Video killed the writing star

Back in the early days of the Internet, when people would wait forever while a snippet of video downloaded over their brutally slow 56K dial-up connections, being able to watch live action was quite the novelty. What is my most egregious example of this?

Sappy kid, Jar-Jar...don't care; it was awesome

I was living in the Middle East in the build up to the release of Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Our X-boys were just coming to an age when they would appreciate an awesome space opera. I had entered my late teens on the heels of the original Star Wars film now (somewhat confusingly) known as Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope. Back in the day, all you had to say was,"Star Wars," and people knew what you meant.

Introducing our own little next generation to Star Wars was one of the small but exciting milestones I recall from the X-boys' childhood. Episode I is listed as having a running time of 136 minutes. I spent longer that that downloading the 2-minute original trailer (see above) for us to watch on our 17" cathode ray tube. Compare that to today. I searched YouTube, found the trailer, clicked on the link and the video began playing immediately. I enjoyed watching it on my 24" flat panel LCD in HD - that's high definition for you laggards. What a difference fourteen years can make.

Twenty years before that, The Buggles' Video Killed the Radio Star bemoaned the transition from the days of radio to television. 

Understood the sentiment; never cared much for the song

Fittingly, MTV launched it's ground-breaking music video programming on August 1, 1981 by playing the Buggles' paean to the golden age of radio. But whatever MTV accomplished - or not, depending on your point of view - they may have unwittingly began the slow demise of the written word in addition to the spoken (or sung) word without the accompaniment of images.

Rumor has it, the 'M' used to stand for Music

As the World Wide Web (does anyone call it that anymore?) expanded from text-based sites that geeks used to host online games of Zork, I enjoyed browsing around and finding interesting material to read. With a simple bookmark in my Netscape Navigator window (thank you Mark), I could tag stuff and come back to peruse worthy articles at my leisure.

Fast forward to today. Netscape is gone, replaced by Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and others. And also on the way out, if my browsing results are any indication, are text-based articles. Oh sure, there are still millions - probably billions - of text articles on the Internet; but little by little, I'm noticing a shift to video.  It's starting small with a hyperlink click followed by a big, square box that is the video lead...with text underneath. Pretty soon, more and more of our search results are going to be videos; and then where will we be?

Radio - or the ever-present media player - allows us to listen to music and do other things. MTV forced us to watch. It's hard to pay attention to a music video and concentrate on other tasks because you have to watch the video. I'm afraid the Internet may be going down that same path. "It" is trying to capture our attention, just like MTV did back in 1981.

In the words of Rockwell - or more accurately Michael Jackson - it always feels like somebody's watching me. Or maybe that's just what they want us to think...

What do you think?

X

Do you need religion?

Religion is defined (by Google) as:

Noun

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed

I would argue that their definition - especially number 1 - is not accurate. 

Google's definition of faith is:

Noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

If you look at Google's first definition of religion and their second definition of faith, you might come to the conclusion that religion and faith are the same thing. They are not.

Aboard the Deathstar (Star Wars IV - A New Hope), General Motti made the mistake of questioning Darth Vader's faith in the Jedi religion:

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebel's hidden fort...

In the film, General Motti did not need to have any faith at all in the Jedi religion to feel its effects.

In real life, that is not the case. Whichever God (or god, or gods) someone believes in - i.e. has faith in - determines what religious practices they adhere to: how and where they worship, how they pray, what activities they engage in as part of the expression of their faith. In essence, it is the outward expression of our faith that is most closely tied to how we become identified (by others) with a particular religion. And short of just telling someone about it, there's not a lot we can do to help them experience our faith first hand.

There are times when I wish my faith in Jesus Christ gave me the ability to reveal His power to others in more tangible ways. Not to administer a force choke to non-believers; but more to act as a visual aid that would help others understand the joys of faith as I have been blessed to experience.

Unfortunately, there are so many religions in the world today that it's nearly impossible to share one's faith without being labeled intolerant, or worse. Let me be clear: I don't mean it's unfortunate that so many people can find peace and fulfillment in their particular faith/religious practices; I only mean to say that humans have tended to adapt religion into something that resembles more of a feel-good effect than a true faith-based existence.

Take the image above; as someone who has taught Bible study I can easily point out several things that are totally, um, wrong with that picture:

1. The Bible tells us not to worship idols. An idol is a man-made image...how could a man-made idol be God?
2. In the Bible, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for humankind; there's no need for us to sacrifice anything - even flowers and milk - in order to curry God's favor.
3. As atheists and many others are fond of pointing out the Bible also says, "Thou shalt not judge."

Of course, that last one is perhaps the Scripture that is most often taken wildly out of context. But that's a different discussion.

What does religion do for us? 

What a huge topic. Religion - what I think of as the trappings of faith - includes going to church (or the mosque, synagogue or temple), study of one's holy texts, prayer, perhaps singing, chanting, taking the Lord's Supper, and many more ways of acting out our chosen faith.

And that brings up another topic: choice.

As a Christian, I believe that God gives us free will. He offers us the gift of salvation through the sacrifice Jesus made for us by dying on the cross. We can either accept that gift - or not. It's our choice. Free will also applies to the events that happen in our life. This is another discussion much larger than a single blog post. Some people will argue that if God is omnipotent and knows everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen, then there is really no such thing as free will; everything is preordained because God knows what is going to happen and when it is going to happen.

But this is kind of like the circular argument that we all enjoyed in The Princess Bride.

Note to self: Vizzini kind of looks like the priest in the cartoon above, doesn't he?

Just before he died from drinking poisoned wine, the character Vizzini chortled, "You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this:  never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha..."

Prior to his untimely demise - untimely to anyone except God, of course - Vizzini and the Man in Black engaged in a battle of dizzying intellects. We all know how that one turned out and if God truly is omnipotent, then He knew Vizzini would die. The thing about free will is that God may know...but we don't.

Hours ago, I entitled this blog, "Do you need religion?" After fighting down the urge to quote a line from Dirty Harry, I would argue that it's not religion we need, it's faith. Specifically faith in God. But where does that come from? Again, we come back to choice. My faith is based on a specific and personal experience when I believe that God spoke to me through His Holy Spirit - and I made the choice to put my trust and my faith in Him. I didn't just up and decide one day that God really did exist and gosh darn it, it seems like a good idea to become a Christian. 

Faith is not an intellectual exercise. You can hold an intellectual discussion regarding the existence of God but I would put forward that if you are going to believe in the God of the Bible - or any god for that matter - it is irrelevant how much intellect you apply or how much proof you have. Faith is a matter of believing what is unseen. Jesus said it best in John chapter 20:

Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

I guess what I'm trying to say is, no, we don't need religion; we need faith. The Bible asks us not to forsake gathering in fellowship with other believers. As a Southern Baptist, I take part in the two primary ordinances of the church: Baptism by full immersion (as a public demonstration of my faith; being baptized didn't square me with God) and regularly participating in the Lord's Supper. I do my best to try and live a good life, but I will never be perfect no matter how hard I work at it.

I realize that accepting God into my heart does not immediately and forever make me a good person. But by accepting that His Son died for my sins, I can receive that gift, and in return, I want to try to do the best I can every day. I heard a great saying the other day: Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. If you go to church and are offended because people there act a lot like people everywhere else, don't worry; if their faith is sincere, they are just there trying to get better.

I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject, whether you agree with me or not.

X

You play ball like a girl!

Subject matter over here at the Stream is quite, er, subjective. When it comes to blogging, I'm sort of like that talking dog, Dug, in the movie UP (Pixar)...



We all have moments in life where things are going along and then we figuratively say, "Squirrel!"

Lately, I've had the distinct pleasure of blogging about classical music and science. But lest I get too high brow for my own good, I'm going to descend from these Olympus-like subject-matter heights and talk about movies!

National Public Radio's weekend version of All Things Considered is running a series entitled, 'Movies I've Seen a Million Times'. This past weekend, Regina King - an actress I could not have picked out of a police lineup - talked about one such film in her family, "The Sandlot".

I'm with Regina; I could watch The Sandlot just about every weekend. What's really interesting to me is the breadth a film like The Sandlot has with a generation of kids that wasn't even born when the movie was made (1993). I was playing some whiffle-ball in the front yard the other day with some of the neighborhood kids and we were talking about baseball and dogs and such and I mentioned that whenever they were playing ball, they needed to make sure their ball didn't go over our fence. One of the boys asked me why and I replied that our new German Shepherd, Abby, was like The Beast.

I didn't even have to explain what I meant - they all knew exactly what I was talking about.

Well, naturally, reading about Ms. King's choice of a movie she could watch a million times started me thinking about films that I would put in that category, besides The Sandlot. And since I have a blog...

1. Star Wars: I'm old enough to be one of those people who doesn't call the original Star Wars film Episode IV. All that prequel stuff really made things confusing. Nowadays, if you're talking to someone and say, "Hey, did you catch the first Star Wars on TV this weekend?" they'll either say, "Do you mean Episode I or Episode IV," or "Why watch it on TV - don't you have the box-set?"

You gotta have faith...

Yes, I have a box set with all six Star Wars films; call me crazy, but I will still watch the movies on this list, commercials and all, if they come on TV. And I'll likely watch them more often that way than if I'm sitting around and think to myself, "Hey, let's pull out Episode II and make some popcorn."

2. Indiana Jones: I will change the channel in a heartbeat just to watch the opening scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. There's something about watching the Paramount logo turn into some nameless mountain in South America, followed by the haunting John Williams score, as this mysterious character in a beat-up leather jacket and fedora makes his way through the jungle with his crew of ne'er do-wells. If I have time, I will watch the entire movie, but I will at least watch it up to the part where Belloq starts monologuing to the Hovitos and Indy takes off; right there - when Belloq mimics slicing his throat with that back-and-forth shish-shish noise, and with his maniacal laugh echoing through the deadly Peruvian wilderness - man, that's movie making.

Film fail...even I know that little bag of sand won't weigh as much as a golden head

I've heard critics pan Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but I don't know, it's got all the elements of the early films and the story isn't so bad. I'm not a big fan of Shia LaBeouf but he's pretty good in Skull. Along with Star Wars, I'll watch any of the Indy films a million times.

3. That Thing You Do: It took everything I have not to put Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, National Treasure (which I watched again last night - on TV), The Mummy, Zorro, or any of another dozen movies I've watched a million times - and will likely watch a million more - on this list. Admittedly, Star Wars and Indiana Jones were low hanging fruit, but I sincerely love those movies - so they belong at the top. As I thought about other movies I have watched over and over, this one kind of popped into my head. That Thing You Do is a sometimes campy but altogether believable tale about a band from PA (that's Pee-A) who, despite all the odds, make it to the big time. They score a hit record (the title track), head to the coast (is there more than one?) getting bit parts in a cheesy 60's beach movie, only to have the band disintegrate because the principle song-writer gets a case of artiste!



I don't know what it is about this movie. Is it the music, the characters - I could make a list just including movies featuring Liv Tyler - the believable 'where are they now' credits at the end? I can't put my finger on any one thing. It's just one of those goofy, enjoyable movies that are easy to watch over and over - just like The Sandlot.

What movies are on your, "Watch it a million times" list?

X

Space, the funeral frontier

I wrote a blog entitled Space...the final frontier (that we'll never get to?) on December 6, 2011. It was all about the seeming-impossibility of humankind ever traveling to a distant, earth-like planet, despite our best efforts to find one (or more). The catch is that the planets which seem to be good candidates are so far away that we'd all be dead before we could even get close.

                                         It sure is pretty out there...

This blog - which could be construed as a follow up to my December 6th missive - may offset the notion that we shouldn't bother looking for distant, habitable worlds. Why? Because, it seems, there are a fair number of people who will pay good money to send a few of their ashes into space. As this BBC article highlights, there are people dying just to get into orbit - never mind traveling to strange, new worlds.

There is no doubt that space is an amazing place. Having recently moved to northern AL, my wife and I have already taken the time to lay in the back yard at night and gaze up into the dusky heavens while pointing out the few constellations whose names we remember. For most of us, space is something we can see but never touch. Despite decades of enjoying Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and countless other space-based offerings - including the Apollo missions - I know that I'll never get there. At least on this side of heaven.

Apparently this inability to actually get into space bugs some folks enough to shell out good money so that a tiny amount of ashen remains can be carried into space in varying degrees. I say varying degrees because there are several programs run by companies like Celestis; these programs range from shooting a tiny canister of your loved one's remains out of the atmosphere and giving the capsule or module to you after it returns to earth; to the more Trek-ish, the Voyager program is where you wave goodbye to that same small capsule/module as it heads off into deep space.

 

           These are the voyages of...some dead guy

As romantic as that sounds, I have my glass of cold water handy. Simply getting a capsule containing a single gram of ashes into space (defined as a zero-gravity environment) will cost you $995. Want a larger representative sample? To blast a module containing seven grams of ashes into space will cost you double that.

There are orbital and lunar options as well. But the creme de la creme is Celestis' Voyager program. Launching a single gram of ashen remains into deep space exploration will run $12,500; prefer the module option in which seven grams of ash can boldly go where no (dead) man has gone before? That'll be $25,000 please.

Twenty-five large - to send seven grams of ash hurtling into space?

I don't mean to be insensitive; I can definitely see the attraction. But especially after this 60 Minutes episode where it was discovered there is a fair amount of 3-card Monte going on with earthly remains in cemeteries all over the country, I'm not sure I'm up for spending the equivalent of a nicely equipped Toyota Camry on sending seven grams of my ashes into space. I mean, how do I know they won't just make a big to-do about putting my ashes in the capsule or module, give my loved one a nice plaque and go out back and dump me in the butt-can?

I know this may rain on some folks' parades but we're talking about someone who has already passed on to the happy hunting grounds, gone to be with their maker, risen into heaven or descended into Dante's Hot & Spicy. We're talking about spending a lot of money on shooting ashes into space.

I respect everyone's beliefs; I respect the fact that it may give someone closure or at least comfort to think of their loved one hurtling through the dark, airless vacuum of space. They can spend $25000 and believe that dear, sweet Harold (or Ethel) is in a better place, helping mankind chart the unknown reaches of space.

My belief is that when you die you are, well, dead. Whatever is left of your human form is a lifeless shell bereft of anything you may have been during your life. Burning that shell and shooting a portion of it off into space may sound romantic but what about the important part?

What about the soul of the person who has passed? Where is that?

In my opinion, it would be better to spend your money on taking care of your soul - and the souls of others - than worrying about these fleshy modules we inhabit here on earth.

What do I believe? God has already got a place in the heavens for me when I die. When it's my time, I won't need Celestis or anyone else to blast me into the heavens. I'll already be there.

Sorry about that old capsule I left behind...

What do you think?

X