Send in the Clown?

I haven't blogged in a long time, but I wanted to jot down some thoughts I had about the movie Joker. There will be spoilers.

For me, there are two potential options when evaluating the film, neither of which speak well of it.

Either:

1) Joker is a shallow film with delusions of grandeur that ultimately doesn't have anything new or interesting to say about the world.

or

2) Joker does something to say about the world, but the things it says are problematic.

There are those who say the film is about mental illness. But if that's the case, then what it has to say is that mentally ill people are ultimately a danger to society. Not great.

There are those who say it's about classism. But the people leading the revolution and trying to remake the system anoint a false messiah who doesn't actually share their views and who murders people for personal vengeance rather than out of righteous indignation or to accomplish a larger goal. That's not exactly a positive portrayal of the poor and downtrodden.

There are those who say it's about living in a society and treating others with respect and kindness. But the people who Arthur lashes out at aren't just the ones who break the social contract. The Wall Street bros are legitimate bullies, but his mother is clearly suffering from her own mental illness and Murray, while a bit of a jerk, is just a guy hosting a talk show and trying to make people laugh. He's mean-spirited, but hardly an example of the worst of society. Then there's poor Sophie and her daughter who seem perfectly nice and kind and polite and maybe(?) get murdered for it. It's a muddled mess.

That's not even mentioning the fact that "white guy goes crazy and kills people" is an idea that's been explored quite frequently in cinema. It's hard to argue that the movie is an important film about mental illness when it's telling the same story that's been told repeatedly and often better.

At any rate, I enjoyed the film. But all the attempts to call it a masterpiece and ascribe greater meaning than is ultimately there are misguided in my opinion. There are a lot of people who are grading it on a curve because it's a comic book film and because they're used to seeing summer blockbusters and nothing else. Which is fine. By all means, like what you like. But don't lash out at the film's detractors and act like they're missing some hidden depth that only the movie's fans really get. That's simply not the case.

Something Has to Change

It's a temperate Thursday in February and there was yet another mass shooting yesterday. This time, it was in a high school in Florida. 17 people dead at the hands of a 19-year-old former student. As heartbreaking as it is, it's becoming all too routine. While I don't have much hope that things will change and don't have the delusions of grandeur to think that a blog post from me will significantly shift the narrative, I feel compelled to at least put my thoughts and the changes I've been advocating down on digital paper. Some may consider me a hypocrite because I work for a company that sells guns, but I'm not anti-gun at all. Rather, I'm for increased gun safety. I believe these changes would create a safer environment for both those who own guns and those who do not. Here are the legal steps I believe we should take:

1) Create a federal database cataloging all new gun purchases.
2) Enact both carrot and stick laws that would compel owners of previously purchased guns to register them in the database.
3) Close the "gun show loophole" and require all gun purchases, even those between friends or family, to go through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer with a full background check.
4) Stiffen penalties on legal gun owners who have their guns stolen due to failure to properly secure them or fail to report thefts immediately.
5) Create a federal (or state-run with reciprocity) licensing system, modeled after driver's licensing, for all firearms ownership that includes comprehensive training and requires regular renewals.
6) Shift some of the resources currently being used to enforce immigration towards catching and convicting straw purchasers and other purveyors of illegal weapons.
7) Remove the restrictions that keep the CDC from studying gun violence and, after the previously created systems have been in place for five years together, assess their effectiveness to see if more changes are needed.

Would these changes instantly reduce homicide rates to zero and make mass shootings a thing of the past? Of course not. 100% effectiveness is an impossible goal for any law to achieve. But that's the ridiculous standard that gun advocates hold potential gun laws to. Because they're staunchly afraid of any change. But I'm fearful too. I'm afraid of another day like yesterday. And I have a lot more evidence that more mass shootings are on the horizon than they have for their imagined draconian dystopia. So many people try to make these conversations about "freedom," but what's a more fundamental freedom than the freedom to go to school or work or to a night on the town without being shot and killed by some madman? Life comes before Liberty for a reason. Right now, we're sacrificing too many lives so the 25% of Americans who own firearms can avoid a relatively small inconvenience to their liberty and continue to have unfettered access. That's just not logical. None of the proposals I've put forth would lead to the fabled world where only "bad guys" have guns. So really, what is there to fear? What reason is there not to act? How can we call ourselves humane and claim to care about other Americans if we continue to do nothing?

In Defense of Fairweather Fandom

Among sports obsessives, there's few worse things you can be than a fairweather fan. Your bond with your beloved team(s) is supposed to be so strong that you forsake all others and pledge to honor them in good times and bad. But for me at least, this kind of thinking is unhealthy. If the team I like can't put a good product on the field/court, then I should have no obligation to continue watching. With so many other entertainment options out there and so many productive ways I could be spending my time, why should I waste it watching something that's only going to make me miserable?

I've seen many articles delineating the exact circumstances that make it okay to "break-up" with your favorite team. But that's all just nonsense to me. If you're not having fun, just stop watching. When/if your team starts playing well again, you're free to start watching again. No one should harass you for not being a masochist. I'm not obligated to watch a critically panned sequel to a film just because I enjoyed the first one in the series. Similarly, I'm under no obligation to follow every move of a sports organization simply because I've rooted for them in the past.

There are those who'll argue that the eventual wins are sweeter because you've suffered through all the losing, but I don't find that to be the case at all. Winning is fun regardless. No Cubs fan enjoyed the team's World Series win last year any less because they didn't watch every out of the 2002 season when they went 67-95. Red Sox and Patriot fans too young to remember the lean years can still find joy in each new victory.

As I write this, my alma mater, ECU is losing 21-0 in the first quarter to Houston. I'm sure I have friends who are watching right now. And if they feel like they're getting something positive out of it, good for them. If they feel like it connects them to the team in some way and bolsters their pride in the University to watch every moment of every game, then that's fine with me. They're trading current happiness for something else. But no one has the right to say I'm not a real fan because I've chosen not to watch the carnage. I value my time and my happiness and choose to guard them both. The choice you make is up to you.

To be rather than to seem.

North Carolina made the national news recently when a law was proposed that would purportedly establish a state religion. The bill was obviously unconstitutional and it was killed by the Speaker of the House before it reached the floor, but much of the damage had already been done. According to many Democrats, the bill is part of a systematic pattern by Republicans (especially on the state level) to disenfranchise minorities and women and push their religious values on those who don't share them. Unsurprisingly, the senator who proposed the original bill had a different take. He claims that he never intended to establish an official state religion. His only goal was to head off the attacks that the ACLU is making on publicly sponsored prayer in the city council meetings of Salisbury and other North Carolina towns.

The way I see it though, there's a simple solution to the city council prayer issue. If members of the Salisbury city council are interested in praying to open their meetings, they can simply arrive five or ten minutes early and do so before the meeting officially begins. They can honor God fully without offending anyone on the council or in the community who doesn't believe in him. These men and women don't have to hide their prayer, but it will be just as pleasing to God if it's before the session begins as it will be after it starts. Sometimes compromise can be really simple.

2012 From My Living Room

I don't really watch enough movies or listen to enough new music to do a best-of list in those categories, but I watch a lot of TV.  Here's what I loved in 2012:

1.  Mad Men

It seems like every season Mad Men is more self-assured than the last. Matthew Weiner and company know that subtlety is their greatest weapon and they wield it with aplomb. 

2.  Breaking Bad

This show could really be 1(b). Vince Gilligan and his writing staff continually paint Walter & Jesse into ever-tighter corners only to deftly maneuver them out in breath-taking fashion. All without straining credulity. Flawless.

3.  Louie

One of the most unique half-hours on television, Louie isn't so much a sitcom as a series of short films. Absurdist humor and somber meditations on life have rarely been melded so seamlessly.

4.  Boardwalk Empire

It seems that viewers expected perfection right out of the gate due to Boardwalk Empire's sterling pedigree. What they found was a show that has plenty of panache and a beautiful veneer, but also comes with its share of heavy-handed moments. Those that bailed on the show early missed the development of some fantastic characters in addition the kind of well-crafted action and drama that makes premium cable worth the price of admission.

5.  Game of Thrones

Hardcore fantasy geeks and novice nerds alike have found lots to love in HBO's superb adaptation of George RR. Martin's best-selling novels. The most downloaded show of 2012 is also one of the best.

6.  Community

There's a reason why this show has one of most passionate fanbases on the internet. Enjoy it before it's gone. #SixSeasonsAndAMovie

7.  Justified

Justified is a modern-day Western set in Kentucky coal country—a place that's colorfully and stylishly rendered and home to some of the best villains on TV.

8.  Homeland

While many viewers took issue with the believability of Homeland's second season, it provided plenty of unexpected twists, a few sublimely rendered scenes, and more outstanding acting from Claire Danes, Damian Lewis, and Mandy Patinkin.

9. Treme

Three seasons in and Treme continues to be criminally under-appreciated. Viewers looking for The Wire 2.0 were quickly turned off by its slow-burn narrative and rambling pace. Those that stuck around, however, have found that there's no better place to kick back, enjoy some jazz, catch up with some old friends, and learn about one of America's most fascinating cities.

10. Girls

When you get past all the hype and the hate, you'll find that Girls is a daring, stylish show that brings the love/hateable characters of mumblecore to the small screen. Nepotized or not, Lena Dunham's got skills.

11. Happy Endings

Some shows are here because they're meticulously crafted. Some shows tug at the heartstrings. Some shows just make me laugh really hard.

12. Fringe

After an overly gooey season four finale that was designed to serve as a series finale if necessary, Fringe returned with a darker, more streamlined season five that may cement it as one of the all-time great Science Fiction shows.

13. Parks & Recreation

Leslie Knope and company continue to find new ways to entertain, while building the kind of close-knit office family that Michael Scott can only dream of.

14. Bob's Burgers

The show that broke the McFarlane curse is the best part of Sunday night. (Sorry, Football.)

15. Archer

I've got two words for you: Burt. Reynolds.

17. Suburgatory

Suburgatory is another show that skillfully integrates wacky humor and heartfelt character moments without the awkward transition music.

18. Sherlock

Anyone who says that the English are stuffy and dry hasn't seen their television. Sherlock is just plain fun.

19. Parenthood

Against all odds, Parenthood continues to tackle ripped-from-The-View family issues and heart-breaking personal tragedies without ever crossing the line into melodrama.

20. South Park

The rumors of South Park's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Like all long-running shows, it has its hits and misses, but its hits still pack a wallop.

Honorable Mentions: Rev., The Daily Show, Falling Skies, The Hour, New Girl, The Walking Dead, How I Met Your Mother, Awake

Us vs. Them: What Does it Mean to Support?

I don't know if you've noticed, but Israel is in the news a lot right now. Their seemingly never-ending conflict with Palestine has escalated to the point that some people are even calling for a ground war. This is nothing new of course. If you believe the theory that Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, then they've been fighting with the Jews for about 4,000 years. What also hasn't changed is that a lot of American Christians are irrationally cheering for Israel.

Look: the US has been supporting Israel for a long time. I'm not saying that we should sever those ties. Let's just get a few things straight.

First of all, the United States' support of lack of support for Israel shouldn't really be a Christian issue. There are several schools of thought among theologians when it comes to Israel's place in New Testament prophecy. There are those that believe that Christ is going to establish of physical kingdom of Israel on the physical location where the historic kingdom stood. There are others who believe that the "Israel" most often referred to in New Testament prophecy is simply a metaphor for the Church. They believe that the Christian Church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. There's also a school of thought that falls somewhere in between. I haven’t done an exhaustive study on the subject, but I lean towards the second explanation for a few reasons. For example:

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galations 3:26-29

Honestly, I feel like you could make a relatively convincing scriptural case for either point of view. One thing theologians seem to agree on though, is that the modern nation of Israel isn't the one referred to in prophecy. If you paid attention in History class, you'll remember that Israel wasn't a nation for a long period beginning around the first century AD. That's when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans. You may also recall that Israel didn't become a nation again until May 14, 1948. The nation that was established that day, while founded on the location of ancient Israel and populated by many descendants of Abraham and practitioners of Judaism, isn't analogous with ancient Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could announce tomorrow that Iran will henceforth be known as Persia, but that wouldn't make him Cyrus the great. Similarly, the modern, secular government of Israel can't really lay claim to being chosen by God the same way Isaac, Jacob, or Moses could. If all God cared about was ancestry, he wouldn't have invited us gentiles to the party and he certainly wouldn't have orchestrated things so the line of Christ went through Rahab, the Canaanite harlot.

But let's ignore point #1 for a moment. Let's say that I'm wrong and that the modern-day nation Israel is 100% the same as ancient Israel. Does that make them infallible? I keep seeing Christians talking about how we need to support them and that's all well and good, but you know they're just human, right? Humans make mistakes. Take a look at the literal Biblical nation of Israel. They were constantly turning away from God and towards idolatry, often ruled by wicked kings like Ahab. Unless you're living in a true theocracy where God is literally making all of your country's decisions, your leaders are going to screw up and do stupid or wicked things from time to time. Without our support, there's a good chance that Israel would have been wiped off the map by now. I'm glad we've kept that from happening. But I see no reason why we can't call out Israel's leaders out for their mistakes while remaining the nation's ally. We shouldn't have to worry about facing the wrath of the Almighty (as a lot of Christian Conservatives keep threatening) because we sometimes disagree with Shimon Peres. 

My third and final point is this: You don't think we support Israel right now? Really? Currently, the United States gives Israel 3 billion dollars per year in military aide and the Obama administration has shown no desire to change that. How could anyone in their right mind say that we're not standing with Israel? Over the past few years, the United States has provided Israel with millions of dollars to help fund their Iron Dome missile defense system. This system has been key in preventing civilian casualties on the Israeli side. We've also supported Israel through diplomatic channels, using our Security Council veto power on Israel's behalf and voting against the recognition of a Palestinian state on numerous occasions. And none of our pro-Israeli policies have changed under Obama, despite what some on the Right would have you believe.

This a nuanced conflict. There are two sides to every disagreement. I've seen person after person posting on Facebook about how Israel has the right to defend itself and those people aren't wrong. But Israel isn't blameless in this conflict either. They've mistreated the Palestinian people in many ways and stubbornly refused to compromise. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians almost exclusively and I'm glad that Israel is taking steps to end its relevancy and defend their people. That being said, it's undeniably tragic that so many Palestinian civilians are dying in the process. I get that that's what happens with terror cells because they hide among the people, but that doesn't mean we can't mourn the innocent dead. I refuse to believe that I or my nation are incurring the wrath of God for taking a nuanced stance on a centuries old conflict or admitting that the leaders of modern-day Israel sometimes make mistakes. By all means, support our ally. Just don't act like this conflict is black and white.

Utopian Mudslinging

In the best possible world, all political ads would be like this:


Candidate 1:  Hi. I'm Billy Keikeya and I'm the Democratic nominee for senate in North Carolina. I supported the Affordable Care Act because I'm concerned about the rising healthcare costs in this country and I wanted to make sure that every American has insurance. Once they do, it will lower the burden on our emergency rooms, lowering costs across the board.

Candidate 2:  Hi. I'm Mallory Quinn and I'm the Republican nominee for senate in North Carolina. I did not support the Affordable Care Act. While I'm also concerned about rising healthcare costs, I prefer other solutions to the problem such as tort reform and making the same insurance policy available across state lines. I believe that these and other changes will achieve the same positive effects as The Affordable Care Act without increasing bureaucracy and without forcing people to buy a product that they may not want or need.

Candiate 1:  On November 6th, it's your duty as a citizen of North Carolina to decide who you agree with on this issue and place your vote accordingly.

Candiate 2:  To find out more about our positions and voting records on this and other issues, visit KeikeyaVsQuinn2012.com.

Candiate 1:  I'm Billy Keikeya.

Candiate 2:  And I'm Mallory Quinn.

Both:  And we approve this ad.


If only.

Why I'm Voting 'No' on Amendment One

I don't know if you've noticed this, but on May 8, 2012, there's going to a vote on an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I plan to vote against this amendment and I'd like to tell you why.

To start this out, I should put all of my cards on the table. I'm a straight, white male living in a mid-sized city in the South. I have and have had some casual gay friends and acquaintances, but I don't have any gay family members or any gay friends that I'm extremely close with. I'm also a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and I use it as a guide for my thoughts and behavior. I'm involved in a local church and, while we don't have an official church stance on Amendment One as far as I know, our pastor has spoken in favor of the law from the pulpit. I'm not writing this post in a spirit of rebellion or with the idea that I'm somehow superior to anyone who disagrees with me. I'm not trying to stir up strife within my church or the Christian Church at large. I'd like to think that my thoughts have a firm logical and Biblical foundation and, if nothing else, they've been prayerfully considered. I welcome any comments, positive or negative, that those within or out of the Church may offer, but I ask that you read the entire post carefully before making them.

Having said that, I'll get to what seems to be be the crux of the issue. I do believe that sexual activity between people of the same sex is sinful. The Bible's stance on homosexuality is not just a part of the Old Testament Mosaic law as some believe, but is laid out clearly in the New Testament as well. Here's the thing though: The same parts of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality also condemn people who are "covetous," full of "malice," "envy," "strife," "deceit," and "maliciousness." "Gossips,", "slanderers, "haters of God." "Insolent," "haughty," "boastful." "Disobedient to parents," "foolish," "faithless," "heartless," "ruthless." (Romans 1:29-31 ESV) These characteristics are the natural state of man without God. In fact, as a believer, I've still committed most, if not all, of these sins. But somehow homosexuality is different. We like to say that we love the sinner and hate the sin, but we ostracize gays and lesbians and treat them like second-class citizens. We send our homosexual kids off to special deprogramming camps and pray that lightning will strike the local gay bar. Why aren't their deprogramming camps for gossips, boasters, and ruthless business men. Why aren't there people holding up protest signs that say, "God Hates Adulterers?"

This dovetails nicely into one of my reasons for coming out against the gay marriage amendment: whatever your "actual" reason may be for supporting the amendment, those in the gay community are only going to see it as bigotry. Supporters of the bill can talk all day about how they're just protecting family values or tradition and I do believe that many people genuinely feel this way, but the gay people in our state only hear, "I hate you. You don't deserve the same rights that I have." Do you truly believe that sending that message is the best way to show the love of Christ or does the love of Christ only apply to straight people?

This brings me to my next point: you can't legislate morality. Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that our system of laws is a moral code. This is patently false. Our laws were put into place to protect individual citizens from each other. While one could argue that some of our drug laws don't follow this principle, the general idea is that the laws of the state are designed to keep your neighbor from doing you harm. As I've already mentioned, there's a huge numbers of immoral acts that are completely legal. There's also a lot of illegal things that are otherwise perfectly moral. Some of our laws obviously overlap with general morality and the Christian concept of sin, but they're not  one and the same. At this point you may be asking, "So why don't we make sin illegal then?" Because, simply put, it doesn't work. Sin is a matter of the heart and only God can change a heart. Making a sin illegal does nothing to stop it. America may be a "Christian nation" according to some (newsflash: It's not.), but it's most definitely not a theocracy. Until God decides to come down himself and render decisions through a cloud and a pilar of fire, any theocracy will quickly turn into a dictatorship, with religion used as a convenient excuse to shout down all opposition. That's not how America was founded and it's not what it should become.

Now that I've spent some time discussing this issue from a Christian point-of-view, I'd like to cover some political thoughts on the matter. Frankly, the most ridiculous thing about the amendment is this: Gay marriage is already illegal. Amendment One could be unanimously defeated and it wouldn't change one thing as far as who can and can't be married in this state. As a Conservative, I believe in smaller government and less intrusion. How can I stand by those principles if I support this wholly unnecessary, bureaucratic waste of time? And given that gay marriage is already illegal, both nationally and on a state level, how can anyone blame the gay community for seeing this amendment as a big, fat middle finger extended in their direction? "Hey gays...we know you can't get married anyway, but we just want to make it extra clear that it ain't gonna happen." Yeah. Great. As far as the notion that we're "protecting the American family" with this endeavor, I'll believe that when there's a similar amendment on the ballot that outlaws divorce and extramarital affairs. The fact is that straight people have already done more to desecrate the institution of marriage than homosexuals ever could.

Another argument that I've heard from a lot of people is that allowing gay marriage would be horrible because it would redefine the word marriage. Actually, I made that same argument myself a few years ago when my views were slightly different. One of the people I was debating with gave me a response that really made me think: Is it worth denying people rights over a question of semantics? And he was right. People's lives and rights and infinitely more valuable than the definition of a word. So "marriage" may someday mean "a committed union between two individuals" instead of a "committed union between a man and a woman." So what? As a straight man, that would do nothing to change my life or the lifelong commitment I plan to make to my future wife. Right now, I'm sure there's someone asking why we can't just call it a civil union. Here's the thing though: homosexuals didn't grow up on Mars. They grew up in the same communities as you an I. They watched the same movies and read the same fairytales. They don't want a partnership. That's the language of business. They want marriage and all the connotations that come with it. How would you like it if you were forced to treat your wife like a business partner or to call your child a "legal dependent"? Gay marriage is a question of legal rights, but it's so much more than that.

And here's where the religious arguments come in again. How can we, the capital-C Church, say that marriage is not a union between a man and a woman when the Bible clearly states that it is. My answer is that we don't have to. As it stands, there's already two definitions of the word marriage. There's religious marriage and there's civil marriage. These things often occur together, but they don't always have to. Couples are already free to be married by a justice of the peace instead of a religious official and even marriages performed by a minister must be backed up by legal documentation before they bestow any rights. I wouldn't want my pastor to officiate a gay marriage because, as I noted, that doesn't line up with God's law. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't support civil marriage for anyone who truly wants it.

Next, I feel like I should tackle the "slippery slope" issue. This argument is a little ridiculous, but lots of people take it seriously, so I suppose I should try to as well. Some people have made the case that, if we allow gay marriage, that's only the first step in the road to nationwide Sodom and Gomorrah. Next thing you know, people will be marrying children. Within a generation or two, we'll allow men to marry their dogs or robots or their toaster. Where does it end? My answer to that is that it ends where we, as Americans, decide that it should end. You can make the slippery slope argument about any law. Has allowing the death penalty led to us executing people for speeding? Did giving women and minorities the right to vote lead to cows in the voting booth? You can't ignore a civil rights issue simply as a precaution against where you think it might lead. Besides that, there's a humungous difference between allowing two consenting adults to marry and allowing a man to marry his cat or his BMW. I don't doubt that there a lot of changes to come in this country, but I'll be very surprised if meows and car horn honks become legally binding.

To turn back to the Church's role in this once more, I'd like to remind my Christian brothers and sisters of one simple fact: Right now, we're the majority. Clearly, there's a difference between those that profess Christ and true followers and there's no doubt that this country is becoming more secular by the hour. But statistically speaking, the majority of Americans say they believe in the Judeo-Christian God and have at least some respect for the Bible. We in the Church like to act like we're some kind of persecuted minority, but the fact is that we have a lot of power in this country and around the world. We may end up with a Mormon president come January, but an atheist presidential candidate wouldn't even get out of the gate. Unfortunately, this power we have will no doubt evaporate at some point in the future. Some data suggests that the "No Religion" status (which includes deists, agnostics, atheists, and theists) is the fastest growing belief demographic. If you believe that the book of Revelation is a picture of the end times, then Christians will some day be a pretty small minority. When that day comes and secularists hold all the seats of power in this country, I'd like it to be known that the Christian community took a stand for love, acceptance, and personal freedom over bigotry, hate, and governmental intrusion.

Finally, if there are any homosexuals reading this blog post, I'd like to close with this message: I can't lie to you and say that I support all of your actions. I believe in the truth of God's word and, while I sometimes wish that I could change it, I can't argue with what's written there. I don't hate you though. I love you. Because you're no different than any of my other unsaved friends and you're no different than I was before God's free gift of grace changed my heart. I hope that you can understand this distinction even if you don't agree with it. Regardless of our theological and social differences, you're welcome in my home and in my church any time. I don't know that this blog post will change anyone else's vote, but you can count on mine if nothing else.

A Nonpartisan Political Thought (If That's Possible)

Lately I've heard a lot of Republicans complaining about of Barrack Obama's recess appointments. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the term, a recess appointment is a process by which a president can appoint judges and cabinet secretaries while the senate is not in session. You see, normally the senate has to confirm all of these positions. Sometimes those confirmations come easily, but often the opposing party will delay them indefinitely to make a political point or stick it to their adversaries. For that reason, presidents often take the opportunity of a recess to slip some minor position hires through and speed up the process. This has all happened before and it will all happen again. But this time, while the senate was on a 20-day recess, they had some "pro forma" sessions where one or two members would show up for five minutes and bang a gavel before dismissing themselves. So Obama went ahead and made his appointments because there was clearly no way they could vote on his nominees with literally one or two senators holding court for a matter of minutes. Predictably, as soon as the president made the appointments, Republicans began crying foul and accusing him of circumventing the system and disobeying the constitution. But again, this is normal. Presidents make recess appointments all the time. The law was put into place for this very reason. And what's just as normal? The opposition party finding a technicality and feigning outrage to score cheap political points. I know I've picked on the Republicans up until now, but it's really just a symptom of a larger problem. Every time (and I do mean every) that a politician uses one of these weird rules of law to get around the usual process, no matter how many times it's happened, and no matter how recently the politicians who are complaining have done the same exact thing, both Republicans and Democrats pitch a fit. "Well sure...we filibustered for 62 hours straight the last time we were the minority party, but this guy...he filibustered for 70 hours! It's a travesty of justice!" "I'm aware that the last democratic governor of the stage pardoned 137 people, but this republican governor pardoned 225. And it was on his second to last day in office instead of a week before he left. Book me on Meet the Press to complain immediately!"

You get my point, right? If you don't like all the weird little quirks of politics, then change them. But don't use them to your advantage and then get all up in arms when your opponents use those same rules six months later. Seriously. Stop the Chicken Little sky is falling routine. Few things annoy me as much as fake outrage.

Insert Gambling Pun Here

This is the first presidential debate of the current election season that I've been able to watch so I can't say whether they've all been this spirited, but oh boy this was a wild one. Bachman made the "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" joke right off the bat in her opening remarks, so if you had 8:14 EST in your office pool, then congratulations. To start things off, the other candidates all took turns attacking Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. They all insist that the math doesn't work and you'll end up paying more. Cain insists it does work and that Americans should do their own math by visiting his website. I'm sure that's the most unbiased place to visit. I suck at math, so I don't trust mine. Everyone I've heard that's actually done the math (including the non-partisan Tax Policy Center) says it'll raise taxes on the middle class. Maybe Cain is right and all of the experts are wrong, but it's hard for me to see how the middle class and the poor would come out ahead. The bigger issue is that, no matter what math you use, it means creating a sales tax for states that don't have a sales tax currently and greatly increasing the sales tax in the states that do. I completely get that he's getting rid of other taxes so theoretically you'd have more money to spend, but it's hard to figure out how much my paychecks would go up. It's a lot easier to imagine paying an extra nine cents on every dollar I spend and that's not something I relish. Then of course there's the criticism that the other candidates have made that once you create these new taxes, the next Democratic president and congress that came along could simply raise them to 10-10-10 or 12-12-12. I guess that's a legitimate concern. On the one hand, it's not like liberals can't raise taxes with our current tax code, but it does seem like it would make it a lot easier to enact dramatic increases quickly. It may not be the best criticism of Cain's plan, but it's something to think about.

The next really interesting moment in the debate came during the section on illegal immigration. Rick Perry claimed that Romney had hired illegal immigrants in the past and kept them on the pay-roll even after a newspaper brought it to his attention. I haven't fact-checked the story, but Romney explained that he had hired a landscaping company to mow his lawn and they had illegals working for them. He found out and asked them to dismiss the illegals. He thought they'd done so, but later found out that they hadn't and was forced to fire the landscaping company because of it. I really don't understand how that's an issue. Maybe you could twist the story and get it to play in a negative campaign ad, but with Romney there to explain the story, it just seemed like a silly, petty attack. On top of that, Romney's explanation took three times as long to get out as it should have because Perry kept interrupting and calling him a liar. It was extremely rude and reflected very poorly on Rick Perry's character. I often get heated when I debate things so I understand his impulse, but in a moderated debate where the other person has an allotted amount of time to speak, how can you not give him or her time to respond? I had an admitted pro-Romney bias coming in to the debate so maybe it didn't seem as awful to the Perry fans watching, but I thought it was bush league. Very unbecoming.

The crux of the real immigration argument came down to whether we should build a fence or not. Bachmann wants a fence across the whole border. Because Bachmann doesn't believe in nuance and her neither does her base. Cain said the fence should be electrified maybe. Possibly. Because he's still figuring this stuff out. He and Romney and Perry all agreed that we'd be better served combining fencing with technology. Seems likely. Ron Paul said the main issue was getting all our troops stationed overseas back so they can watch the border. Because he's Ron Paul and doesn't believe we should have any troops overseas ever. We knew that already. To me, the most interesting and substantial moment actually came from good ol' Newt. He spent his time telling the American people that the GOP is only against illeal immigration, not all immigration. It definitely needed to be said because it's been way too easy in the past for those on the left to paint the right as the party of racism because they want to get tough on illegals. As Lawrence O'Donnell likes to tell us in his MSNBC bumper, immigration is the life-blood of America. The problem is that illegal immigrants are placing an undue burden on our society and often creating their own little niche communities instead of attempting to integrate. A few of the candidates rightly pointed out that there are millions of people trying to get into the country legally and we want to make it easier for them so that life-blood continues flowing.

There were several other issues brought up and lots of good points made by all the candidates. I thought the section on the Occupy Wall Street movement was interesting and I liked Ron Paul's comment that we don't want to blame the victims and Cain's comment that they should be marching at the White House instead. I don't remember all that was said during that section, however, and I don't want to do a complete blow-by-blow, so allow me to close with a few final thoughts. First of all, I realize that unemployment is a huge issue right now and it's something that the president is going to face. That being said, I'm sick of hearing about it. Endless bickering about who has created more jobs in the past and who knows best how to create jobs in the future is pointless and doesn't tell me anything. The only way to literally create jobs is to spend a bunch of money hiring people to pave roads and fix bridges, which all the candidates say they're against. Beyond that, a president can do lots of things to encourage job growth on the macro level, but I wouldn't call it creating jobs. Those things may be very important and helpful, but they're too complex to discuss in a 30 second debate answer so the candidates should just shut-up about it and let me dig into their websites if I'm really interested in the minutiae.

To finish up, I'm going to pretend my hypothetical reader cares very strongly about my opinion and give some quick summary thoughts on each candidate and their performance.

Bachmann: She really hammered home the "I'm a mom and I want to help moms" thing. That's great if you're running for president of the moms, but that's not the office we're trying to fill. I'm not marginalizing her because she's female. I'm marginalizing her because she didn't speak with any depth on anything that was brought up. Not interested.

Santorum: His big talking point was that he's the family values candidate. I do find it strange how little we've heard about social issues during this election cycle. Maybe it will come up more in the general when it's easier to make a contrast. Personally, I'm much more of a fiscal conservative than a social conservative, so his claims to family values supremacy didn't really do much for me. If this were 2000 or 2004, he might be on the right track, but the economy and the job market are too awful for anyone to buy what he's selling this year.

Paul: Even if you don't agree with the man, you have to admire him for sticking to his guns. He's a dyed in the wool Libertarian and he's willing to take his beliefs to their logical extreme even if that means admitting that sick people without insurance may have to die. I'm sure there's a lot of Americans that would agree with him that, as he stated tonight, we should end all foreign aid. I just don't think there's enough people behind him to make any of his radical goals actually happen even if he were somehow elected president. If things keep going how they're going in this country, we could be ready to blow things up and start over in a few generations and Ron Paul may be seen as a visionary. Maybe someday but not in 2012.

Gingrich: He's a dinosaur. And I'm not talking about his age because Ron Paul is older. I mean that his time in the spotlight has come and gone. He had control of the party at one time. He was the guy. But that time has long since past and it feels almost pathetic that he's out there trying to compete with the new guard. On top of that, he's got lots of personal baggage and he's a career politician at a time when politician has become a dirty word. He's a really smart guy who's forgotten more about politics than I'll ever know, but it's not going to happen and he knows it too.

Perry: I just don't find him likable at all. I'm a firm believer that issues are more important than appearances, but I'd like to respect the man I vote for. From what I've read about the previous debates, he sleep-walked through them and seemed unprepared. Tonight, he seemed more on his game, but he came across as petty and childish. The way he kept interrupting Romney and getting irrationally angry made me worry about how he'd act in office. If he can't even get along with fellow Republicans during a two-hour debate, how would he deal with democrats in congress as president and ever hope to get things accomplished? The folksy drawl and  down-home diction play well with a lot of Republicans, but they don't do a thing for me. He also recently became the first candidate to run negative ads about his competitors. His people put together a well-made but ridiculous attack ad where Romney's face turns into Obama's in the mirror. As the immigration attack tonight showed, he's not afraid to play in the mud and he'll use every trick in the book to win. He's a player. A pro. The personification of everything I hate about politicians.

Cain: I want to like Cain. I really do. But the 9-9-9 thing is a killer for me. I appreciate that he's willing to take a stand for a radical solution, but you have to make sure the math adds up before you put something like that out there. He kept going back to this "apples and oranges" metaphor tonight when he was getting attacked and he was clearly sinking before the debate moved to another topic. That being said, I think he's a principled man with a lot going for him. He just isn't quite ready to face the intense glare of being a front-runner as evidenced by all of his recent flubs. I think he could make a really strong VP candidate for someone but I can't imagine him beating Obama next year and becoming president.

Romney: If you've read this far, you're well aware that I like Romney. I came in already rating him as my favorite candidate and he didn't disappoint tonight. He seemed cool and under control and he easily repelled all of the attacks that came his way. He hit back when hit, but mostly tried to stay above the fray and attack Obama rather than the other candidates as a true front-runner should. I understand that he has a lot of detractors, however. If you came into tonight liking Romney, he seemed smart and calm. If you came into tonight, disliking him, he may have seemed smug and cocky. I'll agree that his past stances on some things are a bit worrisome. I'd like to believe that he's truly changed his opinions on some things over time and isn't just floating along the prevailing winds. In fact, I'm willing to give Rick Perry (Texas chairman of Al Gore's 1988 campaign for president) the benefit of the doubt as well. People grow and change and I want a president who's willing to change for the better and admit past mistakes. As for the Mormon thing, it's clear that that shouldn't be an issue. All of the other candidates took the high road in that regard tonight and made me proud.  Gingrich said it well that a president should have faith and that faith will, no doubt, be a part of his decision-making process, but we should look at what that faith teaches about morality rather than worrying about an individual's path to eternal salvation.

Despite recent surges by Perry and Cain, this still looks like Romney's race to lose. The question is whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. I refuse to join the crowd that says this is a lackluster field. There were a lot of great things said tonight and I think that there's something we can take from each candidate's approach even if only one of them can be the nominee. If conservatives really want to represent America then the Republican party has to be a big tent party that makes room for Bachmann and her Tea Party, Paul and his young libertarians, Perry's establishment Republicans, Santorum's Christian Conservative base, Gingrich's think-tanks, entrepreneurs like Cain, and moderates like Romney. There are some things we'll never get all of those groups to agree on, but each should have a voice. The left isn't the enemy either. They genuinely want what's best for this country too. But there's a fundamental difference in opinion over the role that government should play that actually is important. If the Right has any hope of convincing the undecideds out there to value less government over more, then they have to start by presenting a united front and end the schoolyard squabble over who's a "real" Republican.

New Blog

The title of this post has two meanings. First of all, this is a new blog. Sort of. It's actually the old blog, but I wanted to shift it from my secondary Google account to my primary so I moved all the posts over here. The second reason fot this post is that I've started a new collaborative blog called Crowd Source. Each post will center on a different topic and feature writing by me and friend who either has intimate knowledge or strong opinions on the subject. The first post went up today. Check it out and let me know if you have input or would like to contribute.

Quick thoughts...

For every successful preacher out there, there are scores of "Christians" attacking him and calling him a heretic. If someone is truly a false teacher, then that will come to light in God's time. Ripping each other apart over doctrinal disagreements hurts the entire body. I'm all for open discussion of doctrinal issues, be they major or minor, amongst the body, but terms like "heresy" and "false teaching," while they may be technically correct, imply that a preacher is deliberately and maliciously distorting scripture. Often, the false statement is simply based an incorrect interpretation of a few key verses. The preacher who made the statements should be gently corrected in private rather than publicly lambasted. Or conversely, we can share our thoughts on specific teachings without openly mocking or deriding those who spread them.

bumperstickers

Christians love slogans. "I have a relationship, not a religion," and "hate the sinner, not the sin" are great and all, but if you really want to talk to someone about your faith, be real. Don't just spout cliches and platitudes. No one wants to talk to the sign outside of your church.

Things that Make me Angry Vol. 1 - Family Guy

I used to be a big fan of "Family Guy." I was one of those people who watched it from the first episode and loved it immediately. After it was cancelled and before it started airing on Cartoon Network and TBS, I downloaded every existing episode onto my computer so I'd have them all for posterity. And this was the days before torrents and giant hard-drives when I had to download all three seasons episode by episode and they took up a very large chunk of my available space. It was worthy it. The show was a breath or fresh air, nonstop hilarious with references to forgotten pieces of my childhood and humor so random and mean that you had to laugh literally, even if you weren't sure why. 

So what changed for me? Partially, it was "South Park." I'll confess that I watched Stone and Parker's parent-hated cartoon from the beginning as well. I went around quoting, "You will respect my authori-tie!" and "Screw you guys. I'm going home." along with the other males in my age bracket. And originally, the show was just funny. But over the years, instead of jumping the proverbial shark,  "South Park" got better. What started out as just four kids getting laughs by saying filthy things turned into four kids getting laughs by saying filthy things and making salient points about life while doing so. Matt and Trey started using the show as a mouth-piece to comment on everything from politics to religion to celebrity culture. And surprisingly, they actually had smart things to say. Even when I disagreed with the points they were making, I couldn't help but appreciate the intelligent way they were making them and the fact that they always brought a fresh perspective. For example, the day after this past year's election, "South Park" ran an episode where all of the show's liberal characters were cheering and partying and claiming that the world was going to instantly be perfect thanks to Obama's victory while all of the show's conservative characters moped and cried and built a fall-out shelter to save themselves from the apocalypse to come. As usual, the episode was timely (I'm still not sure how they pulled that off), hilarious, and made a point that no one else was making. Which brings us back to "Family Guy."

In 2006, Comedy Central aired a two-part "South Park" episode titled, "Cartoon Wars." The show was about censorship and rather than use their own struggles against it, the writers used "Family Guy" as a stand-in, taking shots at their rival throughout the episode. As usual, the "South Park" guys made good points. They lampooned "Family Guy" for having jokes that come out of nowhere and don't relate to the episode in the slightest. Those jokes were exactly what I loved about "Family Guy" in the beginning, but by season six, they were becoming a bit predictable and boring. That same year, the "Family Guy" episode, "Prick Your Ears" premiered. In it, Seth Macfarlane and the other writers took shots at the abstinence movement. The school that the show's children attend was visited by Christians who shared the idea of abstinence. This led to the teens of Quahog abstaining from vaginal sex but enjoying lots and lots of ear sex to keep their virginity. The episode reflected the real-life problem of teens involved in the abstinence movement using oral sex as a substitute. Fine. What irked me was the end of the episode. Lois, the show's matriarch, addressed the school and, looking directly at the camera said something to the effect of, "Sex is a good thing and you should have it when you're old enough to be responsible and you're in love." You may disagree, but to me, this was completely irresponsible. What thirteen-year-old in a relationship doesn't think that that they're mature enough and in love? It's one thing to target adults, but the children who watch the show (and there are many I'm sure) don't need to hear that message.

And that leads me to Sunday night's episode. Once again, Macfarlane chose to attack the Christian community. Meg, the daughter on the show, is confined to bed with the mumps and while spending five days watching nothing but "the Christian channel," gets converted to Christianity by Kirk Cameron. Rather than spend the rest of the episode showing the effect that this might have on Meg's life, the show fast-forwards to her attacking Brian, the family's liberal talking-dog, for being an atheist. In fact, everyone in town attacks him. Point taken. Brian, unable get the alcohol he so loves since atheists apparently aren't allowed into bars or the ABC store, finally gives up and pretends to be converted. Meg, thrilled to hear of his conversion, takes Brian with her to her nightly Christian ritual, a book-burning. That's right, the favorite activity of Christians all over the world, burning books. Macfarlane makes sure we can all see that among the books are, Darwin's The Origin of Species, Hawkings' A Brief History of Time, and a third-grade logic textbook. Clever. And to close out the episode and return things to their usual state, Brian quickly convinces Meg that there could be no God since Meg's own life is so awful. Much like "South Park"'s attack on Mel Gibson, which was one of the show's few missteps, the point "Family Guy" attempted to make was blunt, unnecessary, and completely unfunny. 

As a Christian, I'm used to being attacked from time-to-time. It happens and I can deal with it. But I much prefer it when those attacks are targeted, true-to-life, and intelligent. I'll probably keep watching "Family Guy." There's still enough laughs in most episodes to make it worth my time. But I'll never have the affection for the show that I once did and I'll always turn to "South Park" when I want my cartoons to voice an intelligent opinion.

Economic Wisdom from the Sports Page

ESPN's Gregg Easterbrook could be considered a renaissance man. While his weekly column is called "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" and is published on ESPN.com, he frequently strays into non-sports-related topics. In fact, every column comes with a large helping of science news along with comments on societal morays, entertainment and even sometimes politics. I haven't taken the time to research Easterbrook's credentials, but he seems to be quite knowledgeable on these subjects and often has an interesting viewpoint that differs sharply from the mainstream. This week, he took the time to delve into the current economic situation and his words somewhat echo some of the thoughts I've been having. Rather than link to a column that's mainly about sports, I'll share the relevant section with you here:


Gasoline Plentiful, Perspective Scarce: "Financial chaos is sweeping the world," a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn't notice any chaos in my part of the world -- every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let's stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.

What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the "end of Wall Street." The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences -- no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon's excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, "An Empire of Wealth.") Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis -- yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. Here, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don't work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn't. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there's a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything's a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people's eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans "lost" $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities "lost" $8 trillion in value. "Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth" read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven't "lost" anything. Nor have most investors "lost" money, let alone $8.4 trillion -- crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics. People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don't panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week's media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)'s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling -- the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We've also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, "Never confuse the stock market with the economy." Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) -- to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It's embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don't panic, just hold your stocks. And if you'd invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn't a great investment -- until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone's dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved -- the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes -- $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways -- the more the economy will soften over the long term. It's long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. TMQ's former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on "Newshour" last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist -- for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we're lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn't have that ability.

I'll admit that I know almost nothing about the economy. Not exactly a math person. However, I've been waiting for someone to say this for weeks. While real life factors clearly affect the market, it is based entirely on perception and it doesn't help anything when new organizations and politicians are constantly using the word "recession" and talking like it's the end of the world. Is our economy in the best shape it's ever been in? No. Is there a good chance it will recover? I think so. McCain said that the economy was "fundamentally strong" a few weeks ago and got hammered for it. It's like no one is allowed to say that things aren't really that bad without being called insensitive or naíve. I honestly don't know if the bail-out was the right move or not. But I'm pretty sure that over-reacting isn't helping anyone.

the difference between men & women

My friends and I are avid watches of "The Office." It's set to "Keep until I delete" on the DVR. This past season, however, not everyone was totally pleased. It seemed pretty alright to me, but Rebecca complained that it just didn't seem right. The reason for the show's decline, in her opinion, was the fact that Jim and Pam finally got together. For those of you that don't watch the show, it's atypical in some ways, but Jim and Pam's relationship follows a classic sit-com arc. When the show begins, they're best friends at work who spend a good chunk of their time talking to each other and joking around. There's obvious chemistry there, but Pam is engaged to a jerk who works in the warehouse. It takes a few seasons, but eventually Jim confesses his love to her, she breaks up with the douche, and they end up together. Now they're happy and, as far as the relationship goes, more or less problemless. There's still conflict on the show, but the Jim and Pam "Will they or want they?" that was once the center of the show has been replaced by the much more tame, "When/how will Jim finally propose?" Rebecca thinks Jim and Pam's relationship has caused the show's decline. And, while she loves them both individualy and agrees that they're perfect for each other, she wants them should break up for the good of the show. I strongly disagree. In fact, I think it's a completely horrible idea.

One of my least favorite things in movies and TV shows is when a couple gets together and they're obviously right for each other, but in order to stretch things out and create conflict, the writers send some ridiculous, unrealistic circumstance or misunderstanding their way to break them up. It's that kind of thinking that ruined "Friends." During the early years, I considered it one of my favorite shows, but then, after the audience had waited years for Ross and Rachel to get together, the stupid writers broke them up. I didn't have such a strong attachment to the characters that their split upset me, but it didn't make sense and it sent the show into a whole new direction. What had once been a show about quirky 20-somethings and their misadventures became basically a soap opera with the friends taking turns hooking up with each other and whatever celebrity they could talk into making a cameo. A few years after the break-up, the writers gave Ross and Rachel a baby, but defiantly refused to let them get back together. They finally reunited in the pilot with what I believe was one of those cliche airport scenes and I guess that was the idea all along. By that point, however, it was anti-climatic and the damage had been done. The ratings stayed high, of course, but what was once a show with across-the-board appeal became a show that guys refused to watch. "

It got me thinking about men and women. Maybe women just like for things to be complicated. I think every guy has been asked a question that seems like a trap. Every guy has seen a woman freak out and start a fight over something that seems insignificant. That's not to see that men don't do a myriad of things to ruin relationships as well. We're just as stupid if not more so. But I still wish that women could learn to be happy when things are good.


I've picked up another key gender difference during my time at Toys [backwards]R Us. Women have children as an outlet for nurturing and a source of unconditional love. Men have children to give themselves an excuse to play with toys.


On a completely unrelated note. Do we know for sure that Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man were husband and wife? She used the ubiquitous-in-the-80's "Ms" that's specifically designed to be unspecific. She may have been his sister for all we know. I do remember a Pac-Man Jr at one point, but they certainly wouldn't be the first couple to have a child out of wedlock and it's perfectly possible that, 80's supercelebrity that he was, Pac-Man knocked up Samus from Metroid or the blonde girl in the ferrari from Out Run. Maybe the fact that her name was Ms Pac-Man and not Pac-Woman means they were probably married, but either way I'm pretty sure she was sleeping with Q*bert.

push it back?

I found this article interesting. Seems that a bunch of college presidents got together to push for the drinking age to be moved back to 18. It's definitely weird to me that you can be a legal adult in so many other ways and not be afforded all the rights of adulthood. I also understand that it's difficult for colleges to treat some students differently than others. It's a weird situation. On the other hand, nobody wants more drunk driving deaths. I don't drink personally, but I don't think it' morally wrong if the drinker is legal and the intent is not to get drunk. I'm not sure how I come down on this particular issue, but I'm tempted to go with the college presidents. I usually favor more freedom over less. What do you guys think?

best seller

Every two or three years or so, there's a Christian book that really catches fire. Whether the circumstances are ordained by God or if these books happens to contain something that a lot of people are looking to hear is debatable, but whatever the cause, these books seemingly go from unknown to everywhere over night. Despite the fervor, or maybe because of it, I've always chosen to avoid them. I never read The Purpose Driven Life and I've never prayed The Prayer of Jabez. I've never even opened a Left Behind book and I didn't see the movie, my love for "Growing Pains" not withstanding. Recently, however, my parents gave me a copy of the latest Christian sensation (and weekly fixture in the New York Times Best-Seller List), The Shack. I'd read about the book in USA Today where they'd mentioned that many evangelical leaders had negative things to say about it and I was interested to see if the controversy was warranted, so I decided it was worth a read. It's currently the suggested book of the month at my church and they asked for comments on the church's blog, so I thought I'd turn my thoughts into a blog of my own and share it.

For those of you that don't know me, I have an English degree and most of a master's, so I tend to be critical of the things I read. This isn't the kind of book that can be judged simply by technique, but I find that it's valuable to study any work analytically and break down its strengths and weaknesses. If you happen to be completely enamored with the book and would be offended by any criticism of it, you may want to stop here. For everyone else, as the Apostle Paul said, "I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that."

[By the way, for those that haven't read the book, know that there will be spoilers galore. Come back later perhaps.]

First of all, let's get the negative out of the way. From a purely aesthetic point-of-view, I had a few issues with The Shack. Young's writing is mostly smooth, if unimpressive, but there are a few plot points that get skipped over and some misplaced modifiers here and there. For example, the narrator says early on that Mack[the main character]'s two oldest children are away at "camp or college. " Okay. So which is it? Does the otherwise-omniscient narrator not know? Most likely, Young (the author) meant that one was at college while the other was attending summer camp, but the mistake was enough to make me pause. While it doesn't seem like a huge flaw, little mistakes like that can ruin the flow of the narrative and take the reader out of the moment. After Missy's disappearance, the book goes into great detail about what each family member does in response, but the oldest children are completely left out of the picture. One would assume that they returned from camp or college to be with the rest of the family, but Young doesn't mention them again until much later in the book and never really tries to develop them as characters. Honestly, I'm not sure what purpose the older children serve and if I were the editor, I would have simply cut them from the narrative. Again, it's not the kind of thing that ruins a whole book, but when I'm reading a novel I'd prefer not to have a stop and think about why two kids just pulled a Chuck Cunningham. There are some other missing details throughout the book that bothered me (such as the kids' ages never being mentioned). These things could easily have been fixed with a sentence or two and I hope the poor editing is due to the book being published by a smaller company and isn't indicative of Christian fiction as a whole.

Next, let's get down to the meat of the book. What does it say? Well, it says a lot actually. When Mack meets up with "Papa" God, it's not all hugs and cake baking. They get into some pretty deep theology. A lot of it is pretty basic and mainstream. I thought, for example, that it was a bit odd for a former seminary student to not know that the purpose of the old covenant law was to point out our sin and inadequacy, but that's being a bit nitpicky I realize. Some of the theology, on the other hand, was a bit unorthodox. I don't have the book in front of me right now because I let someone borrow it, but I remember being struck by several statements that I would characterize as debatable at the very least. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'd much rather read fresh ideas than hear the same boring take on things that I could already recite verbatim. It did strike me as a bit arrogant at first that Young had those statements of theology coming from the mouth of God. But people claim to be hearing directly from God all the time and Young never says his book is a true story or that his fictionalized "Papa" is an exact replica of the real creator of the universe. In fact, it bothered me a bit at the end when Mack immediately wrecks his car upon leaving the shack and questions whether his weekend was all a dream. The Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz ending has been done to death and I didn't see the point in backpedaling and undercutting the rest of the book. Then, of course, Mack's best friend Willy reveals that he's been the narrator all along. It was a hokey ending that didn't seem necessary and left a bad taste in my mouth.

All that being said, I actually did enjoy the book. You'd have to be made of stone to not be moved by the death of a child and Young renders it well without straying too far into sentimentality. Beyond that, I think there are three common issues that the book addresses with a good deal of depth and grace:

1) Mack, like many people, has a problem dealing with God as father. Because of the unhealthy relationship he'd experienced with his earthly father, the word doesn't have the positive connotation for him that it should. God chooses to reveal himself to Mack as a woman, while still going by "Papa," to ease Mack into the concept, but he doesn't stop there. He also reconciles Mack with his natural father and deals with the issue of fatherhood head-on. By the end, Mack is much more comfortable with God as a father and I imagine many readers have made the journey right along with him.

2) Mack is devastated by the loss of his daughter and not only carries around melancholy and hurt, but also holds a grudge against God for allowing her to die. Mack and Papa work through the anger and, again, deal with the issue directly until he is able to forgive both God and himself. We've all had times where we're angry at or frustrated with God and Mack's story, while extreme, is a great model both of what not to do in the beginning of the novel and eventually of how to accept those emotions and move past them.

3) Mack also suffers the common problem of seeing God as Old Testament judge rather than loving creator and friend. I felt like the book could have done a bit more to reconcile the seemingly harsh God of the Torah with the Abba Father that we all know is one and the same, but it does paint an excellent picture of God in that loving, nurturing role. It's a role that's often relegated to the more camera friendly Jesus, but it's an aspect of God's personality as well and one that many readers may not have grasped. "God is love." It's a simple statement, but when that's the center of your equation, everything else falls into place.

Finally, let's tackle the controversy. I don't claim to speak for the book's detractors and there may be other criticisms leveled against the book that I haven't read. From my understanding, however, the main complaint is that the book doesn't really speak favorably of organized religion. Truth be told, the critics are right. The Jesus character is particularly critical of the modern church and Mack seems to be disillusioned by things he's seen go on among supposed Christians. Really, though, if we're honest with ourselves, don't we have to admit that we, the church, deserve a bit of criticism? So many individual churches are filled with lifeless Christians and two-faced unbelievers and the church as a whole has been infected with all sorts of rogue doctrine and some downright heretical beliefs. We've become the lovers of ourselves that Paul warned against and we're long overdue for a wake-up call. The Shack may not be the alarm bell that we need, but it's certainly not out of line in its criticisms. Despite the fact that Mack spends a lot of time in nature, his visit with God is a very specific event and the book doesn't advocate a transcendental, Walden Pond communing with nature. While the characters don't talk a lot about Mack's specific church, I think the fact that Mack shares his story with his wife and his best friend shows that Young recognizes the need for Christians to be in a community of other believers. I can see why some church-leaders are upset about the book, but any church built on sound doctrine with strong, God-seeking leadership should have nothing to fear.

The Shack, like any book, has its flaws. The writing could use a touch up in places, but it's not so terrible that it prevents the book from serving its purpose. Not everyone who reads The Shack will be amazingly touched and write glowing testimonials, but I feel like any Christian who looks should be able to find at least one or two nuggets of truth worth holding onto. Thankfully, most of us will never go through an earth shaking tragedy like the one in the novel. Still, there's still a bit of Mack in all of us and sometimes we need a special visit with Papa.

reunited and it feels...?

It came in the mail on Tuesday. The invitation to my high reunion. Lumberton Senior High's class of '98 will be living it up at the Black Water grill on June 21. Make your calendars. As for me though, I might just skip it.

First, there's the price. It's fifty-five dollars, which seems like a little much to me. I think the homecoming queen might be skimming a bit off the top (just kidding, Kelly). I'm not so destitute that I can't afford it, but when you factor in the forty bucks it'll cost me to drive there and back, it's a lot of money to pay for one meal and some cocktails I won't drink.

Secondly, there's my current life situation. Everybody wants to be doing something cool by their reunion and I like my current life for the most part, but it's not exactly impressive. "I almost got my master's and now I work at a toy store" isn't likely to wow. I like my job a lot some days and I make enough to get by on, but I could have done the same thing I'm doing now at 19 or 20 and I'm 27.

Lastly, there's my classmates. I wasn't exactly popular in high school. I talked to all the popular kids when we had classes together, but I never hung out with any of them outside of school. In fact, the only people I really hung out with at all were other theatre people and friends from church. I certainly don't hold any animosity towards anyone I went to high school with. I didn't dislike many people then and I've never been good at holding a grudge. Thing is, I always figured I'd go to my reunion just to satisfy my curiosity, to find out what everybody's up to. Thanks to the interweb, though, I've already satisfied that curiosity. I'm MySpace or Facebook friends with a good chunk of the people I'd be interested in knowing about. I can see what they're all doing now via the worldwide-superhighway-net and there's no awkward, forced conversation. There's still a few people I'm curious about, but I have no idea if they'll be there or not and I don't know if it's enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. Right now I'm leaning towards no.

the San Francisco threat

I'm going to talk about other things now, but I did want to add my opinions on the weekend's candidate happenings. The biggest news obviously was Barrack's gaffe in San Francisco. At a fund-raiser there he said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Not surpisingly, the Clinton campaign seized on the comments and began painting him as an elitist who's out of touch with the middle-class. She's definitely right that he comes off as elitist sometimes and his comments were extremely condescending, but there's probably some truth to them as well. People without jobs are bitter. The middle and lower classes tend to be more interested in hunting and religion than the rich and many of them are racist. All of those things are true. If someone else had said them, Marilyn Manson perhaps (he of the God, Guns and Government World Tour), they might have even been seen as inciteful. Problem is, they're not something you can say as president. Obama can sit around with his friends smoking cigarettes and talking about how uneducated and racist the poor are all he wants, but he can't make speeches doing the same. True or not, there are some things you're just not allowed to say.

On a side note, I'm not sure which clip I saw today was more disturbing: Hillary talking about the Holy Spirit or Hillary taking shots of crown royal.