Thursday July 29, 2004 
|
|
|
All
|
Holes in the Water
|
Non Sequitur
|
Sun
|
The Orthodox Church
|
What's in the CD player?
|
What's in the DVD player?
|
What's on the bookshelf?
Thursday July 29, 2004
I have mixed feelings about Sheryl Crow. On the upside, she's a great songwriter and musician, and to my mind, she is the exemplar of great pop music. (I wouldn't call it rock -- her median stuff would need to be a little rowdier, a little less polished, to fit that bill.) On the downside, her voice, while lovely, is underpowered and often overwhelmed by her arrangements. Like Michael McDonald, she may be more naturally a backup singer than a lead vocalist. Nonetheless, on this album, she does a bang-up job, and really earned her stars. Partly because the tunes are great, partly because the album is consistently well-arranged and well-mixed, so she doesn't get lost in it, and partly because she's gotten herself some big name backup talent, most of whom really complement her singing. I particularly enjoy her duets with Lenny Kravitz on "You're An Original" and with Natalie Maines (of the Dixie Chicks) on "Abilene"; Liz Phair, whose voice is so much like Crow's that it's almost a (great) sound effect, really spices up the summer anthem, "Soak Up the Sun". Rounding out the duets, Don Henley, I thought, made "It's So Easy" kind of sappy, and I was unimpressed with Stevie Nicks's contributions to "Diamond Road" and the title track. Gwyneth Paltrow actually does a credible job on "It's Only Love", though I enjoyed her much more teamed up with Huey Lewis on "Cruisin'", where she really stood out. The liveliest tracks on the album are "Steve McQueen", "Soak Up The Sun", "You're An Original", and "Abilene". (I really enjoyed the latter.) But the best songs, to my mind, are "Safe and Sound", which I will forever associate with 9/11 and the "America - A Tribute to Heroes" concert, and -- backed brilliantly by Emmylou Harris -- the mournful, haunting "Weather Channel":
Can you make it better for me The words alone don't do it justice; together with the music, it's heart-breaking perfection. And it is in this essentially acoustic arrangement that Crow's voice just shines. C'Mon, C'Mon, Sheryl, give us more like this one! (2004-07-29 08:23:42.0) Permalink
Wednesday July 28, 2004 I've been dreading this week, as the Democratic National Convention has taken over the city of Boston. Partly because, for security reasons, they've shut down most every major roadway into or out of the city. So far, though, the long anticipated traffic jams have not materialized. But mostly, because of the threat of another big-ticket terrorist attack, as so many have warned us about. I am on pins and needles, hoping and praying that that does not materialize either. But for as eager as I am for this all to be over, and for everyone to go home, and for life in Boston to return to normal, I have to admit I've been fascinated to watch the convention itself unfold. I've only heard bit and pieces of the speeches, but what I have heard has really affected me and impressed me in ways I did not expect. These are some initial observations, and I have to warn you, I'm about to express some political opinions here. If that sort of thing bothers you, please don't read on. I'm grateful that we all have the right to express our opinions in this country -- though that right seems more in jeopardy under the current administration than it has in my lifetime, and that, to me, is a very scary thought. I thought Bill Clinton was amazing. He had intelligence (another difference from the current administration, in both the espionage and cranial senses), a sense of humor, self-knowledge, and good heavens, what a powerful speaker. I do not disavow my earlier, entirely lousy opinion of a guy who would have been fired from every workplace I've ever worked at for what he did with his intern, and for lying repeatedly, publicly, and under oath. But it's been so long since I've heard such compelling oration and felt such leadership presence from a President (excepting the replays of some of Ronald Reagan's speechs when he passed away), it was completely refreshing. He can pronounce "nuclear". He didn't smirk. I can hardly believe those things would mean so much to me. The juxtaposition of his Presidential competence with his un-Christian behavior, contrasted with the current President's lack of competence (remember, I'm just stating an opinion) and staunch Christianity, made for an interesting discussion with my now-eligible-to-vote daughter about the extent to which any one factor, whether religious belief, support for or opposition to legalized abortion, stem cell research, etc., should govern the choice of candidate. Factor in the statements made by certain Roman Catholic bishops, and even some Orthodox, on the propriety of Christian politicians supporting certain positions, and the propriety of Christian voters voting for them, and it becomes a really interesting and complex discussion. I thought Ron Reagan was very effective last night, in his speech on stem cell research. Personally, this is a topic I find very troubling. No doubt the medical advances such research will bring will save many lives, and in every likelihood, the lives of people close to me. At the same time, to my mind, the embryos from which these stem cells are harvested are human beings, not just in theory, but in fact. Left to their own devices, they'd turn into people just like the ones who'd benefit from their curative powers. And anything that trades off one human life for another, again in my opinion, puts us on a pretty slippery slope. Reagan said that these embryos (and I'm paraphrasing here) "have no brain, no spinal cord -- they feel no pain." I can think of many other situations where we would never callously terminate a life because it was lacking these capacities. At what point is someone or something a human being? At what point do we recognize, value, and protect their life? I'm not claiming to have the answers to all these questions, though I do support my church's teaching that life begins at conception. I'm simply saying that it is a troubling issue for me, and I appreciate and respect the competence with which Reagan presented his position.* I thought Teresa Heinz Kerry was fantastic last night, not so much because of what she said, but because of who she is and what she believes in. In fact -- and now, look out, this is going to get really political -- it seems to me that in general, the speakers at this convention, as I described it to my wife last night, "really seem to want to help old people and children, and are not just saying it to get elected." They really seem to value the things that I do, both domestically, and especially in terms of our place in the world. I can't remember who said it, but I thought the remark that "we will be more secure by isolating the terrorists rather than isolating ourselves" captures one of the biggest grievances I have against the current administration, and one of my fondest hopes for the next. It never ceases to amaze me how much damage we've done to America's place in the world in a mere four years. I can only hope that we can un-do the damage in some reasonable period of time. In case you're wondering, after all this flaming political commentary, I'm actually a registered Republican. Okay, I'll 'fess up -- I became one so I could vote for John McCain in the last presidential primary, and I never bothered to switch back. I probably would have voted for McCain if he'd been running against Al Gore. So I'm not a party-guy in the traditional sense. But it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that what they're saying in Boston -- even if I can't get over reprehensible personal behavior on the part of our leaders, or if individual positions are being taken that I don't agree with -- what they're saying in Boston is striking powerful chords with me. And for as much as I wish this convention were over, or at least somewhere else, it means a lot to me that it's here, and I'm proud that we're hosting it in my city. And you know that I'll be tuning in for the next two nights, hoping that Edwards and Kerry can live up to their introductions.
---------- (2004-07-28 07:34:37.0) Permalink
Monday July 26, 2004 Those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer
Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer Here in Massachusetts, I wish that summer would just get here already! It's still cool in the evenings, low 60s; no balmy breezes, no crickets chirping. Not even bats flapping around drunkenly at dusk. More like the middle of May than like the end of July. Yesterday afternoon was decent enough, though, and I took the opportunity to go kayaking on Lake Cochichewick, which is just a mile down the road from my house. Lake Cochichewick is our town water supply, and in the wake of 9/11, I never expected they'd open it up for recreational use -- but back in May, 2002, unbeknownst to most everybody, they started issuing boating permits: Certain watercrafts are allowed and must be designed to be manually propelled by oars or paddles. Rowing shells, johnboats, dinghies, rowboats, canoes and kayaks are acceptable as long as the occupants are isolated from contact with the lake. Boats must not have any thru-holes (e.g. self-bailers) that would allow contact between the occupants and the lake water. Electric motors are acceptable as an alternate form of propulsion. The maximum length of a motorized craft is 15 feet. Inflatable boats, windsurfers and seaplanes are not allowed. No domestic animals are allowed to be in boats, on the ice, or in the water at any time. All I care about is the kayak part. I don't have a seaplane (a rowing shell, a johnboat, or a dinghy), and my dog hates the water. Anyway, they never made much noise about starting to issue permits, so it was two years (this spring) before I heard about it. My wife brought back news from the local YMCA, which is like the General Store of old. Keep your ears open there, and you will soon know everything that goes on in our town. Everything. This one bit of news was a surprise and a delight. A delight because the lake is absolutely pristine and beautiful, big enough to be interesting, small enough to circumnavigate in a couple or three hours, depending on how hard you want to paddle. A surprise because it backs up on dozens of multi-million dollar estates, and I figured their owners would never go for boaters in their back yard. But (to extend the musical theme) "this land is your land, this land is my land", and as the town lake, I guess it's more or less my lake, at least to share. My favorite house -- which I could never even see, much less approach from the front -- literally sits in the lake. It's just across the way from the foundation of the original North Andover Country Club clubhouse. The Trustees of Reservations write, in their description of Weir Hill (which borders the lake), "Moses T. Stevens helped found the North Andover Country Club, which built in 1897 a clubhouse whose half-hidden foundation can be seen in the southeast corner of Weir Hill, right on the shore of Lake Cochichewick." The foundation of this house doesn't match the rest of it -- there are these strange-looking, bricked-up portals in what would normally be, on a land-sitting house, the basement. So it's plausible that it was, once, the foundation for a different sort of structure. "At the time, members would paddle across the lake to the links to play golf and then back to the club house for dinner and dancing in the evening." I'm guessing this is where they pulled up on the golf course side. How totally cool. I was walking -- or rather paddling -- in the footsteps of history, and I didn't even know it. What made the day complete for me was, of course, stopping for ice cream on the way home. (Being only a mile from the house, this was truly serendipitous.) Treadwell's Ice Cream sits on the corner of Rtes. 125 and 133, just off the northern tip of the lake. In keeping with the outdoors, fresh air, healthy theme of the day, I made it a fresh raspberry sundae with low carb vanilla ice cream and no nuts on the whip cream. I hope you had as much fun as I did on that (rare) lazy, hazy, crazy summer afternoon.
---------- (2004-07-26 18:23:29.0) Permalink
Saturday July 24, 2004 In this third and final installment, here's the scoop on three of my favorite Vegas attractions. The last time we visited "Everything Coca-Cola", maybe four years ago, we had a blast. The third floor of the building featured Coca-Cola products from all over the world, which you could sample to your heart's content from twenty-some free dispensers. Some of the beverages were totally unlike what we drink here in the US -- it was a real eye-opener. My favorite part, however, was this sort of Rube Goldberg fountain contraption on the fourth floor that shot soda water in a huge arc, landing it in a cup which contained just the right amount of syrup (Coke's secret sauce) to produce the perfect, freshly mixed drink. It was amazing -- the best thing I ever tasted. I became so enamored of Coke on that trip, I started drinking it by the bucket at home. I couldn't get enough. Then I checked the scale... and eventually switched to the (nasty-tasting, battery-acid-lite) diet version. It just wasn't the same. And neither was "Everything Coca-Cola" this time around. The top two floors of the attraction were closed down (permanently, as far I can can tell -- I couldn't even find a good URL to link to), leaving only the retail store on the first two floors. Yawn. They did offer one international sampler at the soda fountain on the second floor, but it wasn't the same. Not even close. This one's off my list for our next visit. (You might have better luck visiting the World of Coca-Cola in Atlanta. I think they feature the stuff their Las Vegas location no longer does.) On the other hand, M&M World was even better than I remembered it from last time. In addition to a great retail facility (M&M's don't come in quite as many colors as Crayola Crayons, but they're close), on the fourth floor, they have an exhibit on the M&M NASCAR Racing Team, and also offer for sale the most garish and wonderful logo jackets. (What you see here in twill, they offer in leather.) But the third floor is the real treat. A 3-D (more on this shortly) movie featuring both live actors and cartoon candies in search of the "M" one of them lost in a poker match. They really did a nice job on this -- the kind of thing anyone would enjoy, from toddlers to grandparents. Even my teenagers got a kick out of it. Step back for a bit, and think about all this company has made, brand-wise, from some candy-coated chocolates -- to the point where the candies star in movies, and a $350 leather jacket seems like quite a desirable souvenir -- and you have to give them credit. This one's a keeper for the next visit, to be sure. Star Trek: The Experience is for me, though, the pinnacle of Vegas attractions. In addition to a great retail facility with every sort of Star Trek merchandise you can imagine, and the tasty Quark's Bar and Restaurant (they're particularly proud of the Holy Rings of Betazed and the Flaming Ribs of Targ), and, in their museum section, the largest collection of Star Trek paraphernalia in the world, they now feature two interactive adventures. "Klingon Encounter" has been around for a few years; this was my third trip through. Under the pretext of being rescued from Klingon kidnappers hoping to take Jean-Luc Picard out of the picture by absconding with one of his ancestors (you, or one of your fellow tourists!), you get a very cool virtual roller coaster ride that starts out in a wormhole and winds up in an elevator shaft at the Las Vegas Hilton (which hosts the attraction as a permanent exhibit). Very much fun, very realistic pitching and yawing -- so if you get motion sick or don't do roller coasters, maybe this is not the thing for you. They still barf in the 23rd Century. The piece de resistance, however, is the new "Borg Invasion 4D", the next generation (no pun intended :) in virtual, interactive experiences. The 3D aspect is provided, as it is in the M&M movie, via the same old 3D glasses we remember from the B-movies of yore (or more recently, Spy Kids 3-D). The fourth D is... em... tactile, and I don't want to tell you much more than that for fear of ruining the surprise. Suffice it to say that at one point in the movie, everyone on the bridge (oh alright, in the theater) was screaming. I was neither the loudest nor the least loud, but I was right in there with them. (To be fair to the M&M folks, they also include some tactile elements in their movie, so I suppose they could append the 4D moniker as well, if they chose to. But I would much rather face a room full of hostile fat-pills than one Borg with his... eye... on me, and the Star Trek adventure conveys the tension brilliantly.) One ticket gets you admission to the museum and both adventures -- but it's a $30 ticket, so this isn't exactly one of those 'free' Vegas attractions you hear so much about. For a Trekkie, however, it is a pilgrimmage you must make, and more than once. For spouses and children of Trekkies, it is the perfect way to show your love for him or her, and you will endear yourself to them forever. Finally, one other adventure we experienced without intending to: the Las Vegas Strip Trolley. Avoid it. It's hot, crowded, SLOW, and offers 4D elements you really have no interest in encountering, such as lack of oxygen, sweaty tourists packed in like sausages, and in our case, a conductor who thought her Frau Farbissina-like screams of instruction were funny, but they were really only painful. For another take on your own Vegas Vacation, check out USAToday's Good bets for fun in Las Vegas. (2004-07-24 12:25:10.0) Permalink
Friday July 23, 2004 The Mother Of All Campaign Ads This bi-partisan campaign ad is sure to offend both Republicans and Democrats, Bush fans and Kerry fans, in equal measure. Rated PG-13, by the way, so don't play it in front of the kiddies. (2004-07-23 15:23:36.0) Permalink
Thursday July 22, 2004 Good News on the Stock Options Front One of my first postings here was a (okay, long) diatribe against the mandatory expensing of stock options. We got some good news on this front on Tuesday, when the House of Representatives voted 312-111 in favor of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act of 2003 (HR 3574), a bill which would delay and mitigate the impact of proposed regulations from the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB). There were many good write ups on this, including articles in the San Francisco Chronicle ("House OKs measure to shield stock options") and USA Today ("Tech lobbyists applaud House stock-options vote"). This is, however, just the first hurdle. Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, and other influencial parties have expressed opposition to interfering with the FASB regulation, and passage through the Senate, much less presidential signature into law, are far from given. But it is a big step -- an overwhelming, bi-partisan majority in the House -- in the right direction. Kudos to House Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Richard H. Baker (R-LA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) for their leadership on this issue. I had the opportunity to hear Congressman Baker speak during my trip to Washington this spring, and he was extremely impressive. (I'd say that regardless of his position on expensing.) He was a very bright, forthright guy -- the kind of person you're glad to see in government, the kind of person you hope will run for national office someday. To see how your representative voted on HR 3574, you can check this roll call published by the House of Representatives. (2004-07-22 17:57:32.0) Permalink
Wednesday July 21, 2004 As promised, here's a quick tour of the Mandalay Bay's pools, where we spent the bulk of our waking hours last week. (Not at the slot machines -- sorry to disappoint you!) If you go to resort's beach page, on the left hand side of the screen, you'll see a three slide animation showing the beach/wave pool area, a perky lifeguard (of whom there were many, all sporting these flotation belts that look like the thing Fat Bastard wore around his waist when he was masquerading as a sumo wrestler in Austin Powers 3, though of course it looked better on them), and finally -- my favorite area -- the "Lazy River". There's a nice little virtual tour of the beach as well, which is essentially what you'd see if you were Linda Blair in The Exorcist and you could spin your head around 360 degrees without getting a crick in your neck. I'm all done with the bizarre movie references now. Anyway, the big questions are (1) do you go for the cabana at $100 per day, and (2) if not, where do you sit? While lots of friendly folks had recommended the cabanas -- which include ceiling fans, televisions, even those nifty spray misters -- we found that by carefully selecting a spot to sit, we could live without them quite happily. They may be more necessary on peak days, during peak seasons, when unoccupied lounge chairs are few and far between. (You may need to reserve them up to a week in advance under those circumstances.) On the beach near the wave pool, there are lots and lots of chaise lounges, tightly packed together. So my advice would be to get there early (by 10:00, say), and select something at the very front, at the very back, or not too far from one of the walkways leading down to the water. That will minimize the time you have to spend picking your way inchingly between your sunscreen-slathered neighbors. The wave pool itself is really sweet: medium sized waves (not big enough to knock you over unless you're pretty tippy to begin with), coming at a fixed, leisurely pace, clean and sand-free. It doesn't have all the romance of the real thing, to be sure, but then again you aren't going to get bowled over only to come up with your swim trunks full of sand (in all the wrong places) either. Along the banks of the Lazy River, there are fewer lounge chairs, but if you pick carefully -- and my recommendation would be the ones nearest the Border Grill -- you can get close to the river; under a palm tree which provides, on that side of the pool, afternoon shade; and depending on your preference, within squirting range of one of the tree-based misters. It doesn't get any better than that, except when the cocktail waitress strolls by to deliver your Banana Banshee. The Lazy River itself is maybe two people wide if they're in tubes ($20 per day), three-four people wide otherwise, and follows a looping, roughly oval-shaped course. The water moves a long at a not-all-that-lazy two miles per hour, which is a nice cruising speed if you're floating. You can even, more or less, "water ski" on your feet -- the friction on the bottom of the pool is only slightly more than the push of the current, so if you're light on your feet, you can get quite a ride. Very relaxing! (Do watch out, though, for the two waterfalls you float under; the water comes down pretty hard, and knocked the Foster Grant's off my head the first time around.) It's even more fun to lounge on the banks and watch your neighbors float by. There are three other, more traditional pools (for the less imaginative): one near the Lazy River, that looked quite nice; one further away that my wife and daughter preferred because it was quiet and much emptier (though it overlooked a parking lot, which took all the magic away for me); and one I guess I never found! Can't complain, though. Between the four I did find, there was always a space for me, for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and another Banana Banshee. Next installment (of the blog, not of Harry Potter), we'll go off property to "Everything Coca-Cola", "M&M World", and "Star Trek: The Experience." Stay tuned! (2004-07-21 17:47:49.0) Permalink Comments [2]
Monday July 19, 2004 Top Ten Signs There's Something Terribly Wrong At McDonald's This is apropos of nothing (and thus the perfect non sequitur), but they played it on the radio this morning as I was driving into work, and it cracked me up. Dating back to December 18, 2002, here's David Letterman's "Top Ten Signs There's Something Terribly Wrong At McDonald's":
10. Your order Filet-o-Fish and the cashier makes the sign of the cross
And the number one sign there's something terribly wrong at McDonald's: 1. Happy Meal toy: cigarettes (2004-07-19 07:02:39.0) Permalink
Sunday July 18, 2004 You all were very kind to keep visiting while I was away this week. Thank you! So for your reward, here are a few hot tips from my family's sunny six days in Las Vegas. The Mandalay Bay was spectacular. The default room was huge -- plenty of room for the two queen-sized beds, and the rollaway for Joe fit in a nook near the entryway -- completely out of the way. It's never easy having four people in a room (two of them being teenagers, especially), but this is as close as it's ever come. Two closets, two sinks, closed off toilet in the bathroom (which included a huge tub as well as a separate shower) -- very family-friendly. On the downside -- and this isn't particular to the Mandalay -- there's an extra charge for extra people (beyond 2) in your room. So in our case, you can take the great-looking room rates on the web site and add $35 for each of the two kids, plus $20 for the rollaway, for each night. At a certain point (which we long passed, according to Lizzie), getting separate rooms for the kids makes sense. Just do the math. By the way, you'll notice that for most hotels, the room rates vary per night, based on (I'm sure) supply and demand, in the form of vacancy rates. So Sunday through Thursday nights were pretty reasonable (with some variance each night), Friday was an arm and a leg. Also, the hotel is a lot less crowded during the week, as are all the attractions, so plan accordingly. Fun stuff at the hotel included the Shark Reef, a predator-exclusive aquarium which includes the only hammerhead shark in captivity, and at the opposite corner of the immaculate property -- a windey walk through the casino -- Mandalay Place shopping mall, which is on the walkway between the Mandalay Bay and the Luxor. Outside of shark-gazing and shopping, perhaps our favorite thing to do as a family is eat out (the whole trip was basically an excuse to do just that for a whole week), and there are a dozen top-shelf restaurants between the hotel and the shopping mall. Our favorites were the Burger Bar in Mandalay Place (honestly, I think it was our best meal: the black angus burger, with jalapeno bacon, pepper jack cheese, and more jalapenos on the side, was to die for, and so were the sweet potato fries), House of Blues (the breakfasts and lunches we had there were excellent, and really quite reasonable, price-wise), and the Bay Side Buffet. Now on the latter, nobody in my family wanted to go to a buffet. They didn't like the idea. Until they tried it. You name it, you can get it there, top quality, ultimate pig-out. And for the money (dinner was about $22 per person), it's an unbeatable value. Dinner for four at the Burger Bar was more than the prime-rib grazing we did at the buffet. Another favorite was Chocolate Swan, where you can find a wide variety of custards (kind of like upscale homemade soft-serve ice cream), cheese cakes, pastries and chocolates -- my (our) advice would be to skip dessert wherever you get your dinner or lunch (or breakfast), and high-tail it over to Chocolate Swan. We frequented the one on the lower floor, right outside the entrance to Mandalay Bay. Lots of people-watching opportunities, and there's a nice little bookstore to browse while you're waiting for your blood sugar to come back to normal. The only place I wasn't crazy about was the Border Grill at the Mandalay. It was good, but not great -- and given that it's relatively pricey, and that the portions are more California than Las Vegas-sized, it's not at the top of my list. The kids enjoyed it, though, and our second time there, we were serenaded by a trio singing what I fondly remember as the "Frito Bandito" song. That part, I liked. Working up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, having covered shelter and food, we come to pools, and there, the Mandalay is especially hard to beat. I'll be back later to tell you all about 'em. And -- of course -- about the Borg Invasion 4-D! (2004-07-18 10:34:29.0) Permalink
Saturday July 10, 2004 The Two-Edged Sword of Freedom Well, I can't say y'all were very much help in the sermon department, but my son Joe came through with a great insight, and that did the trick. This is, more or less, what I talked about last Sunday, July 4, on which we read the gospel account of the Gergesene demoniacs, and celebrated the memory of, among others, St. Andrew of Crete and Tsar Nicholas and the Royal Martyrs of Russia. What do these things (including Independence Day) have to do with one another? Not much, on the surface. But if you think about it, there's a common thread that connects them all, and that is the idea of freedom. Freedom is our greatest gift from God; it is His image in us. Free will is that in us which makes us like God. Think back to the Garden of Eden, and the very first thing God gives Adam to do: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." (Genesis 2:19) Adam shares in the act of creation with God; God forms the thing, and (this is so cool) He immediately brings it to Adam to see what its name should be -- and think of "name" in the loaded biblical sense of containing something of the essence of the thing. Our free will makes us like God, in a good way. But the next thing you know, we misuse the gift. The serpent tells Eve a lie -- a half-truth, really, which is the most pernicious kind of lie: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:1-4) The serpent was correct; eating the forbidden fruit (note that it never says it was an apple) bestows on Eve,and then on Adam, another attribute of God -- but it was a gift they were not ready for, a gift they had been forbidden by God for their own protection. (Fire can be handy to have around, but we don't let children play with matches.) Trying to be God-like without God, God-like on their own terms, they broke off from the source of their life and well-being, were banished from the Garden, and... well, that explains so very much of the world we see around us today. Freedom used poorly leads to disaster. St. Andrew of Crete, in his Great Penitential Canon, spends a great deal of time lamenting our fall. He also considers, of course, the central and most important event in the Old Testament, the exodus of the Children of Israel from their captivity in Egypt. Think back: God gives His people the gift of freedom; they cross the Red Sea and journey to Mount Sinai, where God calls Moses to come to Him on the mountain, to receive the law. What happens next? Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!" (Exodus 32:1-4) Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Israelites tried to make their own god, on their own terms (this time, a calf, rather than themselves); once again, they broke off from the source of their life and well-being, and after a number of rounds of this sort of thing in the wilderness, God more or less gave up on their whole generation (but for Joshua and Caleb, who alone were faithful to Him). There was no hope for them, only for their children. Freedom used poorly leads to disaster. Now, let's take a huge leap in time, and consider (briefly) the Russian revolution. The people rebelled against a repressive feudal society, exercising their free will. But they turned against God and the Church in the process, killing the Royal Family and hundreds of thousands of bishops, priests, deacons, monks and nuns -- and for their trouble, suffered for seventy years under the even-more-repressive Soviet regime. Freedom used poorly leads to disaster. Or consider the American revolution. Our forefathers rebelled against repressive Colonial rule from England, which rebellion we obviously consider to be a good thing, given that we're celebrating its 228th anniversary on July 4. And yet... without repeating the sermon on Reality TV, you have to admit that we're not using our freedom very wisely. God seems fairly far out of our picture. We exercise our free will -- consistently -- with no regard for its giver, or His intentions in giving it to us. You have to wonder what the outcome will be. Given our track record since the (very) beginning, it's bound to get us into trouble one of these days. It turns out, however, that the starkest example of all is in the gospel reading from St. Matthew. My son reminded me that the same demons who were possessing the two Gergesene men were once angels, and that the angels were free. Lucifer, the most radiant of them all (his name means "Light-bearer"), led half of their cohort in rebellion against God. (Purportedly because they were incensed -- no pun intended -- that the image of God was in man, not in angels, and that the Son of God would become incarnate in human form rather than angelic.) These fallen angels -- who used their freedom so poorly -- show plainly what is the outcome of such poor use: defilement and self-destruction: Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Matthew 8:30-32) This is the unavoidable end of the misuse of the great gift of freedom, truly a two-edged sword. Of course, what should frighten us the most is the epilogue of the gospel story: "Then those who kept [the herd of swine] fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region." (Matthew 8:33-34) In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve turned away from God, unknowing. In Jesus's time, the Gergesenes turned away from God, unknowing -- even casting Him out of their city. Two thousand years later, are we any wiser? (2004-07-10 16:55:15.0) Permalink Comments [1]
Thursday July 08, 2004
Another rainy summer day in Boston, another movie. (It feels like maybe I caught the wrong connection out of O'Hare and wound up in Seattle by mistake.) This time, King Arthur, "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend", or so boasts the official website. I think they're claiming it's the true story because it would be hard to prove either way. While it is not hard at all to prove that this is a pretty lame-o flick. First, to the plot. Now, I'm a big fan of the Arthurian Legend in all its many forms. I have been for 30 years. New twists don't bother me; in fact, once you've read up on it a bit, you realize that you're dealing with a thousand year-old series of variations on a theme, rather than a "canonical" version with "heretical" offshoots, to borrow some church lingo. (Personal favorite: Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon.) So imagination and improvisation are fine by me. But where they came up with the legend of the Sarmatian Knights, I will never know. Perhaps the Mandingo Warriors were busy and and these guys were the B-Team. Chronology-wise, I'm fine with the Dark Ages setting of the movie, and the idea of an alliance between Arthur and the Wolds (pagan tribesmen from the north of Britain). But other than one fleeting remark from Merlin -- who is, I swear, the spitting image of Saddam Hussein with his prison haircut -- there is no explanation of why these tribes are taking Arthur, until moments ago, their archenemy, as their war leader, much less their king. And somehow, unbeknownst to... anybody..., they've worked out this intricate co-op battle plan to whomp the Saxons, who are being led by some guy doing a very bad Nick-Nolte-imitating-Marlon-Brando-playing-Vito-Corleone accent. I don't know when they could have had time to work it out. The only tribesperson Arthur converses with, apart from Merlin and one rather testy captive, is Keira Knightley. (I think it's because she's the only one of the actors he's ever heard of, and he wants to get her autograph or something.) And most of their talk is pillow talk, or whatever passed for a pillow back there in the dark ages. There is no hint of the tragic Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle that plays such a pivotal role in later versions of the legend. Lance checks her out through an open bathroom window, that's all. She doesn't even notice. Second, to the battle sceneszzzzZZZ.... I'm sorry. After Braveheart, and the battles of Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, watching this baker's dozen of Sarmatian Knights join forces with a pack of Wild Wolds (who look like the Blue Man Group after a pop-up rainstorm) to drive Hagar the Horrible and his butt-ugly kid out of Dodge City just doesn't cut it. I've seen hockey fights on a grander scale. (Between opposing parents, of course!) Third, to the cast. Who are these people? I'm serious -- here's a list of them: Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Hugh Dancy (Galahad) -- have you heard of any of 'em? Keira Knightley is it, and she's either working under some old (unfortunate) contract she signed, looking for her big break, or she lost a bet. Actually, once you see her going into battle -- painted blue and wearing what looks like a pair of strategically-placed leather belts and not much more -- you'll go for the lost-a-bet angle. She doesn't even look good. How'd they screw that up? I would have expected more from Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean and Black Hawk Down; he knows how to make fun movies and action movies, and in Armageddon, both. I'm not sure I would have from Antoine Fuqua, the director of Training Day. I hated that movie. This one, I didn't hate -- I just didn't find it anywhere near as good most of the other ones out there. (2004-07-08 11:47:36.0) Permalink Comments [4]
Wednesday July 07, 2004 "The utterance of the man whose eyes are opened..." I'm quoting Balaam the son of Beor here, from Numbers 24, vv. 3 and 15. I have a soft spot for the guy -- I always have. This despite the fact that he's roundly condemned from the Book of Numbers, where he first appears, all the way through the Revelation. In the New Testament alone, Sts. Peter, Jude, and John all take swings at him. So clearly I've got it wrong about him. Which is why I bring him up. My eyes were opened earlier this week in regards to something else I was wrong about. And it was interesting enough -- to me, anyway -- that I wanted to share it. I mentioned in an earlier posting my belief that childbirth did not originally -- prior to the fall -- include labor pains. I based that belief on the lack of pain and blood involved in the Virgin Mary's giving birth to Christ. The problem is, there seems to be some division on that point. On the one hand, Fr. Thomas Hopko, my confessor at Seminary, my dogmatics and spirituality professor, and one of the two priests who served at my wedding, wrote in his book The Winter Pascha, The use of expressions such as "without corruption" or "without defilement" for the birth of Christ and the womb of Mary are "ontological" not "ethical" statements. The point is that Christ's birth takes place in a miraculous manner, leaving Mary's virginity intact. This is no way compromises the reality of the birth as "opening Mary's womb" since the gospel claims that her womb was opened (Lk 2:23), and the icons of the feast depict midwives washing the newborn Christ Child. The Church opposes any attempt to deny, or even to minimize, the genuineness of Christ's humanity, which is officially defined by the fourth ecumenical council in Chalcedon as identical to our own. (p. 123) On the other hand, I had some vague recollection that the addition of the midwives' washing to the Nativity icon is improper (though, no doubt, Fr. Tom would know better than I). More significantly, if you look at Canon LXXIX of the Council in Trullo, the Fathers of the Council confess "the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed", and they "subject to correction those who... on the day after the holy Nativity of Christ our God are seen cooking semidalin, and distributing it to each other, on pretext of doing honour to the puerperia of the spotless Virgin Maternity." The commentary on the canon is clear on the fact that "Mary was ever-virgin, even after she had brought forth the incarnate Son, so it follows necessarily that there could be no childbed nor puerperal flux", and Zonaras adds: "childbed (puerperium) is the emission of the foetus accompanied by pain and a flux of blood: but none of us ever believed that the Mother of God was subjected to sufferings of this sort." So the first question is, who's right? Fr. Tom or Zonaras? And the second is, if in fact there was no "pain or flux of blood" at the birth of Christ, is it reasonable to suppose that these were results of the fall, and did not exist in Paradise?
I wrote to John Erickson, the Dean of It's Fr. John's answers to my questions -- or rather, his perspectives on the questions themselves -- that were the real eye-openers for me. I trust that he won't mind my excerpting his e-mail here (with minor edits for clarity):
Basically, I think that both Fr Tom and Zonaras are right, but that they are answering different questions: Fr Tom is pointing out that Christ really was born in the flesh, and that there should be no attempt to mitigate this (i.e. a kind of anti-docetic point [against those who claimed that Christ only appeared to be a man]); Zonaras is emphasizing that Christ's birth is from above, that God is his Father, that he was conceived without sin, etc. (i.e. a kind of anti-"psilanthropist" point [against those who claimed that Christ was a "mere man"]).
It seems to me that rather than treating the birth of Christ as the birth of any other human being (and then asking questions of his birth which we might ask of any other human being - how painful was it?, was there much blood or none at all?, etc.), we need to be much more attentive to how it is that we in fact speak of the birth of Christ. We need to be aware that the language that we use to speak of Mary as the Theotokos [God-bearer], whose "womb is wider than the heavens" for she bore the infinite God, is the language of confession, not gyneacology - that is, it derives, ultimately, from how we speak of Christ himself, the crucified and exalted One, and speaks in terms which are similar...
I would in fact argue that Mary's virginity, in the order of theology, is the consequence of Christ's saving Passion, even if it is the prerequisite. What I mean is this: the disciples did not know who Christ was before the Passion and exaltation; [only] in the light of the resurrection, the disciples come to understand who he is (the risen Christ opens the books of the Scriptures to show how they all speak of him, etc.). The saving efficacy of the Passion, they then understand, results from Christ's voluntary and spotless self-offering: if Christ gave himself up to death, then he showed himself to be stronger than death - death could not hold him (and so the empty tomb is a witness to the saving nature of the Passion). But Christ could only truly freely give himself up to death if he was not bound (as we are) to death, and hence the virgin birth. This is the way that St Athanasius presents the topics in his work "On the Incarnation" (dealt with fully in my new book, "The Nicene Faith").
And because the "theological logic" works in this way, the virgin birth is then described in terms of the Passion - made most clear in our icons of the Nativity, where we do not depict Christ being born in a stable (as a naive historicist position would demand), but we depict him wrapped in swaddling clothes (the "fine linen" that the crucified Christ was wrapped in really should be translated this way), with a cross in his halo (for this is his identification), laid in a manger (to be eaten, by us who eat the body of Christ) and placed in a cave, with the Virgin positioned so as to continue the shape of the cave (just as the crucified Christ was placed in a "new-hewn" (i.e. virgin) tomb owned by the other Joseph). Our language about Mary is the result of theological reflection, it is a confessional statement, and must be treated as such.
With regard to your other question about Eve and the Fall, have a look at James Barr's book, "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality". Personally, I would avoid questions about what things were like before the Fall or what was introduced as a result of the Fall. There are too many unexamined assumptions that usually go into such discussions - especially, what are we talking about anyway? An event which can be dated as we date other events in history?
What are we to make of St Maximus' claim that Adam fell "at the same time as he came into being"? Or that of St Irenaeus, "Since the Savior existed it was necessary that that which would be saved should come into existence, so that the Savior might not exist in vain"? Again, it would seem to me to be necessary to follow the logic of theology: the disciples were waiting for a Messiah to come to liberate them from Rome, etc., but not to liberate them from sin and death. Yet the risen Christ then changes their world. Christ confronts Paul as the Savior of all, and so Paul therefore understands that all need salvation, and hence the typology: Adam sinned, death entered the world, Christ was righteous, life entered the world. I.e., the solution comes first, and then we understand the problem, and in the light of the solution, it makes no sense to speak of a "pre-fallen" time, when man did not need Christ. Adam was created already with a view to Christ: Adam is a type of the one to come.
I quote Fr. John at length, both to share with you his sublime commentary for its own sake, and also to share with you the genesis (no pun intended) of this experience of being completely wrong about something -- that is to say, not simply coming up with the wrong answers, but asking absolutely the wrong questions. Of being entirely oblivious -- think Inspector Clouseau -- to the "theological logic" which undergirds the biblical and traditional accounts of the Garden of Eden and the Virgin Birth.
How many times have I pontificated about the fact that the books of the bible must be treated in ways which are natural and appropriate to each? Genesis is a book of stories, not a science or history text book -- powerful stories, deep and meaningful stories, stories which are true -- but not stories which are to be taken literally, as one might take a diary or a travelogue. And yet here I was, approaching both the completely speculative and hypothetical mechanics of pre-fall childbirth (Adam and Eve didn't have children until after the fall) and, by reverse extension, the Virgin Birth of Christ, like a medical student. Or an investigative reporter.
Actually, like a hack theologian, who knows so much less than he thinks he does.
I wrote back to Fr. John with the words of Job: "I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know... Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
A little over the top, to be sure -- but at least here, I know I've got it right.
(2004-07-07 17:27:48.0)
Permalink
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Let's get the fine print out of the way first. Same caveats as before: no, it's not really in my DVD player, and yes, I'm pretty Scroogy when it comes to giving five stars to a flick. I'm a softer touch when it comes to music and books, or perhaps, since I spend so much more time with them (over the long run) than I do with a movie, the only ones I keep -- and bother to comment on -- are the really good ones. Movies, on the other hand, are as likely to rot as not, and so their marks fall on a more normal distribution: the five star ones are way up the end of the bell curve.
This one came close to five stars. Mighty close.
The first really good thing about it is that the treacle of the first two movies is gone. I appreciated Chris Columbus's loving attention to the details of the books, and he gets great credit for bringing them to the screen almost word for word. But for movies about magic, they were -- to me -- surprisingly unmagical. I would sit through them appreciating them, respecting them even, but not enjoying them.
This one, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, I loved. The plot was a cut above the first two (obviously J. K. Rowling gets the credit here), the new actors -- Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, David Thewlis as Professor Lupin, and (one of my all-time favorites) Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney -- were spectacular, and the feel of the movie was much more interesting, much richer (if, again, less sweet) than that of the first two. Case in point: the mercifully brief Quidditch scene takes place in a driving rain, and there's no mention whatsoever of the House Cup. The three main actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, have grown in both stature and talent. Robbie Coltrane is and has always been pitch perfect as Hagrid, as are Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman as Professors McGonagall and Snape; and Michael Gambon, having even bigger shoes to fill than Hagrid's, does so admirably, though I miss the late Richard Harris's Dumbledore dearly.
The Marauder's Map is my favorite magical object to date, though I wish they'd spent just a few minutes tracing its history, and that of its creators, "Messrs. Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs", as I believe it would have enriched the plot of this movie, and (one would think) the next one. And I would have enjoyed a more lingering tour of Hogsmead. Me, I intend to visit the bar, the candy store, and the joke shop, my next trip across the pond.
In other words, even though the movie weighed in at 2 hours and 21 minutes as is, I would have gladly spent another 40 minutes with it. Perhaps, like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings, they'll release an extended version on DVD.
That one, I guarantee you, would be in my DVD player.
(2004-07-06 18:35:21.0)
Permalink
Well, I went to the theater to see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban this afternoon (I try to be a man of my word), but the 2:45 show was completely sold out, so Joe and I caught the 3:00 screening of Spider-Man 2. (Yes, the punctuation is correct. Perhaps he's English.)
It was spectacular. As good as, if not better than the original.
Of all the comic books-turned-movies, of which there are suddenly so many, I've only liked the X-Men (they must be English too) and the Spider-Man series. I never much liked the Batman franchise (no silly hyphen for him!), the Superman ones were pretty corny, and Daredevil was like Gigli in tights. Awesome soundtrack, though.
Spider-Man 2, however, like the original, was a real movie. Had a great plot, well-written characters, and really fine acting, if you can get past the spandex. Actually, the spandex adds a challenge that Tobey Maguire meets and wins; his elevator scene is brilliant, and there's not an inch of his face showing. He does it all with his posture, the tilt of his head, the discomfort in his stance. Kirsten Dunst is world-class yet again -- she and Julia Stiles are the Meryl Streep and Glenn Close of their generation (I'm not sure which is which). And Alfred Molina is spectacular as the villain, so much better than Willem Dafoe in the last one. James Franco is fun to watch, as any fan of Freeks and Geeks could tell you. (Speaking of, when is Linda Cardellini going to play in a real movie? She was fantastic in ER this year...)
There's a great review in Newsweek if you can dig up the June 28 issue; in fact, it was the cover story. Good call. Great flick.
By the way, if you're wondering why I didn't give it five stars, I save that for over-the-top brilliant, work of art movies. The English Patient. Lord of the Rings. The Godfather. That sort. Spider-Man 2 earned a solid four, and is well worth your time and ticket money.
And to answer your other question, of course it's not in my DVD player. Yet. You never want to take me all that literally unless I warn you up front that I mean it that way.
(2004-07-05 15:46:22.0)
Permalink
Finished Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book 4)
Well, I finished Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire last night -- I stayed up past midnight to read the last hundred or so pages. I know I reviewed it earlier, when I was part way through, but a lot happens at the end of the book, turns of events which are both significant and portentous. If I knew then what I know now, the entire tone of the review would have been different.
For the first three books, while there were some linear developments as Harry and his friends progressed through Hogwarts, mostly the plots took a circular path: a school year passed, and the world was more or less the same at the end as it was at the beginning, with the forces of good (epitomized by Dumbledore) keeping the forces of evil (led by Voldemort) more or less in check. Perhaps I'm not doing the third book justice -- I intend to rectify that by seeing the movie this week.
As the fourth book comes to a close, however, the world is a much different place. I won't say why -- don't want to spoil it if you haven't read it yet -- but it is already a darker place, the danger is more real, closer at hand.
I hope I'm not trivializing 9/11 with an inappropriate analogy, but just as the world felt viscerally different after 9/11 -- precisely darker and more dangerous -- so the world of the book feels profoundly different. The comments I've heard from most of the people who've read Book 5, about how different and dark it is, now make sense. Except that the change begins at the end of Book 4. The corner has been turned.
I can't wait to see the movie version of Book 3 -- I'm even tempted to read it again. If only I could read Book 3 and Book 5 and see the movie all at once. There aren't enough hours in the day, or days in the... vacation week.
I need a new CPU. Multithreaded...
(2004-07-04 18:15:05.0)
Permalink
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
