Up the Euros!

As I was thinking about what to blog on this morning - after all, it's been several weeks since my last missive - I considered several topics. Nothing really reached out and grabbed my interest; then I remembered that there are major events happening in Europe.

Naturally, the majority of you reading this will immediately believe that this blog is about the ongoing financial crises that are wracking the economies of several members of the European Union. That is of tremendous concern, not just to the citizens of those countries, but to citizens all over the world - especially in the US where our own financial fragility could be further weakened by the collapse of Greek or Spanish economies.

However, as we are wont (to do), many of us have put aside worries over confusing and contradictory reports on the weakness of the European monetary system and focused on another major event in Europe: The 2012 European Football Championships!

Yes, it's time for football (soccer, to my heathen brothers and sisters in North America) to once again save us from the ravages of worry, taking our minds off pressing economic concerns and allowing us - at least for a few weeks - to forget our troubles and enjoy some world-class sport.

                  Spain bid Adios to the Soviets in the 1964 final

These are not your dad's Euros; this is 2012, and professional football is a global game now. In fact, this year's tournament is being co-hosted by Ukraine and Poland - very much out from under Soviet influence these days.

This year's Euros are chock full of global talent as sixteen countries vie for the coveted Henri Delaunay Cup and the right to call themselves, 'Kings of Europe'. Reigning champions Spain are in and considered by many pundits as the favorites once again. In 2008, Fernando Torres, now with Chelsea FC, scored the winning goal for the Spaniards. Torres is back on the pitch for Vicente del Bosque's stacked side.

But Spain won't walk away as re-crowned kings without a battle. Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and even somewhat home favorites Russia are all looking very strong. And of course, as we learned in 2004, even the longest shot can win; and the Greeks are in the mix again this year, salvaging a hard-fought draw against the Biale Orly (white eagles) of co-hosts Poland in the opening match yesterday.

In football, we don't get a Super Bowl every year, unless you count the UEFA Champion's League or one of the major European league championships. The World Cup happens every four years and will played next in 2014, hosted by perennial world powers Brasil. So hats off to UEFA for giving us the Euros in between - I, for one, will enjoy this year's tournament since it is being broadcast on ESPN - finally!

Today - the second day of the tournament - features two unbelievable match-ups from what is known as this year's Group of Death. Germany plays Portugal, who feature one of the two best players on the planet: Cristiano Ronaldo, aka CR7.

It's tough finding a good, short video that clearly shows this man's skill on the ball. Hopefully you get some sense of what a special player CR7 is from this one.

Still - it takes eleven players to make a team, and even Ronaldo won't win the Euros all by himself.

The other GoD (Group of Death) game today features Denmark against the Netherlands. Only the top two teams from each group advance to the quarterfinals. The Netherlands are just as stacked as Spain, Germany and others, their roster full of players who are at the top of their games in all the top leagues around Europe. On paper they should spank Denmark but on any given day...

About an hour from now, you'll find me in front of the television thanks to ESPN warming up with the Danes against the Oranje. That tasty appetizer is followed by today's main course: Germany vs. Portugal.

I'll try and get some laundry done today in between games and at halftime...maybe.

It's a great day for football!

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

#Bashtag

We are a species of complainers.

Growing up, my otherwise conservative and sensible mother unwittingly gave me a peek into the world of complaint-driven society. Two things stand out in my memory: when Mom wanted to get somewhere and another driver impeded her progress? Let's just say that if her car had an app for instantly revoking someones driver license, Mom would have worn that sucker out.

Coffee. Specifically hot coffee. I can't recall a time when we were in a restaurant and Mom did not send her after-dinner coffee back because it wasn't hot enough. Nowadays we have people suing restaurants for incidents involving too-hot coffee.

                         Did she think she was ordering frappucino?

Many of our complaints today inhabit the universe of goods and services. Who hasn't experienced an epic fail when attempting an online purchase, been on the receiving end of a totally mixed-up lunch order, or had Mr./Miss/Mrs. Customer Service make you feel like Eeyore on a bad day. JC Penney has captured the essence of this phenomena in their series of television ads featuring Ellen (last name not required if you live on Earth).

This commercial has complaint written all over it. Ellen starts off complaining about the smell; the cowboy outside the store obviously thinks Ellen is weird after the second series of horse-calling tongue clicks; the gossiping woman in the store is thinking to herself, 'How pushy!' when Ellen elbows in with, "Are you in line?" and then we get the crowning moment...the coupons. It's bad enough that I can't see or hear that word without having Ron White smirking inside my head, "Coo-puns." JC Penney obviously believes coupons are evil and, rightly so, we should be mad as heck about having to use them.

It used to be, back in the day, that you had to get in front of someone to complain. Then, we had the telephone, which allowed us to complain in local and long distance monaural freedom. I wonder if people complained via Morse code over the old wire? Can't you just hear it? Dit dit dah...dit dah dit dah...(Train coming...on time...my arthritis is acting up and them dang rustlers stole ten head of my prize-winning Holsteins).

But nowadays, we can complain on a whole new level - social networking. I am on Facebook and Twitter, although I still haven't figured out what the big deal is about tweeting. It seems like Facebook for people with short attention spans. Seriously, isn't text messaging sufficient for random, pointed thoughts? However this article on the BBC highlights how Twitter, especially, is being embraced as the new tool of modern complaint. And apparently, the corporate world listens when someone (or a hundred someones) tweets.

I'm not immune to the complaining bug; it's so easy to open that door just a crack and let out one little, 'Can you believe what Jimmy's dad did at the soccer game?' and then the next thing you know you're lighting up with your crew after church - still in the parking lot - taking shots at Jimmy, the rude checkout clerk at the grocery store, your boss, every driver in the world besides you...it's easy; there's a lot of low hanging fruit in the garden of complaint.

I don't know what the cure is. But I'm pretty sure Twitter isn't it.

I try to remember Philippians 2:14, Do all things without grumbling or questioning [ESV] (i.e. complaining).

Ephesians 4:29 [ESV] gets a little more specific: Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

It may not be as much fun as snickering about Bob as he walks by the water cooler, but we'll all be better off in the long run. I promise you, I'm trying as hard as I can!

What do you think?

X

Should we kill?

In my humble opinion, this is a sentence that should never come out of a doctor's mouth:

"I'm sorry, your baby will be born with [insert birth defect or illness here]; would you like to have it aborted?"

I know that there are most likely thousands of medical malpractice suits filed each year. [About 85,000 annually according to this report] What I did not know is that a portion of them fall into the category of Wrongful Birth.

A variety of Internet sites agree in principle that in a wrongful birth action, parents seek damages for a child born with birth defects. The claim for damages is based on the cost to parents of raising an unexpectedly defective child. There is also a companion suit known as Wrongful Life. In a wrongful life action, the child seeks damages for being born with a birth defect rather than not being born.

Let me preface my forthcoming remarks with the statement that I can in no way imagine the anguish a parent undergoes when they are faced with a newborn that will require extraordinary care. My wife and I were blessed with two healthy sons. As I suspect all parents do, we worried if anything would be wrong with our kids. My wife had amniocentesis tests during both pregnancies. And although there were a couple of things that showed up that could have had the potential of manifesting as what we would call abnormal traits, we ended up with two generally healthy - normal - boys.

The article that started me thinking about this aired on NPR this morning.


The segment highlighted Sharon and Steven Hoffman's son, Jake, who was born with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disease that mainly affects Jewish families and is usually fatal by age 4 or 5.

"There's no treatment. There's no cure. There's nothing," Sharon says.

She says her doctor did not test for the disease. At six months, Jake was diagnosed with it. The couple says he lost control of his muscles and had constant seizures. He died two years later before reaching his third birthday. Sharon says she would have had an abortion if she had known.

"There is no quality of life," Sharon says. "The only thing that you would be bringing this child into the world to do is to suffer. And die."

[Previous four (4) paragraphs quoted from this NPR report]

Again, let me state that I have no idea how I would react if I had been in Mr. Hoffman's shoes.

In a veritable whirlwind of emotional upheaval, there are two main issues here:

1. Who is at fault (i.e. guilty) for a child born with serious birth defects?
2. Can we actually take a step that requires killing a child and call it mercy?

                                                        Is justice blind?

In principle, I see clear cut cases where a trained, medical professional can screw up and directly cause something harmful to happen to a child before he or she is born. I can totally understand parents taking doctors, hospitals, etc. to task for these instances.

But what about a child that, through no fault of anyone, has a birth defect? Is it fair to sue the doctor or hospital merely because a specific test wasn't run? How many parents have sat in a medical facility and said, "Is that test really necessary?" out of concern for the mother's health or maybe for financial reasons due to limitations in health care coverage.

Are we really saying that we humans should have the power of life and death over another human if that person does not meet our standard of normal? Can we blame this on advances in medical science that give us nearly unlimited ability to diagnose fetal health? Or more accurately, the failure to employ such advances in all cases?

And that brings us to the real question we should ask ourselves: do we understand the concept of life well enough to make that decision?

What do you think?

X

I hate to hate haters

It's getting harder and harder to live a life with any belief. It doesn't matter what that belief is;

• Do you believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman? Hater.
• Do you believe that Catholic schools should be able to tailor their participation in sports based on their religious tenets? Hater.
• Do you think the so-called adoption joke in the Avenger's movie was funny? Hater.

I can agree in principle that some number of folks who seek to shut down other people who hold different viewpoints (than them) might be haters. But what about the folks that are trying to shut down conservative Christian heterosexuals, or Catholic schools, or Hollywood script writers? Isn't this a case of having your cake and eating it too?

It took me several minutes of diligent searching on the web to find this article outlining the actual events where President Obama expressed his support of same-gender marriage. That tells me the hundreds of articles, editorials and blogs I found first indicate strong opinions on the matter in our country. What's my opinion? My opinion is that it's impossible to be against something like same-gender marriage without being labeled a hater. If you're against it, it must be because you hate those who believe a same-gender marriage is okay; you're a bigot, against equal rights...maybe you pulled the wings off of live flies as a child.

In this article, I learned that Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic school forfeited the Arizona Charter Athletic Association's 1A state baseball championship game because the other team (Mesa Academy) had a girl starting at second base. The reason Our Lady of Sorrows gave was reported to be a strict parish policy against participating in coed sports. What a bunch of haters! I mean, come on...what do a bunch of musty old parish rules have to do with baseball anyway? Although the article was fair and balanced - and by that I mean it actually reported the events without seeming to cast judgment - the few comments I read at the bottom were illuminating in their hate for the Catholic school's position.

I haven't seen the Avengers movie, although I hear it's pretty good. I suppose a film that makes $200 million on it's opening weekend can't be terrible. This story making the rounds sheds some light on what seems to be a grievous mistake on the part of the film's makers: including in the script a throw-away punchline by Thor when Black Widow remarks that Loki, Thor's adopted brother, has killed 80 people in two days. Thor's response? "He's adopted."

               What do you mean I'm under arrest for hate crimes?

C'mon folks. As Inspector Kemp told us in Young Frankenstein, "A riot is an ugly thing..."

                                                          Undt!

One definition of tolerance is: A fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc. differ from one's own.

How much tolerance do people have for other people who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? How much tolerance do people have for Catholics who choose not to participate in a coed baseball game because they believe something might happen during the game that might be demeaning to a young lady? How much tolerance do adoption rights groups have for others - who may be totally on board with adoption rights or even be adopted themselves - who laugh at a joke about a mythical character being adopted?

Shouldn't tolerance be a two-way street? There are a lot of things people do that I don't agree with, but I don't hate them for it. Don't you think it's about time that we stop confusing lack of agreement with a behavior, belief, concept or principal with hate?

What do you think?

X

Why can't I be famous? Everyone else is...

Sometime in the wee hours of the morning of April 27, 2012, my blog surpassed 10,000 lifetime page views. That seems like a pretty large number to me. I've published 133 blog posts at the Blogger home of the Stream of Consciousness, beginning on August 1, 2009.

Let's break that down.

Thanks to Al Gore, I can easily use the Internet to determine that there have been exactly 1,000 days between August 1, 2009 and today. Math in factors of 10 being easy, even for a math moron like me, most of us can calculate that my readership has averaged ten page views per day I've been on Blogger. What does that mean? On average, by accident or design, ten people have landed on one of my blog pages every day for the last two years, eight months and twenty-six days.

Sure, those aren't Kim Kardashian or Tim Tebow numbers but I'm in this for the long haul - I'm not generating much Stream-sanity.

                    Ten THOUSAND page views...

As I was pondering this new milestone in my blogging career, I happened to read a thoughtful article on the types of people our modern society reveres by Simon Doonan. According to Mr. Doonan, inside most of our heads at any given time is a dynamic mosh pit of useless information on celebrity goings-on. He bemoans the loss of true accomplishment as the bellwether for celebrity.

The reason Doonan gives (in the next to last paragraph of the article) for reality stars and other non-accomplishing folks being elevated to the modern pantheon of celebrity is this:

"We are living in an everyone-is-special-and-there-are-no-losers society. As a result, we are fearful of accomplished people because they can do stuff that we cannot do, and giving them the spotlight would un-level the playing field. We are, as a result, much more comfortable with the famous-for-nothing paradigm, because then, we, the great unexceptional masses, still have (a) shot at celebrity."

I don't think this is a new concept. I could have my own little curmudgeon party while highlighting ways our society have taken competition and achievement out of the societal equation. A trite but revealing example would be in youth soccer. More than one league around the country has done away with keeping score.

Excuse me?

If you have a bunch of young boys and girls chasing around a field kicking a ball and occasionally putting said ball into one of the nets at either end of the field, but you are not keeping score, then you actually are more likely playing a dynamic game of kickball or just letting the kids participate in free play. And if it's free play you want, why do you need lines? Why do you need goals? Heck, why do you need teams? Just gather the kids together at the park, charge the parents some money and let them run around and randomly kick one ore more balls.

Kicking it old school; no unis, no cleats, no field, no goals

In this I agree with Mr. Doonan: we need to start lifting up people who actually accomplish something. Snooki doesn't deserve one iota of my time, unless we're going to have a conversation about how disappointed I suspect Jesus is with her. And before all the thou shalt not judge-nicks come out of the woodwork, I'm not judging Snooki. She is free to live her life in the way she sees fit. More power to her. But that does not mean I have to pay attention to her life or agree with it. 

However, I am allowed to disagree with it, not like it, and feel that she (and many others) are part of a burgeoning problem in our world where we mistake being famous for being useful.

What do you think?

X

Is Romney the Answer?

In the wake of Mitt Romney's April primary victories, and Rick Santorum's capitulation, it is likely that Mr. Romney will win the GOP nomination when all is said and done in Tampa this August. It should be noted that the 2012 Republican National Convention will not be held in Tampa Bay, as some sites are noting. Which is good news for everyone except scuba gear rental outlets.

          "I've wanted to be President since I was this high!"

But what platform is Mr. Romney running on? What part does his Mormon faith play in his bid to be President of the United States? For Christian conservatives, can you vote for Mitt Romney in good conscience? And what does it say about the United States when two of the major candidates for President are named Mitt and Newt?

Jordan Sekulow, Director of Policy and International Operations for the American Center for Law and Justice, decided social conservatives needed some help to see the light regarding Romney's conservative credentials. Mr. Sekulow highlighted a few of those issues in this Washington Post blog.

Abortion: Romney is against it. Unless you count his endorsement for the legalization of RU-486 - aka the morning after pill - in 2002. Yet in 2012, stumping hard for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney was quoted as saying, "Scientifically, life begins at conception."

I don't know; maybe he had a change of heart.

Family values: Mr. Sekulow highlights that Mr. Romney supports traditional marriage and that he (Romney) will appoint an Attorney General who will support The Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Romney's Mormon faith and upbringing definitely provided a foundation for a conservative position on the family.

The problem I have with Mr. Sekulow on this, and I should note I agree with him on several other issues he's championed through his work at the ACLJ, is that he is basically telling evangelical Christians, 'Never mind the Mormon thing, what's important is how Mr. Romney will deal with being President.'

One, just give me the facts and I'll make up my own mind. I don't need Mr. Sekulow or anyone else telling me, 'Vote like this.'

Two, are Mormons really Christians? Let me preface any comments with the statement that if Mr. Romney is the best man to lead our country, it should not matter that he is a Mormon. But don't tell me that it's more or less the same thing as being an evangelical Christian. I'm no theologian, and I've not had the pleasure of speaking to Mr. Romney in person about his faith. But according to reports, he was a bishop in the Mormon church (1984). And from what I've read about the Mormon faith there are some significant differences between what I believe and what Mormon's believe concerning God, Jesus, eternal life, the role of Joseph Smith, etc.

Leaving all that aside, is Romney really the person we need to lead this country back to....what? Prominence? Power? Prestige?

What should our next President focus on? Will their faith play a role - should it play a role?

What do you think?

X

Review: The Corruptible by Mark Mynheir

Gritty detectives, grisly murder scenes, femme fatales, the seedy underbelly of society...these components don't normally inhabit the novels I read. However, for my second Blogging for Books review, that's exactly what I was faced with.

Don't get me wrong; I wasn't forced to read The Corruptible [available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle versions] - I chose it from the titles available to me.

I'm still a new blogger for WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing so I don't yet have full-access library privileges. That said, The Corruptible [also available at Barnes & Noble in paperback and Nook versions] looked like an intriguing read.

Let me get the technicalities out of the way: The Corruptible is a well-put-together novel. The opening scene - the one that introduces a new reader to Private Detective Raymond Quinn - is hot with action and, in fact, has you wondering if our flawed hero is going to make it to chapter two. The middle of the book - from chapter two to somewhere in the neighborhood of chapter fifty - clips along at a nice pace. A couple of quick notes on the middle of The Corruptible: 

1. I suppose that folks who regularly read and write detective novels, whodunit's or whatever they are called these days have a feel for how long it takes to solve a case, how many twists and turns the hero experiences, how many blind alleys are explored, and all that sort of thing. Not being a veteran PI novel reader, it still seems to me that Mr. Mynheir got the middle about right.
2. The chapters are very short. I'm not sure how this would look in print - my review copy was an eBook - but it seemed like a majority of the chapters were a few pages long at most. Each chapter contained a scene; when the landscape or characters changed it was on to a new chapter. That fact was a little odd to come to grips with at first but after a while it ceased to bother me.

The ending was quite satisfactory. As I suspect most people do, I was well into the book and working to figure out who did the dirty deed right up to the end. What makes The Corruptible such an entertaining read is that there is a lot more going on than simply one case to solve. Just when I think I had it all figured out, Mr. Mynheir throws in another curve ball.

The plot of the story is well thought out and executed, as you might have gathered from my comments above. There is a large enough cast of characters to add depth to the story - and, of course, provide plenty of suspects. From vengeful ex-girlfriends to jealous competitors to violent bikers and many more, I believe it's very much the characters that drive The Corruptible. And Ray Quinn, the hero, leads the cast from the front. Quinn makes it all work. You're rooting for him by the end of the book - and in my eyes that means Mr. Mynheir has done his job well.

Honestly, I can't figure out if Mark Mynheir is an ex-cop or is still on the beat. I'm sure it's somewhere in the author's bio but it really doesn't matter. With over twenty years in law enforcement he brings a realism and dimension to The Corruptible that you just can't fake.

One other thing that struck me as different about The Corruptible - in a good way - is the locale. When I think about a gritty, detective-noir tale I can't help but think of Los Angeles in general and Hollywood in particular. I know stories like this have been staged all over the world but blame Chinatown, LA Confidential and others for putting it into my head that the city of the fallen angels is where this type of story should take place.

But The Corruptible takes place in, of all places, Orlando, Florida. We're thinking Mickey Mouse here but Detective Ray Quinn, a veteran of the Orlando Police Department and newly minted gumshoe, knows all about the darker side of life in this part of the Sunshine State - and it has nothing to do with any magic kingdoms.

For me, The Corruptible was an enjoyable, engaging departure into a genre where I don't spend much time. My opinion of the author grew exponentially as I realized he didn't rely on the typical shock tactics of bad language and sex to hook his readers. He did it the old fashioned way, with a good story, interesting characters and a colorful setting.

Here's looking at you, kid.

X

In order to comply with FTC guidelines, I am disclosing that WaterBrook Multnomah Publishers (WMP) provided me with a complimentary copy of this book for review purposes. I would personally like to state that, to my knowledge, WMP does not restrict my review submissions based on whether I submit a negative or positive opinion, and that this is as fair and unbiased a review of The Corruptible as I can present after reading the novel from front to back. As someone with limited time to read and review books, I will state that I do as much as I can in advance to determine if the novel I choose to review will be - at least - something I find interesting to read.

Ben Huh?

I always think of films such as The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur as Christian movies, but are they Christian, or merely religious?

          I'm gonna have a golden calf, see...

The Ten Commandments can't really be a Christian film per se because it depicts events that happened roughly 1500 years before the birth of Christ. But Ben Hur is absolutely in the Christian genre in my opinion. It's interesting to ponder just how many films out there could be considered religious or Christian. However, not being a film historian, any list I might put forward would simply be parroting Wikipedia or some university project. There have certainly been films in recent memory that evoke Christian themes, most of them negative:

• Constantine (2005)
• End of Days (1999)
• The Exorcist (1973)
• Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Credit Mel Gibson perhaps with kicking off a renewed interest for mainstream cinema's relationship with Christianity through the evocative and very successful, The Passion of the Christ (2004).

One of the biggest differences for me between religious films and Christian films is that one is fictional and the other is based on Biblical precedent. Gibson's Passion is based on the New Testament Gospel accounts of the arrest, death and resurrection of Jesus. Whereas films like those in my list above and even more recent offerings like Angels and Demons (2009) are fully fictional tales weaving together elements of religious text, dogma, hearsay and supposition into the plot.

The latest teen sensation film The Hunger Games, opened with a whopping $214 million at the global box office this past weekend. Flying in under that huge radar - but no less noteworthy for its top ten showing - was October Baby, a film with a very strong anti-abortion message. There has been an overwhelmingly positive response in the Christian community to October Baby, as you might imagine. It is not a Christian movie in the sense that it depicts Biblical events on the big screen. No, it's a Christian movie because it depicts a strong Christian worldview message on the big screen.

Much as the films Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof and Courageous have done, October Baby takes a real-life situation and presents compelling characters that live through it while communicating a God-honoring message. These films are not in the vein of the Left Behind series, that seek to illustrate what we read in the Bible as a modern cautionary message. They go one step further, taking life lessons that are clearly taught in Scripture and unapologetically bring them to the big screen.

Driving in to work this morning, I listened while NPR's David Greene interviewed the film's co-director Jon Erwin. Greene asked why the director believes Christian films are resonating now.

"No. 1," Erwin says, "I think that the values that we hold dear as Christians are immensely appealing — things like sacrifice and virtue and honor and destiny and things like that. ... I think when they're presented correctly, they're appealing to everybody."

Erwin said another reason is that Christians are again engaging with the arts as a faith community.

"If you think about art and faith, there was a time that Michelangelo worked for the church," Erwin says. "And there's been this bond and this link between art and faith, and somehow, I believe that in the past few decades, we've lost that."

NPR's segment noted that Erwin sees re-engaging with the arts as a way Christians can reach people and — because he believes the values being presented are good — as an effort that can only benefit people's lives.

One of the most interesting things that came out of the interviews NPR conducted was noted by Paul Bond of the Hollywood Reporter. Fox and Sony have both set up separate divisions to produce Christian films. Obviously, when a film like Passion is made for about $45 million and grosses $600 million, that's enough to make any studio sit up and take notice. But, Bond notes, when good Christian films can be made for around $2 million and bring in $20 million, that's a good investment.

Just as Christians are excited about having more - and better - film choices with movies that fit in with our worldview and don't rely on vulgarity, violence or puerile innuendo to get their message across, will the major studios ruin all that for the sake of a dollar?

And really, what should our stance be in that regard? Will it be a victory of sorts in the Christian community for mainstream studios to recognize the mass appeal of films with a Christian message? Or will it be a Judas moment when these same studios roll out films that are marketed as Christian but end up being merely religious, or worse?

Does this whole issue communicate that Christians just want to be treated fairly and have films they can go watch like everyone else, without having to ignore bad language and more? Do we believe that through an increase in Christian-themed films that we will have more success in sharing the message of Jesus Christ with others?

Or is this a slippery slope that we were warned about in Romans 12:2?

Don't get me wrong, I've seen most of the Sherwood Pictures films listed above, and they are awesome. But I wonder at what point in the future we will confuse the medium with the message...

What do you think?

X

Psst, I've got what you need...

I had an epiphany this week, you know, one of those moments when a life truth becomes clear. It's as if someone turns on a light bulb in a dark room allows you to see everything clearly, without shadow. I think I was close to knowing the full impact of this truth but it really solidified for me while watching a commercial.

The nature of addiction, while in no small part a personality trait, is also being fed from Madison Avenue. I'm not talking about you being a crackhead...just bear with me. Before you call me crazy and ask the smiling young men in their crisp, white coats to come and escort me from the premises, take a look at this:



I stopped drinking several years ago, but before that decision Captain Morgan was at the top of my list. Let me tell you, if you like drinking rum and coke (Cuba Libre for the drinkeratti), that stuff tastes good. Alcohol that tastes good is a problem. Why? Because so many of us have addictive personalities...that's why. The makers of Captain Morgan rum KNOW it tastes good - so what do they advertise? The concept that you can be a free-wheeling, stylish, trend-setting privateer (okay, pirate), and party like a rock star...IF you drink Captain Morgan rum.

I'm not going to show all the videos that depend on the incredibly large blind spot that most men have: that little voice (mostly wrong) that whispers in your inner ear how female women of the opposite gender dig you; even if you look like Shrek. But no matter how much we learn to quiet our inner Depp, Hardee's, Victoria's Secret, Fiat, and on and on and on - so many companies you couldn't count them - want you to believe that if you buy their car, their food, their booze, their clothes, etc. that you can have a relationship of some sort with the dad-gum hawtest woman on the planet.

Doh! Yeah right, Homer. Can I get a bite of that Hardee's Jalapeno Burger?

This isn't a new concept: that advertising seeks to manipulate us into buy things we don't need. But it all revolves around the core products that most of us think we do need. I mean, we all need a car to get to work, we all want to go out and enjoy a meal, we all want to save money; and that last one is my pet peeve. It's like the 10 for $10 ploy at the grocery store. For goodness' sake people - if you only need one of something, and you can get them for a dollar apiece, where is the sense in buying ten of them at one time in order to not save money?

"But this price will never come around again."

[Insert mental image of me squinting, grinding my teeth and making an anguished, groaning sound]

Really? Do you believe that a discount on tomato paste will NEVER be that low, ever again?

If price is determined by the buyer's concept of value, then value is determined by the amount of need that can be created in a potential customer.



I guess you really need to go get you some Ragu spaghetti sauce right now.

I'll wait. I wouldn't want you to have to tie cooked pasta into your hair in order to get your wolf cubs to eat dinner.

I work in technology. I've lived through dialing up to those old bulletin board sites at 300 baud, loafed along the Information Superhighway at 45 Megabits per second, and everything in between. Naturally, I love to cruise at DS3 speed, but why? I'll tell you why, because instead of ASCII-based bulletin board sites, I'm now hitting web sites that I couldn't even view without decent download speeds. You're able to click on these YouTube videos and watch them just like they were playing on your television because you have high speed Internet service.

Back in 1999, we lived in Dubai, and had dial-up Internet access at home (work too, for that matter). We waited about two hours for the thirty second (0:30) trailer for Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace to download so I could introduce our children to that epic series.

Today? Click on the link above and you can watch the one minute and thirty second (1:30) trailer for the 3-D version. I did, and it streamed instantly, seamlessly, over my cable Internet connection. What a difference thirteen years makes.

But the point is, I believe the marketplace is driving our need for speed. In 1977 when the original Star Wars film was released, I couldn't even watch a trailer for the film unless I was in a theater watching some other film. Today, online trailers are almost a given as we decide what films we're going to blow $8-10 bucks apiece on.

It's a barrage of information. Why is that?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports these interesting statistics concerning the prevalence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) among kids:

• The percentage of children with a parent-reported ADHD diagnosis increased by 22% between 2003 and 2007
• Rates of ADHD diagnosis increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of 5.5% per year from 2003 to 2007

What does that have to do with anything?

Why do we believe multi-tasking is a good idea? Who told us that being able to have a bunch of stuff and do a bunch of things at one time is a good idea? I'll give you one guess...

NPR aired a segment this week that debunks the popular notion that multi-tasking is a desirable state of being to strive for. In their report it notes that the Roman sage Publilius Syrus wisely stated some 2,000 years ago that, "To do two things at once is to do neither."

And that brings me to my final point today:

Why do you know this man?

You know him because he's the face of a drug that advertises itself as a, ahem, performance enhancer.

Why do you need a performance enhancer? Because Madison Avenue says you do.

Back in the day, when men aged, things slowed down; aches and pains crept in; and we all pretty much accepted the situation as a part of life. 

But not any more.

Why? An ABC News report from 2005 (ancient history in statistical terms) noted that the herbal supplement market - of which these performance enhancers are a large part - amounted to more than $26 billion (yes, that's billion with a 'B') per year.

ABC highlighted a particular company that was spending $1 million per month advertising their products; products for which there was no scientific evidence for any benefit. Crazy, right? Except for the fact that this company had revenues of $75 million.

So you tell me. What do you need?

X