The class I’m attending, about which I issued an anticipatory denouncement, is not that bad.
My only complaint about it is that we frequently get sidetracked. But the stop-and-go tempo is tolerable for a number of reasons.
One - the instructors are really good. They’re knowledgable but not snooty, engaging, and watchable (I mean this in an absolute sense - not on a spectrum, from “boring” to “wildly entertaining,” and they fall in as “watchable,” but as opposed to “unwatchable.”) Two, my fellow classmates have been equally engaging, and part of that is for (what I think is) an interestion reason: This is the most diverse crowd I’ve been a part of in a while, at least since similar classes in Chicago last August. I’ve forgotten what a struggle it is to use English as a second language, what it’s like to live in a city, how fun it can be when the class clown is a 50 year old African American woman.
Another thing, not related to the class: I had forgotten what I consider to be a solemn experience, to walk around a big city in the morning, before the traffic starts. The towering structures, the fascinating architecture, the clear-mindedness of new concrete, the whisper of cars passing a block away, the chill, the memory and foreknowledge of crowded streets - people walking with purpose, or else standing by and watching - of business in motion, of students on the way to class, of laborers on their way to lunch. I love my country home, but it’s something to visit the city.
And finally - who knew I’d be able to order Nancy’s deep dish pizza here in Atlanta?
You’ve certainly noticed the many weight loss ads saturating sidebars everywhere, from Facebook to www.whitehouse.gov, the most common being “Obey 1 Rule to Lose Stomach Fat.” I’ve seen a few of those ads with typos, actually, which is a filter for me: If you can’t go 40 characters without a typo, I’m not sure I trust the quality control on your product.
Anyway, yesterday and today I noticed something which seems odd. The subject of the ad, invariably female, seems to wear more revealing clothing in the “Before” picture and something like a sweater in the “After” picture. Does this make sense?
I guess the Before picture will then emphasize the person’s shape, so that the change will seem that much more drastic. But putting a sweater on for the After picture? That would cause me to lose confidence - there must still be something the subject (more likely the company) wants to hide.
Also - part two of this treatment is a colon cleanse? This is something - anything to do with the colon seems to evoke extreme discomfort (I know there are two readers who could holler back!), and is not something I would willingly pay for. In fact, the only circumstance under which I would pay for a colon cleanse is if my doctor ordered it. Then I would know it was necessary, and that somebody with special training would order and facilitate the cleansing.
I’m certainly not going to trust the typo-ing company who poured cold water on my confidence with their wardrobe selections.
Continuing with the quest for feedback:
If you have an e-mail account with Google, I’m curious to know what percentage of your available storage space you are currently using. I am at 6%.
If you do not use Gmail, why not?
(Fish does use Gmail, currently used 8% of space).
I’d like to know: Do/would you shop on Christmas day? Why or why not?
My answer is that I do not, and probably would not. Even though we’re away from family and friends this year, Christmas is still a day for reflection, soaking in any sense of peace there may be, and spending time with loved ones, even if it’s only one or two loved ones.
And playing with toys.
Once before I might have read it through, but a couple of days ago I finished reading the book of Genesis straight through. In terms of length and density, this isn’t saying a lot, though the genealogies do become a little tedious.
That’s interesting, though. If I kept reading, a long time from now I’d encounter the genealogies of Jesus, one of which leads back to Adam. In spite of the unfamiliar names and the fact that reading a list isn’t usually a party-starter, I am fascinated by it when I take a step back. Lines of succession must have been important to the ancient Jews for many reasons, terrifically important, and it’s a peek at our species seemingly in its youth.
It seems archaic to talk about who my father is, and who my father’s father is, and on back, and the children all these men begat. Not to mention sexist, right? (That’s another conversation, boy). If we were to trace our lineage, we’d aim to link ourselves to someone important, which implicitly enriches our selves, whether we actually deserve it or not. But there’s more, I think, though I’m not a scholar…
The genealogies in Genesis also trace the relationship between God and His chosen people. When God introduces Himself as “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…,” I read God as saying, “I have been faithful to you for generations, and the great ones you link yourselves to were made great by Me. You have the most remarkable relationship that anyone on earth can claim.”
For someone struggling to understand his relationship to God, this is a humble and elegant beginning.
For now.
I have two locations scouted out for playoff games, so I should be set. Put the kids to bed!
I’ve been thinking a lot about God lately, and much of the popular “wisdom” about God.
There’s a phrase among some people which runs something like, “God never gives you more than you can handle.”
At the urging of Mike Lloyd, I listened to a broadcast of “This American Life” online. The episode I chose was “Unconditional Love.”
An interview began with parents of an autistic child. They were bemoaning the fact that people put them on a pedestal because of their situation, because these other people “could never do it.” The father answered this common remark, saying, “Yes you could do it. Unless you’re a (bleep), you’d be doing exactly the same thing.” (The bleep was just one syllable, so I’m not sure which word he used).
The two parents go on, as the father denies they are saints, then raises up the beginning phrase - God never gives you more than you can handle - ready to knock it down with some common-sense idea. He starts, “When people say that-” but he’s at a loss for words.
Then his wife chimes in, not missing a beat - “You just want to kick them in the teeth.”
I haven’t come up with a coherent summary of my recent thoughts, but somehow that fits.
“It’s my new favorite movie.”
“It’s the greatest movie ever!”
These are the things I heard during The Dark Knight’s opening weekend, among other squeals and guttural sounds of delight.
“Awesome.”
Here’s my problem - Most people might not think so, but these little expressions are spoilers. They’re not plot spoilers, they’re experience spoilers. If I go into a movie fresh, with no strong impressions from anywhere, then I will enjoy the movie on my own terms.
But if I go into a movie thinking, “Some people consider this an instant classic, the finest depiction of good vs. evil in cinema,” then I go into the movie spoiled. It is likely that, if you are reading this post within a few weeks of my writing it, you are not someone who would have spoiled the movie for me.
So, here’s my review of The Dark Knight.
It’s a very good movie, but not great. I liked 3:10 to Yuma better - thought that was great.
The common thread between those movies is Christian Bale. At the end of the movie, Marcy exclaimed, “Christian Bale is the best Batman ever!”
“Yes,” I thought. “There have been about 5 Batmans, and only three of them took themselves seriously. Of those three, I’m not completely sure that he’s better than Michael Keaton.”
Let me expound - I think Christian Bale was excellent in Batman Begins. He looked tough, tormented, and even bigger than many of his enemies (before and during his Batman days). But in The Dark Knight, he looks small - he looks far too unaffected by the turmoil around him. There are many good moments, of course, but nothing in the movie made me think, “Only Christian Bale could pull that off.”
Heath Ledger, on the other hand, was incredible. When I first heard of his death, I nearly wept for the loss of a talent, for someone with whom I shared some sensibilities. What a career he could have had.
Let’s enjoy what we have, though - I set out to pay special attention to the Joker, to see what about him made Ledger struggle so fiercely within himself. And it was there, explicitly and implicitly. Ledger’s Joker was a brilliant villain, one who had thought out the value of human lives and the condition of living more thoroughly than most people, and one who had an almost admirable tolerance to endure hatred because of his perspective.
His perspective was driven by pain, the inexplicable and indescribable agony that some people suffer at the cruel hands of others. In a way, no one can claim to be more righteous than the Joker, only to be just as righteous in the opposite direction - He, dedicated to the idea that cruelty is a given and that one must be ready to match the lawless and ruthless cruelty of any other.
As I get a bit philosophical, I have to say that I enjoyed the deeper moments of the film, largely because the writers (The Nolan Brothers) let most of the weightier statements be delivered in a conversational tone, as two college kids might stay up at night debating the foundations of the world.
In the same way, I like the fact that two villains have shown up in each movie so far, and at least one of them, seemingly, dies. Further, the second villain is dealt with “conversationally,” so that he doesn’t need his own movie to dominate in order to make an appearance. The emergence of Two-Face was satisifying and interesting.
For his part, Aaron Eckhart did a great job. He was noble and shrewd as the DA, then explosive and vengeful as Two-Face. Nice lead up with the secret nickname the Police had for Dent.
All other acting seemed terrific to me, as far as I cared to consider, and tension and action were delivered. Let’s have another, and someone tell Christian Bale to turn down one of his other 17 movies so that he can deliver a little better on Batman.
It would probably be better to come with excerpts and citations to this subject, but I think that won’t be necessary. If you need these things, ask me.
An old bit of wisdom says that one should never talk about religion, politics, sex, or money in polite company. After about 40 minutes in “The Blogosphere,” it’s easy to see why.
Actual opinions and beliefs aside, people are generally idiots when they write or comment about these things.
Now, I read my own sentence there and think, “Well, ‘idiots’ is a potentially inflammatory word, and I probably shouldn’t use it to make my point.” But my point, I’d say, runs off the use of such a word.
Most of these people, I venture to say, are capable of a calm and rational conversation on any of those subjects. Not only would I enjoy such conversations, but I long for them.
Something about the inflammatory words, though - the assumptions, the escalating tones and name-calling, the presumption that one has thought out all sides of a debate and judged all but his own to be utterly inferior - all of these make for idiocy.
About a month ago, Fischer had a streak of three or four days when, as far as I was concerned, he was on: He introduced me to a few new phrases, focused me on a few good ideas, and cracked me up with his jokes. For the last week or so, it’s been Neal - I refer now to his Foray into Four A’s, which is one of those intuitive concepts that you’re glad someone has formulated into words.
But the Four A’s are based on a rational disposition, and it seems to me that many of the people commenting on these blogs, and many of the bloggers themselves, are working out some kind of pain or complex that finds no other satisfying expression than the blind and reckless tongue-lashings they administer on the World Wide Web.