had no trouble believing he was able to go toe to toe with the champ. Every actor who thought they'd be able to relax and knock off the gym by late 40's now have at least another couple decades to sweat over their physique.

With the understanding that this movie is really for middle-aged men and older (and bratty, resentful young men in one part) the movie is a knockout. The first one was great, the second and third pretty good, all the others between Clubber Lang and this one weren't worth the film they were shot on. I think you do need to see 1, 2 and 3 before this one to really appreciate it, though. Also, while there was no church and little overt religion in the movie, I would rank it in with the other strong spate of faith-based movies. Sly Stallone has either become a Christian or he's very much on his way.

Bottom Line: A

We have FINALLY gotten our book to market!

Hey Kidz! Your Entrepreneur is Showing! A Parenting Guide to the American Dream by Jon White with yours truly has hit Amazon. We've even sold one! (Thanks, Brian!)

Click the graphic below, purchase dozens and resell them to your friends and neighbors. Leave glowing reviews on Amazon!

:)

This is rather shocking.

I have no opinions on anything to share.

Maybe I'm growing up?

Normally I wouldn't waste time reviewing "Zoom, Academy for Superheroes." It's a kids/family movie, after all, slapped together for a few bucks, but the "Making of Zoom" special feature requires a response... it really does.

First, the producers thought they'd made a great movie and spent a lot of time bragging about the great story, wonderful effects, the fantastic costumes, the hilarious actors... I understand the need to talk up your show, but when your story is about an "Academy where young superheroes train" there should probably be some training involved. They should use their spectacular powers once in awhile, or at least have spectacular powers (invisibility, telekinesis, strength and speed... yeah, spectacular. The inflato-kid was kind of clever, though).

And the costumes. Y'know with so many superhero movies out there, this should be a no-brainer - colorful, form enhancing suits that look cool. Not bright yellow bulky, quilted jumpsuits for training, and certainly not white bulky quilted jumpsuits for the real thing. It was terrible.

And then there's the hilarious actors. Tim Allen sums it up well in the outakes "we're funnier on television." Yup. He's phoning it in, Courtney Cox tries, and the most intriguing thing about the movie was the doctor who almost looked like Chevy Chase. In fact, it looked like they tried to use makeup and bad appliances to make him look like Chase, only he was too big and not funny. Except it was Chevy Chase, which just makes me sad.

"Princess" the 6-year-old strong girl was the only high point in the movie, and she was worth the whole shebang. She stole every scene without looking like a too-cute kiddie. I thought I was going to split a gut when she came out dressed as a poodle.

New look, same content.

I enabled anonymous users for Dammi, but added symbol recognition to prevent auto-spamming. Hope it doesn't bother anyone.

Rob

I miss Mike and Malissa (and I'm not just saying that because I can always count on Malissa for a comment or two on my blog).

As two of the most encouraging people in our lives, it's very apparent when they're gone. A cruise here or there for a week is fine, but three weeks is just too long...

:(

I realize that a lot of the readers of this blog don't yet shave, so this post may not mean anything to you, but for you older, hairier folks, do you feel like medical insurance is a form of extortion?

Medical Insurance is a catch-22. If you have it and don't need it; it's maddening. If you don't have it and need it; it's potentially devastating. If you have it and need it; it's still annoying. If you don't have it and don't need it; it's still too much like dodging a bullet...

And when you throw that "pre-existing condition exclusion" in, then it's really maddening. "You finally know you need it, so you can't have it."

With medicine so expensive these days, another question is begged: If something medical exists, does that mean we have a right to it? You hear about these exotic, psycho-expensive drugs that cure disease X. Does the fact that you have Disease X mean drug companies should give it to you? Does everyone have a right to high-tech medical technology? If it didn't exist, you're out of luck; but by virtue that it does exist, does that mean you should have it?

Insurance companies feed off our own inability (or unwillingness) to plan and budget. I spend about $4500 a year on medical insurance (which isn't bad, really, but throw in the deductible if I need it, and we're up to $10,000 a year, which still isn't terrible, I guess, but I hate paying three bucks for milk, y'know?). If I don't use it, it goes into the insurance company's wallet to keep all my home insurance company.

If I were smart, I'd start looking at purchasing a catastrophic policy and salt away that $4500 (and deductible) in a Medical Savings Plan.

Seems like there's a business opportunity there. Sell just catastrophic and MSPs... hmm...

The Guardian with Costner and Kutcher

Did you like Top Gun and Officer and a Gentleman? Then watch them and forget about Guardian.

The heroes of the Coast Guard deserve a better movie than a ham-handed retread of other, better movies. It had neither the charm of Top Gun nor the emotion of OaaG. The director took risks with the action sequences, but none with the story or characters. Sad, sad, sad.

What it did have was Kevin Costner; always a good choice for a swimmer because wooden actors float. Ashton Kutcher was surprisingly good, but his back story was unbelievable given his character - earnest, gung-ho, desperate; sure - too cool for school; no. Clancy Brown was a supporting actor who was ignored by a poor director (too bad, because he has the acting chops to take over the movie).

I honestly have no problem with formula movies - which this was. Formula is about structure, which movies are all about. The goal, though, is to hide the rigging. Craft performance and story to find fresh angles and hidden depths of the formula. Guardian didn't do any of that. It was liking watching Superman fly with the cables and green screen if full view.

The end -- which normally I wouldn't spoil, but it's already spoiled so why not? -- made me get up and walk out. Costner hanging by the fingertips of Kutcher heroically and woodenly let's go to fall to his death where he could be a ham-handed legend introduced at the beginning of the show. Maybe a better actor (like say, Gary Coleman) could have sold this moment, but Costner can't sell socks on a cold day. One-note-Kevin displays the same emotion whether he's getting divorced, getting in a bar fight, or committing suicide. He's supposed to be tragic and inhumanly noble - instead he's the wooden Indian handing out wooden nickels. (He really has to understand that the only roles he can play well are the goofballs with understated charm like in Field of Dreams or Bodyguard, or where he's playing a corpse like in The Big Chill.)

The extras on the DVD are great, though. Learn about the Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers and their amazing work during Hurricane Katrina. These guys and gals are unsung heroes who deserve a lot more respect than they get. Unfortunately, this dog of a movie wasn't it.

Bottom Line: C-

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.)