Edward R. Murrow said of the television, “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box".
Mr. Edward Murrow, as many know, was a gripping orator who bravely defended his country through his ability to speak the truth. He strove hard for the continuation of freedom in our country and abroad and was greatly rewarded for his efforts.
He argued that the television is just as useful as you make it.
How is this the case? First, one must define one's terms. Today, the word “television” is simultaneously used to describe both the mechanical device and the programs which that device offers (cable, satellite TV, network TV etc.). In Edward Murrow's day, however, they were virtually the same. All one could do with one's television was watch the programs provided.
Television allows people to access an entire universe of material from the comfort of their living rooms. There are many instructional, educational and simply beneficial results of this access. For example, there is “The History Channel”, “The Learning Channel”, and similar channels that air informational programs, the facts gained from which are very interesting. Television has the potential to be “good”, if used correctly.
Now, there are many who condemn television (the surplus of programs watched through one's television) as being simply a waste of time. They say that no matter how it is used, television is bad. The medium is the message. Despite any possibly valuable information, the concept of staring at one's TV in an attempt to learn makes you dumb.
Watching TV is like lifting weights. If one lifts weights correctly, one can gain much by doing so. However, if one lifts them incorrectly, one can damage one's self and can be forever hindered from lifting correctly again.
To use Mr. Murrow as an example, his show entitled “See it now” helped tremendously to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy and to end the “Red Scare”. Murrow won partly because he knew how to use television, while Senator McCarthy did not.
Since television is still relatively a new idea, there is not much to be said in testimony of it. The concept was ground breaking and still now remains astounding. However, Arnold J. Toynbee said “As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is up to us.”
And so, even though television is often now ridden with filth, it still has the potential that Mr. Murrow gave to it. It still can be advantageous to humanity, if humanity learns how to use it.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Thursday Post: Week 3: Annie Dillard: Painter of Reality
Annie Dillard. I don't know much about authors and the recognition they gain. I don't know what about an author's resume makes him or her impressive. But, despite my ignorance, Ms. Dillard impresses me. She has a style which is all her own. Her way with words, and the way in which she meanders about the page in a flowing and constant manner intrigues me and makes me think about my own writing skills. My tendency is to veer to extremes: either to be ostentatious to the point of gagging, or to be brief to the point of boredom. I am not like Annie Dillard. She is like a creek, like one of the creeks near my house, no doubt like the creeks near Puget Sound.
When I first began to read her, I thought her style was strange. Unique, yes, but I didn't think it was particularly clever, just strange. But she can paint literal pictures with such beauty. When you read her, you don't read about things, you sense things: you see the bird in Small's mouth, you see poor Julie Norwich, you hear the plane crash, you feel the ocean mist.
Her subjects she writes about are close to home. Puget Sound sounds like Greenville. Their airport reminds me of Quincy's, or Chester's. It's as if she was talking about something which happened here. She creates a dream about the land I live in. She brings a painting before me and then pushes invites me in. I become part of her story.
When I first began to read her, I thought her style was strange. Unique, yes, but I didn't think it was particularly clever, just strange. But she can paint literal pictures with such beauty. When you read her, you don't read about things, you sense things: you see the bird in Small's mouth, you see poor Julie Norwich, you hear the plane crash, you feel the ocean mist.
Her subjects she writes about are close to home. Puget Sound sounds like Greenville. Their airport reminds me of Quincy's, or Chester's. It's as if she was talking about something which happened here. She creates a dream about the land I live in. She brings a painting before me and then pushes invites me in. I become part of her story.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Thursday Post: Week 2: Eyes of Bright Sadness
Who is Shrabat Gula, and why is she looking at me so? That stare, that deep stare which has captured the eyes of so many others over the past twenty years, what makes it so enchanting? Not enchanting in a romantic sense, but puzzling, bewitching. The image of her is an image which one cannot erase from one's brain. It etches itself upon my consciousness, haunting my thoughts. The photograph shows only her face, but what is it in that face? It's the face of a twelve year old girl, it can't be that special. But it is. It is the face of humanity, the face of a fallen breed.
She's poor. She was part of the Pashtun tribe, one of the most warlike and barbaric in all of Afghanistan. She was orphaned at a young age and sent to live in a refugee camp. But you don't need a biography to know most of this. You can guess simply by looking at her face. There is dirt on her chin and forehead, testifying to the hardship of her life. Her skin is dark from a life in the desert, subject to torment by a cruel, hot sun. Her hair is ruffled and matted. Hair which is not used to luxury. Hair which has never known the feel of the shampoos our women use here. It is not American hair. It is wild, it is exotic.
The shawl wrapped around her head is tattered around the edges, again proclaiming her poverty. it too has been faded from the harsh sun. But is compliments her. The photograph would not be nearly as powerful as it is without the vibrant red of that shawl. It sets the stage, and tells the viewer that the subject of this photograph is not of our culture. She is not of our world. The photographer was lucky to catch her without her face covered, something that is completely foreign to the American mind. Our women take pride in their looks. I don't condemn that, but the Muslims would. If Sharbat had been photographed without a shawl at all, the image would be lost. It would be devoid of culture, simply another photograph of a girl.
But what makes this image so powerful? What is it about this piece that makes it so memorable? Her eyes. Those brilliant, green eyes. Eyes which pierce into your soul. Eyes which make you look at her, as she is looking at you. Her earthly face is beautiful in it's own right, but you can't turn away with those emeralds shining out from her weathered complexion. Like the jewels they are, they grab you attention and leave you spellbound, unable to look away. They are the eyes of hope. they pierce through the darkness, and the pain, and the harshness seen so obviously on this girl's face, and they let the world know that the human spirit is still very much alive. They are sad, because they have seen pain, but they are bright, because they have also seen salvation: refuge in a broken country, culture within the wilderness. These eyes know that the pain in life can help to highlight what pleasure we find. These eyes make us realize that, as we sit and stare at her face surrounded by comfort and technology, we are flattening the hills and valleys of our lives, making them as uninteresting as they are lazy. These eyes tell us the wisdom that most of us Americans will never be able to learn for ourselves.
She's poor. She was part of the Pashtun tribe, one of the most warlike and barbaric in all of Afghanistan. She was orphaned at a young age and sent to live in a refugee camp. But you don't need a biography to know most of this. You can guess simply by looking at her face. There is dirt on her chin and forehead, testifying to the hardship of her life. Her skin is dark from a life in the desert, subject to torment by a cruel, hot sun. Her hair is ruffled and matted. Hair which is not used to luxury. Hair which has never known the feel of the shampoos our women use here. It is not American hair. It is wild, it is exotic.
The shawl wrapped around her head is tattered around the edges, again proclaiming her poverty. it too has been faded from the harsh sun. But is compliments her. The photograph would not be nearly as powerful as it is without the vibrant red of that shawl. It sets the stage, and tells the viewer that the subject of this photograph is not of our culture. She is not of our world. The photographer was lucky to catch her without her face covered, something that is completely foreign to the American mind. Our women take pride in their looks. I don't condemn that, but the Muslims would. If Sharbat had been photographed without a shawl at all, the image would be lost. It would be devoid of culture, simply another photograph of a girl.
But what makes this image so powerful? What is it about this piece that makes it so memorable? Her eyes. Those brilliant, green eyes. Eyes which pierce into your soul. Eyes which make you look at her, as she is looking at you. Her earthly face is beautiful in it's own right, but you can't turn away with those emeralds shining out from her weathered complexion. Like the jewels they are, they grab you attention and leave you spellbound, unable to look away. They are the eyes of hope. they pierce through the darkness, and the pain, and the harshness seen so obviously on this girl's face, and they let the world know that the human spirit is still very much alive. They are sad, because they have seen pain, but they are bright, because they have also seen salvation: refuge in a broken country, culture within the wilderness. These eyes know that the pain in life can help to highlight what pleasure we find. These eyes make us realize that, as we sit and stare at her face surrounded by comfort and technology, we are flattening the hills and valleys of our lives, making them as uninteresting as they are lazy. These eyes tell us the wisdom that most of us Americans will never be able to learn for ourselves.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Announcement
I'm beginning The Thursday Post. Each Thursday, I'll put up an essay from school which I did well on, or one that I really enjoyed writing, or both. This way, I can get back into the blogosphere and post on a regular basis. Enjoy!
-Joe
-Joe
The Thursday Post: Week 1: Rugby vs. Soccer
Would that soccer was so great a sport as rugby. Soccer is a grand sport, but when compared rugby, it sadly falls short. Though agility, precision and all around strength necessary to play any sport, they are needed, and used, much more in rugby than in soccer.
Agility? Is not the ability to run, and to run well, dodging opponents and using one's feet gracefully at the very heart of soccer? Indeed, soccer does require agility, but (as already mentioned), mainly in the feet. The entire sport revolves around the players feet (unless, of course, you are the goalie, which is but one position out of nearly a dozen). In a non-physical way, soccer also requires agility of the mind, in order that the players might think concisely and cleverly, but that is true of all sports. While Rugby also requires agility of the feet and the mind, it requires agility of the hands and the entire upper body, for all players. One must be able to catch and pass with one's hands, in addition to kicking and running.
Precision is another ability required in all sports, but more so in rugby than in soccer. Again, this is due to the fact that much more of one's body is required in rugby than in soccer. In rugby, one must be precise with ones arms and hands in addition to his feet and legs. But, yes other than the addition of the upper body in rugby, the need for precision in both sports is virtually the same: the players must pass (though passing is different in either sport), run, kick, dodge and dive with accuracy and precision. This, it seems, is a commonality between the two.
Again, with the addition of the upper body in rugby, the need for strength is all the greater. Yes, soccer players are terrific athletes, I have a long way to go before I could be one of them. But, (ad infinitum) their main need for strength is in their legs. That is what carries them through the game. Ruggers, however, tend to be much more aggressive, and need all of the precious arm and torso strength that they can muster, in addition to their leg strength.
Over all, the two sports are very similar, perhaps because of the history that these two sports have shared. But, in my humble opinion, rugby is much more advanced. Rugby is soccer, evolved into a higher, more intense form of athleticism. The addition of the upper body in rugby forms the stark contrast between these two honorable games, and it is that contrast which throws a bright light upon the winning choice.
Agility? Is not the ability to run, and to run well, dodging opponents and using one's feet gracefully at the very heart of soccer? Indeed, soccer does require agility, but (as already mentioned), mainly in the feet. The entire sport revolves around the players feet (unless, of course, you are the goalie, which is but one position out of nearly a dozen). In a non-physical way, soccer also requires agility of the mind, in order that the players might think concisely and cleverly, but that is true of all sports. While Rugby also requires agility of the feet and the mind, it requires agility of the hands and the entire upper body, for all players. One must be able to catch and pass with one's hands, in addition to kicking and running.
Precision is another ability required in all sports, but more so in rugby than in soccer. Again, this is due to the fact that much more of one's body is required in rugby than in soccer. In rugby, one must be precise with ones arms and hands in addition to his feet and legs. But, yes other than the addition of the upper body in rugby, the need for precision in both sports is virtually the same: the players must pass (though passing is different in either sport), run, kick, dodge and dive with accuracy and precision. This, it seems, is a commonality between the two.
Again, with the addition of the upper body in rugby, the need for strength is all the greater. Yes, soccer players are terrific athletes, I have a long way to go before I could be one of them. But, (ad infinitum) their main need for strength is in their legs. That is what carries them through the game. Ruggers, however, tend to be much more aggressive, and need all of the precious arm and torso strength that they can muster, in addition to their leg strength.
Over all, the two sports are very similar, perhaps because of the history that these two sports have shared. But, in my humble opinion, rugby is much more advanced. Rugby is soccer, evolved into a higher, more intense form of athleticism. The addition of the upper body in rugby forms the stark contrast between these two honorable games, and it is that contrast which throws a bright light upon the winning choice.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Sonnet #1
I wish I knew why world moves so fast,
I can hardly seem to keep myself afloat.
(I) Know these bitter times, they cannot last,
(But) It seems as if I fell into a moat.
Do not dare think that I would sink to say
I would that I could shake this mortal coil
No, no, I'm not so sad at heart as they
who seem to think they could the devil foil.
What do I do to ease the pain of this,
this busy life, which rushes by with speed
as if it had great Hermes wings which kiss
the sky with grace, as it on wind does feed.
And though this frail frail life does pass me by,
I know that somewhere, up there in the sky,
God has his eye on me.
Stay tuned for "The Thursday Post", coming as soon as I'm able to make it happen.
-Joe
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Screamo: Music of Humanity.
When you read the title of this blog, objections will no doubt pop into your brains automatically. Suffer me to ask you to put those away for just a few minutes. You, the reader, are no doubt one of two (possibly three) types of people: those who love the genre of music entitled screamo, those who are disgusted by it, or (the third type) those who have never yet experienced it (though the word "screamo" will most likely push you into one of the former two camps). To those who love screamo: please, do not be offended. Do not let your passionate hearts suffocate your brains and strangle the writer of this humble piece with wounded words. To those who hate screamo: read on. Save your objections till after the show.
I write this, because I love screamo. On certain days, the sound of Norma Jean, Showbread, or UnderOath is actually rather comforting (odd though it may sound). It is in my nature to defend that which I love, even though the arguments against screamo (as we will discuss later) are great. I'd like to attempt to defend screamo on a personal level rather than on a cultural level. But, either way, it's pointless to try to defend something without knowing what the meaning of that thing is. Thus comes the definition.
"Screamo", as many of you might have guessed, evolved from the genre "emo" (emotional rock). The word "emo" constitutes a very hard concept because it is used to describe so many things. It is almost impossible now to use the term. The word "emo", however, was first used to describe a musical movement in the early 1990's centralized around Washington, D.C. It was started by disgruntled punk and "indie" rockers who didn't like 1980's metal. They wanted more melody in their music (see here for a fairly in-depth article), and thus they started something new. It didn't gain popularity till the mid-to-late 1990's and boomed in the early 2000's. It is now marked by bands like Fall Out Boy , Jimmy Eat World, Dashboard Confessional,and Taking Back Sunday (which I love). Many of those who know how emo started grow to dislike some of the newer bands who gain the title of being emo and tend to refer to them as "whiny cry-baby wussy boy[s] with... acoustic guitar[s] and too many feelings" (spelling edited; see here for a not so in-depth but humorous article).
"Screamo" is yet another touchy genre. For example. Showbread is considered to be screamo, but UnderOath and Norma Jean are not (Underoath is considered to be post-hardcore, and Norma Jean metalcore). However, for the purposes of this discussion, I here-by deem these petty differences stupid and irrelevant to this discussion. But, I will warn you that there are those that are very adamant about this, so be careful who you talk to. Whereas emo was the promotion of melody and the rejection of 80's metal (which I can understand), screamo stems from emo but is a throwback to metal. Generally, it uses screaming (as the name suggests) to show forth emotion rather than melodic guitars.
Hopefully that will give you a brief idea of what emo and screamo are (to solidify the idea, I would recommend using those links to listen to "Dance, Dance" by Fall Out Boy [pardon the sexual references within the song] for a good idea of a song commonly recognized by the masses as "emo", and "Mouth Like a Magazine" by Showbread for a good idea of a commonly recognized screamo song). Next: the objections.
The objections, the objections, oh the objections. Believe you me, I know the objections. The most common of which is "it's just ugly". That's a hard one to get past. Honestly, it is. I don't think that I can refute that. But the fact that I cannot refute that objection is exactly the fact which inspired me to write this. You can't fight a catchy tune! No matter what you do, some things always, or at least often, will be appealing. Lack of maturity? Perhaps. But that does not solve the situation. One might say "oh, just let your senses mature". Great. Now what? I still like screamo. I still sing along to "Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste". I recognize that there is no competition between Chopin and Showbread, but there's got to be some reason why I like it (other than the adrenaline rush). Even if it is not beautiful, can there be truth and goodness in screamo?
But, alas, I am getting ahead of myself. I agreed to answer the objections before providing my own case, and so I shall. "It's just ugly". It often is ugly, true enough. But just because one man in a song is screaming at you, does it render the song worthless? One man screaming at you... what a loaded phrase. That sums up the ugly argument rather nicely doesn't it? Screamo is often seen as so abrasive, abusive even. Alert! Ear abuse! But does that one instrument, a man's voice, seemingly malfunctioning in a screamo song, disrupt and destroy the entire song? Is the musical, instrumental talent shown in one song negated by screaming? And this question can be put to metalcore, post-hardcore or any of the other bizillion genres piling up under the broad style of rock. But the word "screamo" is loaded too. The word makes you shudder. Screamo. Brrrh. What makes it so enticing?
I confess, I often listen to this when I'm filled with angst. That perhaps is one of the problems. Tonight, Dr. David John Seel, Jr., in his lecture at my school, St. Andrew's Academy, noted that our pop-culture's delight in angry metal and rap music makes us wallow in our angst rather than confront it. We need to attack our anger and drive it from our minds, rather than let it abide.
So, after all these objections, I ask again: is there any merit to screamo? It's hard to think of any, isn't it? At one end, one could say that it is a useful tool for portraying emotion, but that would seem to contradict Dr. Seel's remark. On the other end, we could disregard it completely and tell ourselves to just never listen to it, and perhaps we'd be better off. Please remember that I'm am writing about the problem of screamo on a personal, not cultural scale. Thus, avoiding it and yet living in our culture might be hard.
What about something slightly in between? What if we agreed that screamo does in fact portray emotion. Simple concession. I would argue to take it one step farther than that. I would argue that it is the music of the human mind. Ever since the fall, we have been cursed with naturally bad dispositions. We don't tend to act like happy little elves. We don't (or at least most of us don't) frolic down the streets with wide grins, singing merrily just because it's a Monday. Screamo probably more accurately portrays how we feel most of the time. It's human. Now, that's based on the fall. Now we have the joy of Christ. Can the joy of Christ be portrayed in angry screamo music? (I must note that it is incorrect of me to recognize all screamo as being really angry, "So Selfish It's Funny" by Showbread is, oddly enough, quite funny.) But, given an average angry screamo or metalcore song, I would say that no, it cannot portray the love of Christ. Why? I don't know, maybe because Christ didn't scream salvation at us? Yes, he screamed at the merchants in the temple, and yes, he probably screams at us when we don't listen to him, but do we want to eternally dwell in that relationship with Christ? I don't.
What is the final word? I'm terrible at final words. Remember the post on feminism? Yeah? Lack-of-final-word syndrome! But I shall try to be decisive on this shaky subject. Should we always listen to screamo? No. Listen to Tchaikovsky. It's much better for you. Should you ever listen to screamo again? Probably not. Going to a screamo concert in some big, open area that doesn't give you claustrophobia and where you can just kinda of sit back and hang out or go out and be crazy (which isn't my cup of tea) probably wouldn't hurt. The trick, as Dr. Seel would say, would to not let screamo control you. Don't dwell on screamo. Dwell on the joy of Christ, which can be portrayed elsewhere. Yes, screamo can remind us that we aren't happy-go-lucky anti-humans who no longer have to deal with emotions or trials or tribulations, but that's about it.
I write this, because I love screamo. On certain days, the sound of Norma Jean, Showbread, or UnderOath is actually rather comforting (odd though it may sound). It is in my nature to defend that which I love, even though the arguments against screamo (as we will discuss later) are great. I'd like to attempt to defend screamo on a personal level rather than on a cultural level. But, either way, it's pointless to try to defend something without knowing what the meaning of that thing is. Thus comes the definition.
"Screamo", as many of you might have guessed, evolved from the genre "emo" (emotional rock). The word "emo" constitutes a very hard concept because it is used to describe so many things. It is almost impossible now to use the term. The word "emo", however, was first used to describe a musical movement in the early 1990's centralized around Washington, D.C. It was started by disgruntled punk and "indie" rockers who didn't like 1980's metal. They wanted more melody in their music (see here for a fairly in-depth article), and thus they started something new. It didn't gain popularity till the mid-to-late 1990's and boomed in the early 2000's. It is now marked by bands like Fall Out Boy , Jimmy Eat World, Dashboard Confessional,and Taking Back Sunday (which I love). Many of those who know how emo started grow to dislike some of the newer bands who gain the title of being emo and tend to refer to them as "whiny cry-baby wussy boy[s] with... acoustic guitar[s] and too many feelings" (spelling edited; see here for a not so in-depth but humorous article).
"Screamo" is yet another touchy genre. For example. Showbread is considered to be screamo, but UnderOath and Norma Jean are not (Underoath is considered to be post-hardcore, and Norma Jean metalcore). However, for the purposes of this discussion, I here-by deem these petty differences stupid and irrelevant to this discussion. But, I will warn you that there are those that are very adamant about this, so be careful who you talk to. Whereas emo was the promotion of melody and the rejection of 80's metal (which I can understand), screamo stems from emo but is a throwback to metal. Generally, it uses screaming (as the name suggests) to show forth emotion rather than melodic guitars.
Hopefully that will give you a brief idea of what emo and screamo are (to solidify the idea, I would recommend using those links to listen to "Dance, Dance" by Fall Out Boy [pardon the sexual references within the song] for a good idea of a song commonly recognized by the masses as "emo", and "Mouth Like a Magazine" by Showbread for a good idea of a commonly recognized screamo song). Next: the objections.
The objections, the objections, oh the objections. Believe you me, I know the objections. The most common of which is "it's just ugly". That's a hard one to get past. Honestly, it is. I don't think that I can refute that. But the fact that I cannot refute that objection is exactly the fact which inspired me to write this. You can't fight a catchy tune! No matter what you do, some things always, or at least often, will be appealing. Lack of maturity? Perhaps. But that does not solve the situation. One might say "oh, just let your senses mature". Great. Now what? I still like screamo. I still sing along to "Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste". I recognize that there is no competition between Chopin and Showbread, but there's got to be some reason why I like it (other than the adrenaline rush). Even if it is not beautiful, can there be truth and goodness in screamo?
But, alas, I am getting ahead of myself. I agreed to answer the objections before providing my own case, and so I shall. "It's just ugly". It often is ugly, true enough. But just because one man in a song is screaming at you, does it render the song worthless? One man screaming at you... what a loaded phrase. That sums up the ugly argument rather nicely doesn't it? Screamo is often seen as so abrasive, abusive even. Alert! Ear abuse! But does that one instrument, a man's voice, seemingly malfunctioning in a screamo song, disrupt and destroy the entire song? Is the musical, instrumental talent shown in one song negated by screaming? And this question can be put to metalcore, post-hardcore or any of the other bizillion genres piling up under the broad style of rock. But the word "screamo" is loaded too. The word makes you shudder. Screamo. Brrrh. What makes it so enticing?
I confess, I often listen to this when I'm filled with angst. That perhaps is one of the problems. Tonight, Dr. David John Seel, Jr., in his lecture at my school, St. Andrew's Academy, noted that our pop-culture's delight in angry metal and rap music makes us wallow in our angst rather than confront it. We need to attack our anger and drive it from our minds, rather than let it abide.
So, after all these objections, I ask again: is there any merit to screamo? It's hard to think of any, isn't it? At one end, one could say that it is a useful tool for portraying emotion, but that would seem to contradict Dr. Seel's remark. On the other end, we could disregard it completely and tell ourselves to just never listen to it, and perhaps we'd be better off. Please remember that I'm am writing about the problem of screamo on a personal, not cultural scale. Thus, avoiding it and yet living in our culture might be hard.
What about something slightly in between? What if we agreed that screamo does in fact portray emotion. Simple concession. I would argue to take it one step farther than that. I would argue that it is the music of the human mind. Ever since the fall, we have been cursed with naturally bad dispositions. We don't tend to act like happy little elves. We don't (or at least most of us don't) frolic down the streets with wide grins, singing merrily just because it's a Monday. Screamo probably more accurately portrays how we feel most of the time. It's human. Now, that's based on the fall. Now we have the joy of Christ. Can the joy of Christ be portrayed in angry screamo music? (I must note that it is incorrect of me to recognize all screamo as being really angry, "So Selfish It's Funny" by Showbread is, oddly enough, quite funny.) But, given an average angry screamo or metalcore song, I would say that no, it cannot portray the love of Christ. Why? I don't know, maybe because Christ didn't scream salvation at us? Yes, he screamed at the merchants in the temple, and yes, he probably screams at us when we don't listen to him, but do we want to eternally dwell in that relationship with Christ? I don't.
What is the final word? I'm terrible at final words. Remember the post on feminism? Yeah? Lack-of-final-word syndrome! But I shall try to be decisive on this shaky subject. Should we always listen to screamo? No. Listen to Tchaikovsky. It's much better for you. Should you ever listen to screamo again? Probably not. Going to a screamo concert in some big, open area that doesn't give you claustrophobia and where you can just kinda of sit back and hang out or go out and be crazy (which isn't my cup of tea) probably wouldn't hurt. The trick, as Dr. Seel would say, would to not let screamo control you. Don't dwell on screamo. Dwell on the joy of Christ, which can be portrayed elsewhere. Yes, screamo can remind us that we aren't happy-go-lucky anti-humans who no longer have to deal with emotions or trials or tribulations, but that's about it.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
P.S.
I was thinking about dating and teenage relationships (yes, I know, I think about the subjects often), and it occurred to me that marriage, in a sense, it about ownership. This is purely a selfish reason, of course, but think of it! Man wants woman. Woman wants man. They get married. Each are each others. Theres comfort in that fact, the fact that when you are married, your spouse is yours and only yours (hopefully). I'm only speculating, I really have no idea what marriage is really like, only guesses.
But we teenagers, we do not have the authority to give ourselves. We can't make the commitment. That is not to say, that we teenagers out to live lives of sexual havoc because we cannot commit ourselves to one person. Quite the contrary! We cannot commit ourselves to anyone in the sense that marriage is a commitment. We are under the guardianship of those who are in authority over us, and till our time has come, we are not the ones to make the decisions concerning who we give ourselves to and how.
This all seems rather stupid and simple when printed on the screen, but I think it's a fact that we teenagers overlook. We're wrapped up in our desire to be individuals and we are being told by the culture that our desire is reality. But it isn't! The truth of the matter is, we are students. Despite constant, burning feelings and desires, we are not at liberty to do anything outside of what our teachers see fit for us to do. We've grown so proud that we've clean forgot our God-ordained place in life! We haven't graduated, and many still haven't even after leaving high school, I'm sure. We need to quit being individuals, and start being students.
But we teenagers, we do not have the authority to give ourselves. We can't make the commitment. That is not to say, that we teenagers out to live lives of sexual havoc because we cannot commit ourselves to one person. Quite the contrary! We cannot commit ourselves to anyone in the sense that marriage is a commitment. We are under the guardianship of those who are in authority over us, and till our time has come, we are not the ones to make the decisions concerning who we give ourselves to and how.
This all seems rather stupid and simple when printed on the screen, but I think it's a fact that we teenagers overlook. We're wrapped up in our desire to be individuals and we are being told by the culture that our desire is reality. But it isn't! The truth of the matter is, we are students. Despite constant, burning feelings and desires, we are not at liberty to do anything outside of what our teachers see fit for us to do. We've grown so proud that we've clean forgot our God-ordained place in life! We haven't graduated, and many still haven't even after leaving high school, I'm sure. We need to quit being individuals, and start being students.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Issues with Dating
While this is not a new topic for me to discuss, I felt the urge to "unleash [my] word hoard" and address the topic once more. Many of my dear friends, even though I have expressed my disillusion with dating, still ask me wether or not I date. This seems to be on account of time spent with certain parties, and it has led even myself to question the integrity of my reslove.
What is dating? Dating is derived from the concept of courtship, in which a man expresses his feelings for a young woman and gains permission to pursue her with the intent of perhaps marrying her. It was a serious thing, and set up as such. Courtship has, over the years, dissolved into the much less formal form of "dating", in which a young man asks a young woman (rather than her father) if he might spend time with that girl. From my perspective, the majority of the intentions for dating are based upon pure emotional spazms. People date because they have some sort of physical attraction to eachother. They date because they think that the either party is "hot" or "sexy".
Now I'm being rather blunt and scientific about things, but this is just the way things seem to be. Dating doesn't seem to be about commitment like courtship was. In courtship, there was a covenant formed between the two families. In dating, relationships can last as long as a few days, just as long as the two parties are enchanted with eachother. There's no sense of permanence.
Introduction aside, I'd like to address the main point. What makes dating any different from just spending time with a certain person? What if two people run in the same circles (to use a very Jane Austen-ish term) and end up spending most of their time together?
Dating is based upon the two parties consent to date eachother. For that matter, so does courtship (and anything else besides arranged marriage I suppose). Without consent, those two parties are not dating.
Being a teenager (though never in the public school system), I can say that the teen culture thrives upon dating. It is like it is a necessity for life. When I tell people that I don't date, I get either the response that "oh thats cool" or some exclamation of disbelief. There are a few of us, it seems that are fed up with the dating scene, but that is not so much the point of this duscussion.
How can one let people know that one is not dating such and such a person? Mere repition will get the point across to some degree, but that does not ultimatley solve the problem. People still look at the two people and think that even though they deny the idea that they are dating, they still are.
Oh the glorious position of being "just friends". Mere friendship rids one of any of the complications of courtship. If one is just friends with someone of the opposite sex, that does not mean that, someday, further relationship might result, but at the time being that is not the goal of the relationship. This is the relationship that has been forgotten in the teen world. The assumption is that, in order to have any feeling about a person of the opposite sex, you have to have some sort of relationship resulting in dating. I would challenge this assumption.
I don't want to date. It is, honestly, the last thing I need right now. I don't care for the drama wrapped up with dating either. I'd much rather just be friends with a girl than date her at this point.
Now a question that comes to mind which challenges my view is "what will I do once I have to court and marry?" The way I plan it, everyone will be more mature by the time I'm ready to marry. Courtship cuts out much of the drama which dating carries along with it. I will court when I am ready to marry, and I am certainly not ready to marry yet.
The fact is, I don't see why everyone has to assume that teenagers date. Perhaps thats just because of our culture which supports teen dating. I don't think there is anything beneficial about it. I am and will remain single till I am ready to marry, and I'm darn proud of it.
What is dating? Dating is derived from the concept of courtship, in which a man expresses his feelings for a young woman and gains permission to pursue her with the intent of perhaps marrying her. It was a serious thing, and set up as such. Courtship has, over the years, dissolved into the much less formal form of "dating", in which a young man asks a young woman (rather than her father) if he might spend time with that girl. From my perspective, the majority of the intentions for dating are based upon pure emotional spazms. People date because they have some sort of physical attraction to eachother. They date because they think that the either party is "hot" or "sexy".
Now I'm being rather blunt and scientific about things, but this is just the way things seem to be. Dating doesn't seem to be about commitment like courtship was. In courtship, there was a covenant formed between the two families. In dating, relationships can last as long as a few days, just as long as the two parties are enchanted with eachother. There's no sense of permanence.
Introduction aside, I'd like to address the main point. What makes dating any different from just spending time with a certain person? What if two people run in the same circles (to use a very Jane Austen-ish term) and end up spending most of their time together?
Dating is based upon the two parties consent to date eachother. For that matter, so does courtship (and anything else besides arranged marriage I suppose). Without consent, those two parties are not dating.
Being a teenager (though never in the public school system), I can say that the teen culture thrives upon dating. It is like it is a necessity for life. When I tell people that I don't date, I get either the response that "oh thats cool" or some exclamation of disbelief. There are a few of us, it seems that are fed up with the dating scene, but that is not so much the point of this duscussion.
How can one let people know that one is not dating such and such a person? Mere repition will get the point across to some degree, but that does not ultimatley solve the problem. People still look at the two people and think that even though they deny the idea that they are dating, they still are.
Oh the glorious position of being "just friends". Mere friendship rids one of any of the complications of courtship. If one is just friends with someone of the opposite sex, that does not mean that, someday, further relationship might result, but at the time being that is not the goal of the relationship. This is the relationship that has been forgotten in the teen world. The assumption is that, in order to have any feeling about a person of the opposite sex, you have to have some sort of relationship resulting in dating. I would challenge this assumption.
I don't want to date. It is, honestly, the last thing I need right now. I don't care for the drama wrapped up with dating either. I'd much rather just be friends with a girl than date her at this point.
Now a question that comes to mind which challenges my view is "what will I do once I have to court and marry?" The way I plan it, everyone will be more mature by the time I'm ready to marry. Courtship cuts out much of the drama which dating carries along with it. I will court when I am ready to marry, and I am certainly not ready to marry yet.
The fact is, I don't see why everyone has to assume that teenagers date. Perhaps thats just because of our culture which supports teen dating. I don't think there is anything beneficial about it. I am and will remain single till I am ready to marry, and I'm darn proud of it.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Thoughts on Tradition in the Church
Now, I don't really have time for a post, but this issue is bugging me so I thought that I'd get it out.
So I was in Nevada City a few weekends ago, and my uncle and aunt mentioned that there was a "mandala" exhibit at the "St. Joseph's Cultural Center". Now, for those of you who don't know what a mandala is, if you type in mandala on Miriam Webster's website, you will get "Hindu or Buddhist graphic symbol of the universe; specifically : a circle enclosing a square with a deity on each side". This was a sand drawing. The monks would take turns, bending over this 3' by 3' table, adding to this immensly intricate 2' by 2' design. It was incredible to say the least. And I can say that because I would last probably 3 minutes doing that kind of a job. But these monks had been going at it for weeks. And what would they do when they were finished? They would take it and blow it into the Yuba River. Thats buddhist philosophy for you.
Now, the issue is not how amazing this was, the issue is where it took place. They had set up camp in one of three interrelated structures. There is St. Patricks Roman Catholic Church, there is St. Mary's Parish School (which I might add has been around for over 150 years, quite impressive) and there is St. Joseph's Cultural Center. St. Joseph's Cultural Center, if I'm not mistaken, is the old church which they turned into an open venue when St. Patricks went up just across the street. What I don't get is why this Church, and so many other Churches around the country allow a religion, which is so contrary to Christianity, to come under their roof and advertise their religion. I know that we ought to be charitable, but doesn't this seem wrong? Is this just America?
So I was in Nevada City a few weekends ago, and my uncle and aunt mentioned that there was a "mandala" exhibit at the "St. Joseph's Cultural Center". Now, for those of you who don't know what a mandala is, if you type in mandala on Miriam Webster's website, you will get "Hindu or Buddhist graphic symbol of the universe; specifically : a circle enclosing a square with a deity on each side". This was a sand drawing. The monks would take turns, bending over this 3' by 3' table, adding to this immensly intricate 2' by 2' design. It was incredible to say the least. And I can say that because I would last probably 3 minutes doing that kind of a job. But these monks had been going at it for weeks. And what would they do when they were finished? They would take it and blow it into the Yuba River. Thats buddhist philosophy for you.
Now, the issue is not how amazing this was, the issue is where it took place. They had set up camp in one of three interrelated structures. There is St. Patricks Roman Catholic Church, there is St. Mary's Parish School (which I might add has been around for over 150 years, quite impressive) and there is St. Joseph's Cultural Center. St. Joseph's Cultural Center, if I'm not mistaken, is the old church which they turned into an open venue when St. Patricks went up just across the street. What I don't get is why this Church, and so many other Churches around the country allow a religion, which is so contrary to Christianity, to come under their roof and advertise their religion. I know that we ought to be charitable, but doesn't this seem wrong? Is this just America?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Chop Suey!: Lyrical questions.
Well, I thought that I might do something different here. I am always interested to know the meaning of the songs which I listen to. Sometimes they are quite simple, I even listen to a few songs in which I am sure they are using nonsense words. But there are a few bands which actually have something to say. I end up liking those bands the best. One particular song that I have been confused about is "Chop Suey" by System of a Down. (By the way, a system of a down is a system which does not function properly anymore.) Here are the lyrics to that song (taken from their website).
Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable
You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,
I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die, Die,
Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable
You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,
I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die
In my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die
Father, Father, Father, Father,
Father/ Into your hands/I/commend my spirit,
Father, into your hands,
Why have you forsaken me,
In your eyes forsaken me,
In your thoughts forsaken me,
In your heart forsaken, me oh,
Trust in my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die,
In my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die.
It looks awkward as it is, but the song actually flows fairly smoothly. If you go to my myspace account at http://www.myspace.com/forlackofaname you should be able to listen to it.
What always had me curious (and I'm sure you too), was the fact that he quoted Christ during the last half of the song. System of a Down isn't a Christian band (or at least they don't seem to be... at all), and many accounts say that they aren't religious at all. The "Father, why have you forsaken me?" could simply be a desperate depressed outlook on life, but thats not exactly System of a Down's outlook. They put a lot of emphasis on coruption in government, but they don't seem to get explicitly desperate at all.
Another phrase which interested me was "self righteous suicide". Most people seem to have heard the word "suicide" and automatically think they're talking about killing themselves. But "self righteous suicide" isn't quite simple. If one is righteous, then he is "in accord with divine or moral law" and "free from guilt or sin" (Miriam-Webster). So if one is self righteous, one would know "in his heart" that he is guiltless and in the right. Correct? So a self righteous suicide would be if one knew he was right but threw it all away. Please inform me if I'm missing any logic, I really am having a hard time with this one. It does not, however, seem to be so bad a thing. It sounds almost like sacrifice.
Mr. Serj Talakian (the lead singer of System of a Down) says that he cries "when angels deserve to die". This seems like more of a religious question. One might automatically say (and many have) "what does he mean? angels can't die". It seems to be more of a symbolic phrase. An angel who deserves to die might be a person who you think is such a grand creature, but has commited an atrocity. It definatley has an emotional background.
Theres a great ammount of emotion in this song to begin with. A song can have emotion but it needs to have something more there so that it doesn't just fall apart. I'm not entirely sure what it means so I'm not entirely sure if the song holds together. The general idea of the song seems to denote betrayal. Such as a wife having an affair. The affair part justifies the "I cry when angels deserve to die" phrase. The "Father why have you forsaken me?" phrase denotes the pain that is inflicted in that kind of situation. Theres a theory, and it looks like it fits.
Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable
You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,
I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die, Die,
Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable
You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,
I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die
In my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die
Father, Father, Father, Father,
Father/ Into your hands/I/commend my spirit,
Father, into your hands,
Why have you forsaken me,
In your eyes forsaken me,
In your thoughts forsaken me,
In your heart forsaken, me oh,
Trust in my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die,
In my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die.
It looks awkward as it is, but the song actually flows fairly smoothly. If you go to my myspace account at http://www.myspace.com/forlackofaname you should be able to listen to it.
What always had me curious (and I'm sure you too), was the fact that he quoted Christ during the last half of the song. System of a Down isn't a Christian band (or at least they don't seem to be... at all), and many accounts say that they aren't religious at all. The "Father, why have you forsaken me?" could simply be a desperate depressed outlook on life, but thats not exactly System of a Down's outlook. They put a lot of emphasis on coruption in government, but they don't seem to get explicitly desperate at all.
Another phrase which interested me was "self righteous suicide". Most people seem to have heard the word "suicide" and automatically think they're talking about killing themselves. But "self righteous suicide" isn't quite simple. If one is righteous, then he is "in accord with divine or moral law" and "free from guilt or sin" (Miriam-Webster). So if one is self righteous, one would know "in his heart" that he is guiltless and in the right. Correct? So a self righteous suicide would be if one knew he was right but threw it all away. Please inform me if I'm missing any logic, I really am having a hard time with this one. It does not, however, seem to be so bad a thing. It sounds almost like sacrifice.
Mr. Serj Talakian (the lead singer of System of a Down) says that he cries "when angels deserve to die". This seems like more of a religious question. One might automatically say (and many have) "what does he mean? angels can't die". It seems to be more of a symbolic phrase. An angel who deserves to die might be a person who you think is such a grand creature, but has commited an atrocity. It definatley has an emotional background.
Theres a great ammount of emotion in this song to begin with. A song can have emotion but it needs to have something more there so that it doesn't just fall apart. I'm not entirely sure what it means so I'm not entirely sure if the song holds together. The general idea of the song seems to denote betrayal. Such as a wife having an affair. The affair part justifies the "I cry when angels deserve to die" phrase. The "Father why have you forsaken me?" phrase denotes the pain that is inflicted in that kind of situation. Theres a theory, and it looks like it fits.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Magic, Harry Potter, and Christian living.
So last night I went and saw Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. I haven't read all the books, and I don't wear Harry Potter gear or rave about it 24/7, but I like it and I keep up with it to a certain extent. One thing that I have always been curious about is magic, especially from a Christian's point of view. At first that was what always shot down the Harry Potter books: All Harry Potter is a thing which containst magic. No Christians should be affiliated with things which have to do with magic. Ergo no Christians should be affiliated with Harry Potter. (Modus Ponens correct?) While respecting the people that said that, I was always a little curious why we should quarantine ourselves from that evil Harry Potter madness.
What got me even more curious is when I read Lord of The Rings. There are very few Christians that I know of that would say that Tolkein is not a Christian. I take that back... I don't know any. And yet Tolkein created a major character who is a wizard. This befuddled me for a while. The Tolkein part I solved fairly early. But the Harry Potter part continued to bug. But here's my take.
The magic in Harry Potter does not seem to be tied in with religious activities what so ever, unlike orginizations such as Wicca. It seems to be more mischivous play early on, but later the magic is used in the protagonist vs. antagonist movement. The good guys use their powers to fight the bad guys and vice versa. Magic in Harry Potter looks more like a tool than a form of worship. There is an in the third film of crystal ball/omen/chance foresight stuff, but even though the omen comes true the actual practice is pretty heavily condemned. In the fourth film, Professor Dumbledore (if I am not mistaken) states that "there is no spell to bring back the dead".
There isn't much fading of the lines in the films. The good guys look good and the bad guys, especially in the fourth film, look bad. There are some characters that you are a little confused about, but you see where they lie pretty quickly.
Is there a difference between different kinds of magic? Because the magic that is being promoted in Harry Potter does not look like the magic that you see in the Bible, the stuff that usually gets condemned. In the fourth film, viewers are introduced to the "three unforgivable curses". They are, without the hard to remember names, the curse of torture, the curse of possesion, and the curse of death. As a wizard, you cannot place a curse upoon someone that causes torture, you cannot posses that person (as in take control over them and make them obey you), and you cannot kill that person.
The Didache, an early Church handbook for chatecumins, says that a Christian ought not to perform magic for it leads to idolatry. I think that is what Wicca does. It is much more a religious practice than anything that is in Harry Potter.I think that magic is very much real, but even though it seems as if it is possible to pursue it without falling into idolatry, its dangerous business.I think that the Didache serves as a warning, that even if you could perform magic without falling away from the Christian faith, it is very hard not to.
To get back on track, I'm not sure that I see anything really wrong with the magic in Harry Potter. I can see how kids might get all stoked up about the magic part (I think its pretty neat), and then join groups which follow magic, such as Wicca. I think it just needs explaining. If you're going to go to Harry Potter and are really get into it, you have to know about that kind of stuff.
What got me even more curious is when I read Lord of The Rings. There are very few Christians that I know of that would say that Tolkein is not a Christian. I take that back... I don't know any. And yet Tolkein created a major character who is a wizard. This befuddled me for a while. The Tolkein part I solved fairly early. But the Harry Potter part continued to bug. But here's my take.
The magic in Harry Potter does not seem to be tied in with religious activities what so ever, unlike orginizations such as Wicca. It seems to be more mischivous play early on, but later the magic is used in the protagonist vs. antagonist movement. The good guys use their powers to fight the bad guys and vice versa. Magic in Harry Potter looks more like a tool than a form of worship. There is an in the third film of crystal ball/omen/chance foresight stuff, but even though the omen comes true the actual practice is pretty heavily condemned. In the fourth film, Professor Dumbledore (if I am not mistaken) states that "there is no spell to bring back the dead".
There isn't much fading of the lines in the films. The good guys look good and the bad guys, especially in the fourth film, look bad. There are some characters that you are a little confused about, but you see where they lie pretty quickly.
Is there a difference between different kinds of magic? Because the magic that is being promoted in Harry Potter does not look like the magic that you see in the Bible, the stuff that usually gets condemned. In the fourth film, viewers are introduced to the "three unforgivable curses". They are, without the hard to remember names, the curse of torture, the curse of possesion, and the curse of death. As a wizard, you cannot place a curse upoon someone that causes torture, you cannot posses that person (as in take control over them and make them obey you), and you cannot kill that person.
The Didache, an early Church handbook for chatecumins, says that a Christian ought not to perform magic for it leads to idolatry. I think that is what Wicca does. It is much more a religious practice than anything that is in Harry Potter.I think that magic is very much real, but even though it seems as if it is possible to pursue it without falling into idolatry, its dangerous business.I think that the Didache serves as a warning, that even if you could perform magic without falling away from the Christian faith, it is very hard not to.
To get back on track, I'm not sure that I see anything really wrong with the magic in Harry Potter. I can see how kids might get all stoked up about the magic part (I think its pretty neat), and then join groups which follow magic, such as Wicca. I think it just needs explaining. If you're going to go to Harry Potter and are really get into it, you have to know about that kind of stuff.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Rock Concert
As I sit here, schnarfeling my Top Ramen and praying that I would return to health in time for work and school, I got to thinking about this past weekend and all that it stood for. For those who are not aware, this past weekend was spent at JoshuaFest, a rapidly growing Christian rock concert located in nearby Quincy California. The weekend was over all very very fun, but one can't help but wonder if it all was ok. I mean, you have your rather emotional security guard leading everyone in prayer asking the Holy Spirit to come upon us, and then continue to rock out. For me its kind of a difficult situation. I like the really hardcore screamy stuff sometimes, if they play well, and its fun to listen to at concerts where you can go crazy. One of the bands there named Dizmas is a really fun band to watch and a neat bunch of guys to hang out with, but they mix the hard rock sound with the worship words on some tracks, and I'm not totally sure that that is ok.
I guess it all depends on what the concert aims at. If the concert is supposed to be a place where you worship God, then bands like Dizmas probably shouldn't apply. But if the concert is just about music, a clean setting, and a good time then Dizmas would be fine. I'm just a little bit confused. Is it morally right to praise God through hardcore rock?
I guess it all depends on what the concert aims at. If the concert is supposed to be a place where you worship God, then bands like Dizmas probably shouldn't apply. But if the concert is just about music, a clean setting, and a good time then Dizmas would be fine. I'm just a little bit confused. Is it morally right to praise God through hardcore rock?
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
An effort to do something on here
So I'm back, I'm not quite sure for how long though. I honestly thought that I would be doing much more blogging during the summer. But, with the extensive playing of video games and the continual zoning in front of the tv (which is hard seeing as I wake up at noon on my early days), things have been pretty rough. Just kidding, I sold my ps2, I still don't have tv, and I've been working around the house so I want to get outside when it's cool: in the morning. However, I have had time to enjoy myself a bit. I went and saw Batman Begins last saturday night. Not a bad film if you ask me. Quite dark and a bit scarier than I expected it to be. Perhaps I didn't see the full trailer or something. But I liked it. It had a very good cast and the script didn't seem half bad. With all the action though, it'll take a few more viewings to get a final verdict out. But, I got to discuss a little on the drive to the theater and back (45 minutes there and 45 minutes back). We veered into several topics, but an interesting one was on violence.
In America, especially as portrayed by films, we seem to have two options for solving a conflict. Either by talking or by fighting. It seems as if in most films, the talking gets the characters/plot no where, and that the fighting actually does something. And I think that we, as Americans are becoming fairly numbed by violence. I personally thing that that is better than being shielded from violence and never seeing it, but it still is not the best thing for us. I don't think that having violence in films is bad. Personally, especially in war films, I think it lets us see what really went on. But letting ourselves look at it as purely entertainment, can get us into trouble.
But as far as dealing with situations like that, I think that we have to think of another way besides just giving into violence. I think that violence should be a last resort, and that other methods should be tried before giving into violence. What other methods, more succesful methods, I'm not sure. Something to think about I suppose.
"[after Paul thanks him for shooting footage of the genocide] I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners." Jack Daglish in 'Hotel Rwanda'
In America, especially as portrayed by films, we seem to have two options for solving a conflict. Either by talking or by fighting. It seems as if in most films, the talking gets the characters/plot no where, and that the fighting actually does something. And I think that we, as Americans are becoming fairly numbed by violence. I personally thing that that is better than being shielded from violence and never seeing it, but it still is not the best thing for us. I don't think that having violence in films is bad. Personally, especially in war films, I think it lets us see what really went on. But letting ourselves look at it as purely entertainment, can get us into trouble.
But as far as dealing with situations like that, I think that we have to think of another way besides just giving into violence. I think that violence should be a last resort, and that other methods should be tried before giving into violence. What other methods, more succesful methods, I'm not sure. Something to think about I suppose.
"[after Paul thanks him for shooting footage of the genocide] I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners." Jack Daglish in 'Hotel Rwanda'
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
"Its been a while..."
Why does that song always pop into my head when I'm on here? I don't know. Perhaps it is the fact that I take so long to post. Thus, singing "Its been a while" is rather fitting. It has been a while. On that happy note, I just want ya'll to know that I'll be a couple more weeks. Stuff is crazy now, so I don't really have the time to write a quality post. I do, however, want to reccommend a blog.
http://arsitw.blogspot.com
I get to see him everyday (since he is the teacher for a couple of my classes) and he's a real great guy. Enjoy
-guiseppe
http://arsitw.blogspot.com
I get to see him everyday (since he is the teacher for a couple of my classes) and he's a real great guy. Enjoy
-guiseppe
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Sorry about that
Hey guys
yeah that one looks like a bomb. I'll try and clean it up before too many others get confused. Thanks
yeah that one looks like a bomb. I'll try and clean it up before too many others get confused. Thanks
Thursday, March 31, 2005
I'm not dead yet!!
hi guys
yeah yeah I know, its been a while. Alright, straight to business.
ON FEMINISM
Now I'm not too terribly sure where to begin but I thought that this topic might give me more responses than my last one. No offense guys, but most of what I got were "wow you're smart"s. Lets kick it "down" a notch to degrade a perfectly good saying. I think that by stepping on a few toes I might be able to extract some thoughts from you guys. Please... if you get ticked off at me... tell me, don't shut up. I'd rather have angry people yelling at me than quiet people being angry at me.
Alright. After that brief intro, I'll get going. First off, I'm not a huge fan of feminism. Perhaps stating my blunt opinion first thing was not/is not the cleverest idea in the world, but this way you can see where I am comming from. I can't really attack this on anything but a religious background because, without a religious background, there is very little to fight feminism with. As a Christian, I have the Bible to look to when I need something to bat feminists over the head with. But, the catch is that if I am arguing with Amy Athiest (no offense to any Amys out there), she can hit me back over the head by saying that my rules don't apply to her because she doesn't believe in my religion. Or, she can turn around and point out that there were female rulers during the time of the judges.
So never mind. Religion is hard to deal with. So I got myself into female royalty. Never mind again thats not feminism. FEMINISM FIGHTS FOR THE EQUALITY OF SEXES. QUEENS AREN'T THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE. Case closed.
Basic biology: though there are many women who I am sure could punch my lights out, the female gender as a whole has been "weaker" than the male. The problem is that the males have gotten to be virtually females. That is why we have female clergy in the Church. The guys didn't step up and do their part so the women came and said that they could do the same thing virtually because THEY ACTUALLY COULD. Enough guy-bashing. Hard truth is: guys failed and the women took the opportunity.
Perhaps that is the reason for all of this. Our culture is segrigated into groups for guys: you have the skinny wimps, the skinny guys who can actually kick your behind, the buff mean guys, the buff guys who couldn't hurt a fly, the not-so-in-shape guys who think they're in shape... and the list goes on. The sad part is... I think I fall into that last category...hmm. Enough of that. The point is, men aren't trained like they used to be. Our culture has degraded the genders so that we really are equal. I don't think that feminist activists really had to do much. If things went the way they did without all the protests, we'd probably be in the same spot.
So all this to say, its not really the women that are power-seeking respect-snatching plane-welding bologne sandwich-eating... nice people, its the guys that have not been up to par. There really isn't any reason to hold back here, its not like opening the door for a lady. Guys don't need to worry about letting women go first when it comes to doing a job. We (I say we cause I'm a guy) still need to be polite and respectful to women, but at the same time we need to hold our ground. Guys need to be honorable, not the way our culture sees it, but according to a higher standard, and hold the heirarchy which God has ordained.
But there I go again... bringing religion in. Perhaps I should have addressed it to "Christian males" and bring religion in all the way. Alright: Christian guys!! Don't be wimpy!! Stand strong!! Don't vote for women clergy!! Be examples... to all your freinds at the pub on saturday night!!
Once,however,we say that girls should not work, we run into other situations like single parent families and economic stress and blah blah blah. I suppose I will have to save that for another time...
yeah yeah I know, its been a while. Alright, straight to business.
ON FEMINISM
Now I'm not too terribly sure where to begin but I thought that this topic might give me more responses than my last one. No offense guys, but most of what I got were "wow you're smart"s. Lets kick it "down" a notch to degrade a perfectly good saying. I think that by stepping on a few toes I might be able to extract some thoughts from you guys. Please... if you get ticked off at me... tell me, don't shut up. I'd rather have angry people yelling at me than quiet people being angry at me.
Alright. After that brief intro, I'll get going. First off, I'm not a huge fan of feminism. Perhaps stating my blunt opinion first thing was not/is not the cleverest idea in the world, but this way you can see where I am comming from. I can't really attack this on anything but a religious background because, without a religious background, there is very little to fight feminism with. As a Christian, I have the Bible to look to when I need something to bat feminists over the head with. But, the catch is that if I am arguing with Amy Athiest (no offense to any Amys out there), she can hit me back over the head by saying that my rules don't apply to her because she doesn't believe in my religion. Or, she can turn around and point out that there were female rulers during the time of the judges.
So never mind. Religion is hard to deal with. So I got myself into female royalty. Never mind again thats not feminism. FEMINISM FIGHTS FOR THE EQUALITY OF SEXES. QUEENS AREN'T THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE. Case closed.
Basic biology: though there are many women who I am sure could punch my lights out, the female gender as a whole has been "weaker" than the male. The problem is that the males have gotten to be virtually females. That is why we have female clergy in the Church. The guys didn't step up and do their part so the women came and said that they could do the same thing virtually because THEY ACTUALLY COULD. Enough guy-bashing. Hard truth is: guys failed and the women took the opportunity.
Perhaps that is the reason for all of this. Our culture is segrigated into groups for guys: you have the skinny wimps, the skinny guys who can actually kick your behind, the buff mean guys, the buff guys who couldn't hurt a fly, the not-so-in-shape guys who think they're in shape... and the list goes on. The sad part is... I think I fall into that last category...hmm. Enough of that. The point is, men aren't trained like they used to be. Our culture has degraded the genders so that we really are equal. I don't think that feminist activists really had to do much. If things went the way they did without all the protests, we'd probably be in the same spot.
So all this to say, its not really the women that are power-seeking respect-snatching plane-welding bologne sandwich-eating... nice people, its the guys that have not been up to par. There really isn't any reason to hold back here, its not like opening the door for a lady. Guys don't need to worry about letting women go first when it comes to doing a job. We (I say we cause I'm a guy) still need to be polite and respectful to women, but at the same time we need to hold our ground. Guys need to be honorable, not the way our culture sees it, but according to a higher standard, and hold the heirarchy which God has ordained.
But there I go again... bringing religion in. Perhaps I should have addressed it to "Christian males" and bring religion in all the way. Alright: Christian guys!! Don't be wimpy!! Stand strong!! Don't vote for women clergy!! Be examples... to all your freinds at the pub on saturday night!!
Once,however,we say that girls should not work, we run into other situations like single parent families and economic stress and blah blah blah. I suppose I will have to save that for another time...
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
hmm
alright kristensdatter... nice name and good question. I was of the opinion that guys can use vulgar language when they are in the company of other (and only other) guys. When they are in the company of girls they should not use language becaues doing so is disrespectful to the girl. Perhaps that is where the gentleman part comes in? Did Mr. Darcy (don't be scared if you don't know who he is) joke around and use language with his buddies? Now another thing you mentioned (I know this because I know you hahaha...) is "what does the Bible say about it?" Honestly... I think I might have to leave this one to the muses. I regret to say that the Joe has no answers on this one. I should be sticking up another post soon so... stay tuned.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
On Language
"It is a time of desolation, chaos and uncertainty... brothers killing brothers... babies having babies..." and overused language. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not here to say that all language is bad and that we shouldn't say it ever ever ever lest we be... darned, I just think its overused these days.
First of, we need to learn that what we say has consequences. Guys, if you say that your girlfriend should not buy said shirt because it makes her look fat, you're probably not going to get a very good reaction. Likewise if you ladies say that your boyfriend's favourite shirt makes him look like a girl, that might not end up with the prettiest conclusion either. But I digress, clothing and dating are and should be for another episode.
My point is is that words have power. What you say means something. Even those who teach that words mean nothing deep down know that they have meaning (otherwise why would they be teaching?). Now once again, I am pulling from a class discution which means that it is 1)a newly explained subject and b) it is the belief of my teachers and through them me. Lets not have an Achilles incident again shall we?
I (and my professors) believe that the words commonly coined as "bad language" can be grouped into three categories: vulgarity, obscenity and profanity.
Now heres an interesting factiod. Who has heard of the Vulgate Bible? The Vulgate was printed hundreds of years ago when latin was still the common language. The Vulgate was their NIV. The words vulgar and vulgate both come from the same latin root meaning common. Vulgar words just mean common. That means any words that were used by the common people can be considered vulgar and thus not used in polite society. This category includes sh**, dam*, he*l (for the really picky ones), and even lesser words such as pi*s and cr*p (for the really really picky ones). These words can all be used in regular scentences. When a farmer stepped on manure in his field he most likely did not say "oh... I stepped in manure..." he probably used some other terminology. Now heres the kicker. Back then people knew how to handle them selves. One knew not to use these terms in "polite company" i.e. in formal situations or "mixed company" i.e. in presence of a girl. Context is key. Perhaps a more well known rule is not to "curse" in a church. Thats just how it is.
Enter sexist Joe: its my opinion that girls shouldn't use "bad language". The art of being a lady has been lost (guys... you don't need to worry about this one). With the rise of feminism and whatnot, I think girls have taken on the idea that they can curse (Trinity in The Matrix isn't helping). But just to take a stab at the guys, we need to recognize their... femininity I suppose. Don't "cuss" in front of girls. Sure its ok to say stuff man-to-man and I'm sure there is tons of stuff that only goes around in "girl stuff" only areas, but I think we need to recognize the boundaries.
Hmm... this is going to be a long one. Alright- obscenity. Obscenity is basically going too far. Giving too much info. Thats where we get our word gross from, gross literally means too much. Obscenity mainly covers your sex-based words, your violence-based words, your body-based words and your scatological words (hint: up in the mountains you often run across bear...). The obscene section can also house your f-bomb. Basically this is "dirty talk" or "potty humor". Anything "cuss words" pertaining to what we might call sick (not the synonym for cool) can fall into this category.
And finally we have our profane words. To be profane is to take something that is holy or set aside for holy use and make it common (vulgar). This is mainly if not totally composed of taking the Lord's name in vain. If you take something as holy as the Lord's name (which as a Christian, you will recognize as the ultimate holy thing) and use it too often or not seriously, you are taking it in vain.
So there we got it, our definitions are down. Now for the bulk of the essay. Alright just kidding. None of these words should really be used to terribly often. Words from the first group you can use in normal english, but there should rarely be a time for obscenity and never for profanity. Today we have little kids flipping people off (yeah I experienced it). This should be a sign that people have gotten carried away. We now no longer know when to use the words we labled "bad language" so we either use them without care or we throw them into a box which is secured with a padlock which is then thrown into a safe and thrown into the ocean (only to be rediscovered when you stub your toe).
I'm open to any opinions, edit notes (its kinda late...), questions or snide remarks.
First of, we need to learn that what we say has consequences. Guys, if you say that your girlfriend should not buy said shirt because it makes her look fat, you're probably not going to get a very good reaction. Likewise if you ladies say that your boyfriend's favourite shirt makes him look like a girl, that might not end up with the prettiest conclusion either. But I digress, clothing and dating are and should be for another episode.
My point is is that words have power. What you say means something. Even those who teach that words mean nothing deep down know that they have meaning (otherwise why would they be teaching?). Now once again, I am pulling from a class discution which means that it is 1)a newly explained subject and b) it is the belief of my teachers and through them me. Lets not have an Achilles incident again shall we?
I (and my professors) believe that the words commonly coined as "bad language" can be grouped into three categories: vulgarity, obscenity and profanity.
Now heres an interesting factiod. Who has heard of the Vulgate Bible? The Vulgate was printed hundreds of years ago when latin was still the common language. The Vulgate was their NIV. The words vulgar and vulgate both come from the same latin root meaning common. Vulgar words just mean common. That means any words that were used by the common people can be considered vulgar and thus not used in polite society. This category includes sh**, dam*, he*l (for the really picky ones), and even lesser words such as pi*s and cr*p (for the really really picky ones). These words can all be used in regular scentences. When a farmer stepped on manure in his field he most likely did not say "oh... I stepped in manure..." he probably used some other terminology. Now heres the kicker. Back then people knew how to handle them selves. One knew not to use these terms in "polite company" i.e. in formal situations or "mixed company" i.e. in presence of a girl. Context is key. Perhaps a more well known rule is not to "curse" in a church. Thats just how it is.
Enter sexist Joe: its my opinion that girls shouldn't use "bad language". The art of being a lady has been lost (guys... you don't need to worry about this one). With the rise of feminism and whatnot, I think girls have taken on the idea that they can curse (Trinity in The Matrix isn't helping). But just to take a stab at the guys, we need to recognize their... femininity I suppose. Don't "cuss" in front of girls. Sure its ok to say stuff man-to-man and I'm sure there is tons of stuff that only goes around in "girl stuff" only areas, but I think we need to recognize the boundaries.
Hmm... this is going to be a long one. Alright- obscenity. Obscenity is basically going too far. Giving too much info. Thats where we get our word gross from, gross literally means too much. Obscenity mainly covers your sex-based words, your violence-based words, your body-based words and your scatological words (hint: up in the mountains you often run across bear...). The obscene section can also house your f-bomb. Basically this is "dirty talk" or "potty humor". Anything "cuss words" pertaining to what we might call sick (not the synonym for cool) can fall into this category.
And finally we have our profane words. To be profane is to take something that is holy or set aside for holy use and make it common (vulgar). This is mainly if not totally composed of taking the Lord's name in vain. If you take something as holy as the Lord's name (which as a Christian, you will recognize as the ultimate holy thing) and use it too often or not seriously, you are taking it in vain.
So there we got it, our definitions are down. Now for the bulk of the essay. Alright just kidding. None of these words should really be used to terribly often. Words from the first group you can use in normal english, but there should rarely be a time for obscenity and never for profanity. Today we have little kids flipping people off (yeah I experienced it). This should be a sign that people have gotten carried away. We now no longer know when to use the words we labled "bad language" so we either use them without care or we throw them into a box which is secured with a padlock which is then thrown into a safe and thrown into the ocean (only to be rediscovered when you stub your toe).
I'm open to any opinions, edit notes (its kinda late...), questions or snide remarks.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
hmm
ah munkybrat... how ever did you come up with that name? Seems to me that one doesn't usually like being called a brat (though with the debut of those disturbing dolls one can only wonder). Let me try to guess.
- you recently got a blog (no posts or profile) or you are simply a commentator
- you have a peculiar taste for teasing me (you know me)
- the yorkshire accent on your second comment seems to suggest something familiar to me... say... St. Andrews?
I am placing my bet on Rebekah Waterman. Mistakes, however, come with life so I might be wrong. That is where I stand.
- you recently got a blog (no posts or profile) or you are simply a commentator
- you have a peculiar taste for teasing me (you know me)
- the yorkshire accent on your second comment seems to suggest something familiar to me... say... St. Andrews?
I am placing my bet on Rebekah Waterman. Mistakes, however, come with life so I might be wrong. That is where I stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
