Truth, Justice and the American Way

'Way' to go Emilio Estevez

2011-10-18T07:55:00.000-07:00

Mr. Estevez has come a long way since The Breakfast Club, Young Guns, and The Mighty Ducks. His new film, The Way which he produced, wrote and directed looks to be quite a departure from the usual Hollywood fare. And that's just the way he wants it.

Brent Bozell at Newsbusters writes:

In an interview on the Catholic cable channel EWTN, Estevez joked about the horror of making the pitch for this movie about a pilgrimage – no massive special effects, no parade of gore or bedroom scenes with nudity. It’s just an old man hiking across Spain with three people he meets along the way. It’s a small movie, made on a small budget. It’s about our humanity and our spirituality. It’s so easy to imagine Tinseltown’s eyes glazing over.

But what Estevez said in that interview was still striking. “Hollywood is a very difficult place to be earnest and be heartfelt. And I am not interested in making films that are anything but. There’s a lot of vulgarity in films. There’s a lot of violence, casual sex – things that make me uncomfortable watching – and I’m not interested in perpetuating that message.” …

Here’s how “The Way” unfolds. Sheen’s character, California ophthalmologist Tom Avery, is a widower who’s been angry at his son’s decision to forego a graduate degree to wander the world. While Avery’s out on the golf course, a French policeman calls to tell him his son has died in a storm in the Pyrenees. When Avery arrives to identify the body, the policeman tells him about the “camino,” and he resolves to travel the route with his son’s cremated remains. On this very long walk, he finds companionship with a burly Dutchman who wants to lose weight, an Irish writer with writer’s block, and a bitter Canadian woman trying to quit smoking – and ultimately rediscovers his lost faith.
The movie is beautiful travelogue of the sites along the route, from mountain vistas to beautiful old cathedrals. It’s a great backdrop for a subtle human story. After the Canadian woman cynically suggestes Sheen’s character is there to march on a self-absorbed baby-boomer journey to a James Taylor soundtrack, she’s embarrassed to learn the truth. Later she admits her own dark troubles. She was a battered wife and is haunted by an abortion she underwent because she didn’t want her husband to have two females to brutalize. She says she can hear her daughter’s voice. Estevez explained, “We give voice to the unborn, and again, that is another thing Hollywood doesn’t necesssarily celebrate.”

To quote the great Clark Griswold, "If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn't be more surprised than I am right now." In another interview, Estevez said this:

This film is really a celebration of family and faith and community and healing and our humanity. And it’s, you know, there’s no CGI, there’s no explosions, there’s no vulgarity, there’s no overt sexuality. There’s a ton of humor, and none of it is raunchy. So, this movie is really a reflection of the path that I’m walking on.

I go to so many films and I'm embarrassed by what I see. And, you know, Hollywood is responsible for those themes and those messages that they're projecting out there for not only Americans to see, but the rest of the world. It's one of our last great exports, is our popular culture. And it's just that there's so much of it that is negative and anti, and this is a movie that’s not anti anything. This is all inclusive.

Remember this, because it may be a hundred years before you hear a major Hollywood star say something like that again. Good for him. We'll see how this works out for him, but whatever the repercussions from his constituents, I suspect he will gain overwhelming support from a huge swath of the country that Hollywood chooses to largely ignore.

Spock is gay

2011-10-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

So apparently Zachary Quinto (Heroes, Star Trek) is gay.

Please register your indifference to:

The Department of Not Giving a Damn
PO Box: Nobody Cares
You're Boring, ME 97321

Courtesy of John Nolte at Big Hollywood

The New Racism

2011-10-16T19:55:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher said last week on his HBO show that denying racism is the new racism. I think Maher, with great clarity, has captured the sentiment and strategy of the Left heading into the 2012 presidential election. If you are a Republican, you are a bigot. If you are a conservative, you're an extremist. If you oppose Barack Obama, you're a racist. A rising chorus of liberal elected officials, media pundits, and celebrities have begun to circle around the president's reelection campaign to make that case.

This isn't entirely new. The Left has been trying to characterize the right as bigots and religious nuts for years, but the brazenness and scope of these attacks has reached a new high (or low). As Maher stated, the Left has now set up a scenario where conservatives are racists no matter what. Consider a few examples from just the past few weeks:

The media jumped all over a story in the Washington Post, in which a rock near the entrance of a property in Texas that was partially leased thirty years ago by Governor Rick Perry's father allegedly had the word "N----rhead" written on it. It was apparently painted over about the same time, but because Rick Perry occasionally used the property for hunting, the media wants to determine his racial tolerance quotient based on how long it took to paint over the racial epithet.

Morgan Freeman insisted on the Piers Morgan show that the fierce opposition to President Obama is motivated by race, going so far as to say the Tea Party represents the "weak, dark underside of America."

Sean Penn, also on Piers Morgan's show, expressed himself this way, "You have what I call the 'Get the ‘N’-word out of the White House party,' the Tea Party." In case he wasn't clear enough, he continued "..at the end of the day, there's a big bubble coming out of their heads saying, you know, 'can we just lynch him?'”.

The media has long been fond of pointing out the "whiteness" of the crowds at Tea Party rallys (while ignoring the overwhelmingly white make-up of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests). The irony here is that Republicans elected more minorities to national office in 2010 than Democrats.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida

Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada (state's first hispanic gov.)

Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina (state's first female gov. & an Indian-American)

Gov. Susannah Martinez of New Mexico (state's first hispanic female gov.)

Rep. Allen West of Florida (state's first black congressman since 1870s)

Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina (state's 1st black congressman)

Rep. Bill Flores of Texas

Rep. Francisco Canseco of Texas.

One would assume this would put an end to the argument. But according to the Left's new paradigm, it simply doesn't matter what Conservatives say or do. They are racists. End of discussion. So how do they explain Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain leading in several of the national polls and his enthusiastic support from the Tea Party? Simple. He's a racist too.

Cain recently suggested that black Americans have been brainwashed into voting for Democrats. A controversial statement to be sure, but racist? Yes, according to a number of liberal pundits, including Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst Cornell Belcher.

But it goes further. Cain is also accused of being an Uncle Tom and not authentically black; a sellout, an accommodator who sat on the sidelines of the civil rights movement. I find this ironic too, given that Herman Cain lived a far more "black experience" in the segregated south than Obama did growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, raised by his white grandparents. I'm not sure why this "blackness" standard wasn't applied to then Senator Obama. That irony is lost on some in the media, who will go as low as they have to in order to demonize Republicans. In an interview with Cain on MSNBC, lily-white Lawrence O'Donnell questions his black credentials, as does Martin Bashir who was particularly nasty, essentially calling him a coward.

But liberals don't stop there. Now, there are a growing number of topics, political arguments and discussions under scrutiny. Melissa Harris-Perry, a professor at Tulane University and political commentator, declared over the weekend it is racist to point out the fact that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. This is not unlike Carlos Watson's assertion a couple years ago that conservatives' use of the term "socialist" is the new n-word.

The simple truth is conservatives oppose President Obama because he is a big government liberal who is convinced we can tax and spend our way to prosperity. But many on the left, it seems, just cannot fathom the idea that anyone would oppose President Obama on principal. Some choose to see racism as the basis for all opposing viewpoints. Still others simply see the use of racial politics as an effective and convenient political strategy. Either way, it is likely these attacks will only grow in frequency and force as the election draws closer. But racism won't be the only charge. Expect to see conservatives tarred as homophobic, anti-science religious extremists who want to set up a Christian theocracy in the White House. And if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, how long will it be before 60 Minutes, CNN and Dateline NBC run feature stories on the Mormon faith, dissecting its history and "weird" beliefs and theology?

It's a nasty business, but it changes the subject and distracts the American people from Barack Obama's dismal record as President.

Ever step in a pile of dog crap?

2011-10-15T02:13:00.000-07:00

I know I'm coming to this party a little late, but I can't leave it alone. Last night, I finally saw The Expendables. Part of me wanted to see this movie when it was released in theaters last year, but the bad reviews discouraged me. Recently the film was made available on Netflix, so I thought I'd give it a tumble.

It's not like I had high hopes. Directed by Sylvester Stallone, the movie stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Steve Austin, Randy Couture, and of course, Stallone himself. The film also features cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Hardly an ensemble cast of accomplished thespians, so I went into the film with especially low expectations.

Somehow the The Expendables managed to exceed them. There are simply no words to describe how bad this movie is. I already mentioned the cast, but surprisingly, despite the presence of former UFC and WWE stars bringing down the curve, the acting really isn't the problem, or at least, not the most obvious. The real problem is one of the worst scripts in the history of cinema. It's written by David Callahan (?), whose most significant previous work is the screenplay for Doom. Watching this movie, you'd think Stallone bought the story from the 3rd place finisher in a middle school writing contest for $20 and a signed copy of Tango and Cash.

It's essentially a plot held together by a series of one-liners. Bad ones. Like, so bad you don't even understand them. Now you might say, as defenders of the film do, the movie is a throwback, an homage to 80s action films that weren't very good themselves.

Balderdash.

Yes, many of those 80s movies that we love weren't all that great, but they at least had some style and panache. Movies like Roadhouse and Commando are on the Mount Rushmore of over the top, 80s cinema excesses, but they were fun and unabashedly committed to style over substance. Eighties action movies are legendary for their one-liners, but the story wasn't built around them. Some were cheesy ("I feel the need, the need for speed!"), some were ridiculous ("Let off some steam Bennett!"), but they always made you smile ("I'm too old for this shit."). And when they were delivered, there was no conceit, no inside joke, no shame. Just perfect timing ("Yippee-ki-yay motherf@#$%*").

Not so here. Expendables isn't fun. It's boring and incomprehensible. From what I could figure out, Stallone and co. are a group of mercenaries who are hired by the CIA to kill a "rogue" agent who is taking over some small, nameless South American country in order to start his own drug trade. But during a recon mission, he is captivated by young woman who refuses to leave when given the chance, choosing to stay and help her people. Stallone decides he must go back to rescue her. And of course, his fellow mercs (all four of them) sympathize and decide to join their friend in taking on an entire army by themselves for free. Not surprisingly, they succeed (with no casualties).

The action isn't bad; well choreographed and fast. The violence quotient is pretty high with bones and joints being broken and bent the wrong way. Bodies are shredded and blown apart by weapons fire. But it comes at you so fast, it begins to blur together. None of the action is in the least bit compelling because you don't really believe any of the heroes are in danger, or care enough about them if they were.

As far as the characters, the only thing that differentiates them is how they prefer to kill people. Stallone's the crack shot. Statham is the knife guy. Jet Li's the martial arts expert. Crews is the heavy weapons guy and so on. The acting, like I said before, is about what you'd expect given the screenplay they had to work with, but one guy stands out below the rest. I don't remember Dolph Lundgren being a particularly bad actor, but his "performance" makes you think a drunk wandered onto the movie set, stumbling and slurring his way around, demanding that he be given a part. I seriously couldn't understand a word he said.

It's too bad. With its cast,the film had the potential to be a lot of fun. Stallone has shown he can direct halfway decent films. His last two outings, Rocky Balboa and Rambo were actually kind of compelling. The Expendables, in contrast, is dull, humorless, and I found myself checking my watch hoping it would end soon. The worst part, however, is that no one, not my friends, not my family told me how bad this movie is. Shame on them.

Avengers Assemble!

2011-10-11T15:46:00.000-07:00

"Just the facts, ma'am"

2011-10-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

Some of my fellow conservatives have spent the last 2 1/2 years attacking President Obama by calling him a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. Some are convinced he is a secret Muslim who is trying to undermine our security and way of life. Many of these folks questioned his status as a U.S. citizen, suggesting he was born in Kenya or Indonesia.

After watching the vicious and hateful attacks that President George W. Bush endured for eight years, I was convinced that we conservatives should not fall into the same trap by making ridiculous, over the top attacks that assign an evil motive to those whom we disagree with. Unfortunately, some in our party have let their frustration over the floundering economy, soaring debt, and the explosion in the size and scope of government get the best of them. The result is these folks make it easy for our political opponents and the media to demonize and ridicule conservatives, making us all look crazy or extreme. Even worse, it drives moderates and independents, people we must bring to our side, away from positions and causes on which they might otherwise agree with us. Can we all agree that comparing any American politician to Hitler is stupid?

My point is that we don't need to go all "birther." We don't need to question his repeated profession of faith in Jesus Christ. We don't need to compare him to a dictator who murdered more than 10 million people. We don't even need to question his sincerity. All we have to do is focus on his record. As the above video shows, by virtually every measure, American life is worse than when he became President. Granted, he inherited a difficult situation after the financial collapse of 2008, but he has made that situation vastly worse. Most significantly, he has broken faith with those who voted for him. More than any other factor, President Obama was elected on his promise to unite Americans. He promised "change we can believe in." He promised he would lead us to a post-racial, post-partisan America. Instead, he has shown himself to be an incredibly partisan and petty politician who's primary concern is his own reelection. The President has made our case for us by being just plain incompetent. And that's more than enough reason to ferry him into retirement next November.

Jim Lee Sketching Captain America

2011-09-14T07:29:00.000-07:00

This is just sick

Ten Years Later...

2011-09-11T01:38:00.000-07:00

There is so much one can say about that day, the days leading up to it, and the many days since. I am still filled with anger every time I see the image of those towers burning, but the only thing that feels appropriate for this anniversary is to say thanks. Thank you to everyone who has worked, fought, and sacrificed to keep us safe since 9/11. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Sean Connery: The Musical

2011-09-06T01:08:00.000-07:00

Fright Night review

2011-08-26T05:11:00.000-07:00

I have long lamented the fact that vampires, one of the great antagonists of literature and mythology, have been so poorly translated to film. Since 1922's Nosferatu, you can count the number of good vampire movies on one hand. What's worse is how the portrayal of vampires has transformed from the embodiment of pure evil, to sympathetic vagabond, and now, sexy hero.

In 1985, before this idiotic evolution, Fright Night was released in theaters. The movie centered around a high school kid, Charlie, who comes to realize that a vampire, a fellow by the name of Jerry, has moved into the house next door. When he tries to convince his girlfriend and best friend, they laugh at him. But his insistence begins to worry them, so they enlist the help of Peter Vincent, an aging star of a recently canceled late night horror show, played by Roddy McDowall (Cornelius from Planet of the Apes). His friends hope this vampire "expert" will prove to Charlie that their neighbor is no creature of the night. When Mr. Vincent realizes Jerry really is a bloodsucker, he eventually helps Charlie exterminate the creature. Chris Sarandon (Prince Humperdinck of "The Princess Bride") gives a great performance that is both charming and malevolent as the evil neighbor. The movie is a little dated, with 80s styles and music, but it's still among the best of the genre. And it blends humor and horror as well any film ever has.

The folks over at DreamWorks apparently felt this formula would work again in 2011. And since Hollywood is loathe to produce original material these days, a remake was in order. This remake works largely because of timing. In an era where vampires have become cute, misunderstood teen idols, audiences are ready for vampires who are just ruthless monsters, unencumbered by guilt or angst over their existence.

The new Fright Night takes place in LasVegas; an ideal place for a vampire to blend in because of its transient population that works all night and sleeps all day. Overall, the remake has a superior cast. Colin Farrell takes over as the not so friendly neighbor, Jerry. Although, I think he's a good actor, I have to say that I have long suffered from an acute case of Colin Farrell fatigue caused by his appearance in one out every three movies released from 2002-2006. But Farrell is up to the challenge. His Jerry is a sadistic and unrelenting killer. He lacks the elegance and panache of Sarandon, but is every bit as charming. Anton Yelchin (Chekov in the new Star Trek) plays Charlie, a kid who is trying hard to distance himself from his nerdy past and nerdy friends in order to win the affection of a pretty girl. This time, Peter Vincent is a Vegas magician and narcissistic drunk hilariously brought to life by David Tennant (Doctor Who). The movie has a few good scares and more than few good laughs. If I was a movie critic, I would say it's "wickedly funny."

Fright Night moves fast, running from scene to scene, rarely slowing down for anything, which is too bad because its best scenes happen when the movie slows down to build the tension. One such scene occurs when Jerry tries and tries to get a suspicious Charlie to invite him into the house. Another when Charlie attempts to rescue one of Jerry's victims. But the movie prefers a sprinters pace, so it can feel a little rushed at times. There is also a few scenes with annoying CGI blood that's squirts at the camera intended for the 3D version. But none of this keeps Fright Night from being a highly enjoyable date movie, quite possibly the most fun I've had at the theater this year. And probably one of the best vampire movies ever, but that's not saying much.

Cover to The Mighty Thor #3

2011-08-25T09:44:00.000-07:00

Tell me this isn't cool.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance trailer

2011-08-19T16:59:00.000-07:00

Ghost Rider is a very cool comic book character, but most people of sound mind would agree the first movie was somewhere between not good and just another Nicolas Cage movie. Which begs the question, how bad does a movie have to be nowadays for the producers to say, "There's just no way we can make a sequel."? And judging by the trailer, the filmmakers have not learned their lesson.

The New "Man of Steel"

2011-08-05T15:05:00.000-07:00

Click to enlarge

Given that Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is directing this, I'm not very hopeful. Henry Cavill looks the part, I guess, but I wish they would have stuck with Brandon Routh. There no denying though, it's got a great cast. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Ma and Pa Kent, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, and Russell Crowe as Jor-El. As far as the photo, my initial thoughts are:

a) This looks more like a promotional photo rather than a still shot from the film.

b) That is a REALLY long cape. And...

c) The filmmakers really want to you to know this is a darker, more action-packed Superman movie; not a plodding, character driven film. In other words, it's not Superman Returns (which I liked a lot by the way).

What do you think?

Captain America: The First Avenger review

2011-07-25T05:54:00.000-07:00

With Hollywood honing the superhero film into a reliable cash cow and even a respectable art form, the time seemed right to bring one of Marvel's flagship characters to the silver screen. It should be noted however, that the release of Captain America: The First Avenger actually marks the fourth attempt to showcase Cap on film. First in a 1944 serial. Then in a couple of 1979 made for TV movies. And finally a 1990 straight to video version starring the venerable Matt Salinger (son of J.D. Salinger). All were unspeakably bad, but even with the prospect of a respectable budget, it has long been a topic of discussion whether Captain America, with his star-spangled costume and patriotic values would translate well to the big screen. Well, that argument appears to be settled.

What's right
Captain has enjoyed very positive reviews thus far and deservedly so. The movie is fun, has a great cast, and stylish production quality. Chris Evans delivers a fine performance as Steve Rogers, a virtuous runt who wants nothing more than to serve his country. He is eminently likable and sympathetic. The seamless SFX that combine the head of Evans with a frail, 98 lb. body are stunning. The supporting performances are equally good with Tommy Lee Jones as a predictably gruff commander, Stanley Tucci as the kindly scientist Dr. Erskine, and Hayley Atwell as a feisty intelligence officer and love interest of our hero. The movie's romantic element works far better than most superhero movies, preferring a certain modesty appropriate to the time period. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull is decent, but nowhere near the menace of Agent Smith in the Matrix films. Director Joe Johnston deftly combines action, humor, nostalgia and romance into a solid adventure movie that appeals to a very wide audience.

What's Wrong
Last year, Johnston went out of his way to assure everyone that his protagonist would not be "this jingoistic American flag-waver. He's just a good person." And that the film "isn't so much about America as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing. It's an international cast and an international story." Chris Evans joined this chorus of pre-emptive assurances that the spectre of patriotism would not taint the film, "I'm trying not to get too lost in the American side of it. This is not a flag waving movie...He might wear the red, white and blue, but I don't think this is all about America. It is what America stands for. It could be called Captain Good."

Captain Good? Uh-huh...

Well, having seeing the movie, I can you tell you Johnston and Evans were telling the truth.

As a matter of fact, it might as well be called Steve Rogers: The First Avenger. Is that a problem? Well, let's face it, lots of other heroes are "good." Peter Parker is "good." He's a wimpy nerd who, like Steve Rogers, gains amazing powers. What differentiates the two? According to the movie, nothing except time and circumstances. In truth, what separates Captain America from every other hero is his public embrace of, commitment to uphold, and willingness to fight for specifically American values such as liberty, equality, and justice. This makes him a symbol. But the studio's determination to avoid any appearance of "jingoism" (i.e patriotism) ultimately robs him of an ethos that is central to his character and his heroism.  Steven Greydanus over at Decentfilms.com (who loved the film) articulated this sentiment beautifully:

I appreciate that when Erskine asks Steve, “Do you want to kill Nazis?” Steve’s response is: “I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t like bullies, no matter where they’re from.” That’s a fine sentiment, and a universal one.

At the same time, Captain America is not a universal hero. He’s a hero uniquely identified with the iconography, mythology and aspirations of a particular nation. What does America mean to Steve? What does it mean to him to be an American? I’m not saying Steve needs to be Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith or anything, although, actually, something in that direction might have helped.

Going beyond the character’s underdeveloped comic-book origins might have helped too. Superman’s values were shaped by salt-of-the-earth Ma and Pa Kent and Kansas farm life. Spider-Man’s sense of responsibility was shaped by Uncle Ben in life and death, and Aunt May helps him keep it real. Batman is defined by his parents’ murder. Where does Steve Rogers come from? When did his family come to America? What did America mean to his parents?

Of course, I understand the filmmakers’ reticence; they want to avoid any appearance of jingoism to be as marketable as possible overseas.

Still, with this hero, if you aren’t willing to at least run the risk of an appearance of a little jingoism, you can’t help falsifying the character to some extent. It’s one thing for a movie like Superman Returns to toss out a line about Superman standing for “truth, justice, all that stuff,” in part because “the American way” wasn’t a fixture of Superman’s spiel until the 1950s; back in the 1940s, Superman really did fight for “truth and justice.” Captain America is different.

He needs to fight for the American way.

Of course he does. But the movie won't have any of it. It's almost comical. There's a scene in which Rogers is sent by the USO to give a show to some combat weary troops in his red, white and blue propaganda costume. He later wears this when he rescues a bunch of captured soldiers. Upon returning, he has a utility uniform made for him modeled after his colorful USO outfit. The movie never explains why he does this or why his commanders would allow it. A symbol to communicate ideas/values? To rally? To inspire? We're never told.

In fairness, the film by no means bashes America. In fact, the USA and the military come off quite well, going so far as to assemble a multi-racial team of soldiers to fight alongside the Captain (In the segregated U.S. military of 1944. Right.). And while the film doesn't dare to utter anything overtly patriotic, it does have a few good lines that can easily be interpreted that way.

When asked by the Red Skull, "What makes you so special?" the Captain answers, "Nothing. I'm just a kid from Brooklyn." This implies, if one likes, that all Americans will fight tyranny with the same courage and determination. Another nice line comes when the Skull mocks his costume, "I have seen the future. There are no flags." To which the Captain responds, "Not in my future." It's subtle, but perhaps as patriotic as Hollywood is currently capable of without raising the ire of the media and cultural elites, who are ever vigilant to protect the public from the kind of simple minded sentiments that would undoubtedly lead to nationalism and hatred of all other peoples.

Despite this lengthy criticism, I did enjoy the film. But because it lacks anything other than a generic goodness at its heart, the movie fails to thrill or stir us in any lasting way, which is what prevents Captain America: The First Avenger from being a great superhero movie.

Fanboy Quibbles

In the comic book, Steve Rogers is trained as a master tactician and battlefield commander. His enhanced physical abilities are honed through intense martial training, making him the most formidable hand to hand combatant there is. In the movie, he basically walks into battle after battle with virtually no training (including flying a plane) and kicks butt, relying purely on his physical strength, agility and endurance. The outstanding Avengers cartoon doesn't forget these details, and has a far better grasp of his character than this movie. OK, I'm done.

Deleted Opening Scene From Superman Returns

2011-07-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

I'm generally not a fan of special edition movies with deleted scenes plugged in. The Lord of the Rings had some cool scenes that were added to its extended editions. Fanboys loved them, but the added cuts just made the movies longer and clunkier without really adding much the films themselves. In the case of Superman Returns, this deleted opening sequence adds a great deal to the movie by giving some needed detail and context to his departure and return to Earth. It also gives weight to a major plot point that is only afforded passing mention in the rest of the film.

How Cool Is This?

2011-07-07T20:59:00.001-07:00

Marvel and Paramount released this retro style poster for the upcoming Captain America movie that pays homage to the first issue of his comic from 1941. The marketing here is very clever, and combined with what I saw in the latest trailer, I have to say, despite my initial doubts, I cannot help but be excited about this latest superhero flick.

"Silent Cal" Honors 4th of July

2011-07-04T13:30:00.000-07:00

Address by President Calvin Coolidge for the 150th Anniversary of American Independence, July 4, 1926:

"[The Founders] preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit. ...Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man . . . are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. ...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. ...We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. . . . If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things which are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshipped."

Have truer words ever been uttered?

Top 10 Doctor Who Episodes (Series 1-5)

2011-04-22T17:14:00.000-07:00

Since 2005, the last of the Time Lords has done his best to protect humanity from the universe's many dangers. With the sixth season of Doctor Who premiering Saturday night, it's time to look back on the best of the first five seasons. As an American, I did not grow up with the show, so I lack the cultural familiarity associated with this longstanding element of British entertainment. Although the Doctor Who phenomenon doesn't even register as a blip in America, I do remember as a kid watching it a few times on public television and being impressed by the show's complex plots. And while I would likely lose at 'Doctor' Trivial Pursuit, I've become a fan of the new series. It's an odd, but highly original and entertaining mix of science fiction, science fantasy, mystery and thriller. Here are the highlights:

10. Dalek (series 1)
Drawn off course by a distress signal, the Tardis lands in Utah, inside the underground bunker of wealthy American mogul Henry Van Statten in the year 2012. The bunker turns out to be a museum made up of alien artifacts fallen from space and collected by Van Statten. The Doctor and Rose are taken to see the museum's only living specimen, the "Metaltron," which turns out to be a lone Dalek who survived the Time War. When Rose inadvertently reactivates the Dalek, it escapes and begins exterminating.

What makes this story compelling is the new series' first real exploration of the Doctor's character and history, warts and all. We see the Doctor's prejudices, his hatred of the Daleks, and the scars left over from the the mysterious "Time War," (something lacking in subsequent seasons). We also gain some understanding of why the Doctor needs a companion to ground and "humanize" him.

9. Rise of the Cybermen/ The Age of Steel (series 2)
The Tardis materializes in present day London of an alternate dimension where everyone has EarPods that directly download news and other information directly into their brain. The maker of these Earpods, John Lumic, has plans to upgrade human beings into Cyborgs. After secretly kidnapping homeless people and converting them against their will, Lumic creates an army of Cybermen to "upgrade" the human race. The appeal of the Cybermen as villains is the frightening way people are stripped of their identidies and enslaved to a single consciousness. Nothing terribly original, but an excellent reintroduction to the Cybermen with solid action and story.

8. Army of Ghosts/ Doomsday (series 2)
In this two-part season finale, the Doctor and Rose return to London to find the world populated with"ghosts" that appear everywhere in regular intervals. The world has largely embraced the phenomenon, but the Doctor is suspicious. He begins to investigate, but is soon taken prisoner by Torchwood, a secret government organization that is performing experiments on a mysterious sphere, causing a breach that the "ghosts" emanate from. Things begin to go badly when the ghosts materialize and turn out to Cybermen who promptly begin conquering the Earth. Shortly thereafter, the sphere opens up and Daleks emerge with their own designs for the planet and every Doctor who fanboy's fantasy is fulfilled as the Doctor two greatest enemies face each other for the first time. The confrontation doesn't disappoint as the Cybermen try to establish an alliance, but the Daleks will have none if it, and the battle begins. The Doctor finds a way to send both the Daleks and Cybermen back through the breach, but at a cost. Rose is sent to an alternate universe with Mickey and her parents, forever separated from the Doctor. This episode satisfies on nearly every level, plenty of action and drama with an emotional climax. Just ask my wife. She cried.

7. Human Nature/ Family of Blood (series 3)
The Doctor is being hunted by aliens who need a Time Lord body to avoid death. In order to escape, the Doctor transforms himself into a human and hides on Earth in the year 1913. We find the Doctor is now John Smith, a teacher at a boys military school in England, with no memory of who he is. Martha poses as a maid, watching over the Doctor until it's safe for him to regain his identity. But the Family of Blood have followed the Doctor to Earth and begin looking for him, killing as they go. When everyone in the school and surrounding village are threatened by the Family, John Smith must decide to "die," in order for the Doctor to return and save everyone.

An exceptionally well written episode, complete with creepy (but campy) villains and believable romance. Not enough can be said for David Tennant's performance. His ability to connect with the audience emotionally is what drives the story. My one criticism is the anti-military, almost anti-British current running through this episode (Why do Brits seem so ashamed of their history?). It's distracting and doesn't serve the story well.

6. Silence in the Library/ Forest of the Dead (series 4)
Donna and the Doctor arrive on the library planet Biblios in the 51st century only to find that all inhabitants are gone. While trying to solve the mystery, they are joined by a team of explorers led River Song, an archeologist who is also trying to solve the mystery. They soon discover that a race of flesh-eating microscopic creatures live in the shadows. This is an intricately plotted thriller penned by Steven Moffat, the series best writer. His most ingenious contribution here is the character River Song, a woman from the Doctor's future who has become a fixture in the series.

5. The Waters of Mars (2009 special #2)

The Doctor drops in on a Mars colony in the year 2059. Shortly after arriving, two of the colonists contract something from unfiltered glacier water that transforms them into weird, zombie-like creatures that gush water. When more of the colonists are turned, the crew must stop the aliens from getting to Earth. The Doctor quickly comes to the realization he has arrived on the day history when the Mars colony is destroyed. Because of the event's historical significance, the Doctor decides he cannot interfere to save them, and begins to leave. When their shuttle is destroyed in an explosion, trapping them and the aliens on Mars, the Doctor turns back to save the rest of the colonists, and change history. Without a human companion, we see the Doctor's arrogance spiral out of control, at the cost of history itself. In a stunning climax, the Doctor is humbled by an act of human defiance. This is writer/producer Russell T. Davies at his best - controlled and focused.

4. The Girl in the Fireplace (series 2)
The Doctor along with Rose and Mickey find a spaceship adrift and without a crew, but operational. Inside, they discover an old fireplace that turns out to be a time window into 17th century France. There, the Doctor meets a little girl named Reinette. When he passes through the fireplace into the girl's bedroom, he finds a clockwork android hiding there. After bringing it back to the spaceship, the Doctor learns the clockwork androids have a specific, but unknown interest in the girl. When he passes back through the window, the Doctor once again meets Reinette who is now a young woman and realizes she is in fact, Madame de Pompadour, the mistress of Louis XV. The Doctor and Reinette are instantly taken with one another and have palpable chemistry. Minutes on the spaceship are years for Reinette, as the Doctor hurries to uncover the androids' plans for Reinette before time runs out. This is another gem by Steven Moffat. Fast paced, tightly written and engaging.

3. Time of the Angels/ Flesh and Stone (series 5)

River Song leads Amy and the Doctor to the crash site of a ship carrying a Weeping Angel. With the help of a squad of militarized clerics, they must re-capture the Angel, but in order reach the ship, they must travel through the statue filled-catacombs of an extinct race. Before long, the Doctor figures out the statues are all Weeping Angels who are regaining their strength from the radiation of the crashed ship. With an army of Angels pursuing them, the Doctor and friends must escape and find a way to neutralize the monsters. The return of the Angels doesn't disappoint, as Moffat finds new ways to creep us out.

2. The Pandorica Opens/ The Big Bang (series 5)
Easily, the best 'Who' series finale to date, 'Pandorica' is epic in scale, ingeniously plotted and fun. The Doctor and Amy are summoned by River Song to 2nd century Britain at the site of Stonehenge. There they discover the Pandorica, a mythic prison designed to hold the universe's greatest warrior. Shortly after arriving, they are met by all the Doctor's enemies from across the universe who have formed an alliance to lure and capture him. They believe him to be responsible for a time explosion that's erasing all of existence, so they try to prevent it by imprisoning the Doctor in the Pandorica. The Doctor must escape and race to restore the universe before it's too late.

1. Blink (series 3)

Simply the finest episode of the series and one of the best hours of television I have ever experienced. It's as good as any episode of Star Trek, the new Battlestar Galactica or the original Twilight Zone. The story begins with Sally Sparrow, a young woman trying to solve a mystery involving several disappearances and strange messages from someone called the "Doctor." Behind it all are the Weeping Angels, the most frightening of all the Doctor's foes. Blink is writer Steven Moffat's masterpiece; fabulously clever, suspenseful and scary.

Superman: Braniac

2011-04-06T23:13:00.000-07:00

It's been years since I collected comics. Superhero books have become so joyless and dark, they hold little appeal anymore. Sometime in the last twenty years, Marvel and DC quit marketing to kids altogether, focusing instead on the aging fanboys that make up the peer group of the industry's writers and artists. The tangled continuities and regular reboots that infect the characters and worlds of comic books are enough to keep casual readers away. Which makes it all the more enjoyable to find Superman: Braniac.

In my view, Superman is rarely done well, but writer Geoff Johns and penciler Gary Frank form a creative marriage that serves the Man of Steel well. As the title suggests, the story centers around the return of Braniac who sends his probes around the universe looking for civilized planets to steal knowledge from and promptly destroy, but only after shrinking and abducting a city from each one to keep as a specimen. As it turns out, these robotic probes are what Superman has been fighting all these years, not the real Braniac. One such robot comes to Earth. Superman promptly dispatches it, but not before the probe analyzes the Kryptonian's blood and sends the information to the real Braniac. Turns out, Braniac doesn't like the idea of someone out there sharing Kryptonian culture and science, which he believes now belongs soley to him. So naturally, Superman must be eliminated. Fearing Braniac's probes will destroy other planets, Superman goes searching the galaxy for the creature. Only problem, Braniac captures him and sends another probe to destroy the Earth.

The narrative is intriguing and moves quickly. Johns is one the few guys who seems to have a solid grasp on the Superman mythos. He has respect for the character, and it shows here. Superman and his world are recognizable, and casual readers will have no problem jumping into the story. The Braniac portrayed here is sort of a technological boogeyman who terrorizes the galaxy. He is genuinely creepy, somewhat reminiscent of the Borg in Star Trek. My only quibble with the story was a less than epic feel given what was at stake with the plot. I think there was room to go farther with the story and characters.

The visuals are supplied by former Hulk artist Gary Frank, and it's his best work yet. Frank was born to draw Superman. His art has a clean, clear quality to it, despite fine details. He also does what few artists can, which is to give every character his or her own unique face. None better than Superman himself who Frank renders in a near perfect likeness to Christopher Reeve. Frank fails in only one area. The layout, particularly the fight scenes between Superman and Braniac, is at times boring and uninspired. This hurts the dramatic weight of a story that wasn't very deep to begin with. All said however, Superman: Braniac is a satisfying read, and one of the better Superman stories.

Faster

2011-04-04T22:44:00.000-07:00

It seems perfectly natural to assume that a movie about a convict being released from jail who goes on a vengeful killing spree is going to be dumb and painfully unoriginal. Especially when the filmmakers double down and cast Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in the lead role. Well color me surprised. Faster has everything you might expect in the action/revenge genre -- a lot of guns, cool cars, shooting while driving fast in cool cars, and violent retribution enforced by a muscle-bound protagonist.

What I wasn't expecting is how thoughtful and well-crafted the movie is. Director George Tillman Jr. really takes the time to explore the price of revenge, the consequences of doing evil, and the possibility of redemption. And none of it comes across as preachy or sentimental. Moreover, the film is full of interesting characters. Johnson is excellent, exhibiting controlled rage as he methodically executes one creep after another. He doesn't talk much, letting his eyes and facial expression tell his story. Billy Bob Thornton plays a drug-addicted, loser cop trying to track down Johnson's character while keeping his crumbling family from falling apart. There's an interesting villain, a hitman sent to stop the killing spree. He's a complicated, ultra-disciplined, narcissistic adrenaline junkie with a host of psychological issues.

The profound contrast with the blunt, single-mindedness of Johnson is entertaining. As the film nears its climax, each of these characters is forced to make a choice that determines his fate. Solid movie all the way around. I can't remember the last time an action movie made me sympathize (at least a little) with the guys I wanted dead.

Heroes Hollywood Can Live With

2011-03-25T20:34:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most symbolic character in the superhero pantheon, Captain America has been, ever since his creation in 1941, an unabashed symbol of American patriotism. So fans like me ought be rejoicing at the release of a new Captain America movie in July, right? Well, mabye. Last summer, director Joe Johnston had this to say about his protagonist :

He wants to serve his country, but he's not this jingoistic American flag-waver. He's just a good person...It'll be interesting and fun to put a different spin on the character and one that the fans are really going to appreciate...the idea that this isn't so much about America as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing. It's an international cast and an international story. It's about what makes America great and what makes the rest of the world great too.

This treatment is consistent with what seems to be a recent and ongoing trend to take popular characters who in one way or another project American ideals, and alter or mute those qualities to better reflect their own world view. A blogger over at Hot Air responds with an obvious question:

If you want to make a superhero movie, but you don't want to be troubled with the hair-raising spectacle of out-and-proud patriotism, why the hell would you choose Captain America? Choose Aquaman instead and have him deliver the requisite lecture about fearing "The Other."

In 2006, director Bryan Singer saw fit to drop the "the American way" from his film Superman Returns, content with his hero fighting for "Truth and Justice." Then in 2009, the popular 80s cartoon and comic book series G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero was adapted to the big screen and transformed from an elite U.S. Special Forces team to a "Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech weapons to battle Cobra." The result was a kind of CGI United Nations security force.

Filmmakers and studio execs maintain the reason for these changes are purely economic. They say the changes are based on concerns of brand management and consumer awareness. In other words, they are concerned about the success of their films in places where America is not popular. Understandable, given that foreign movie receipts have surpassed domestic profits (two-thirds of income for major Hollywood studios come from overseas). Movie critic Michael Medved points out "the growing importance of overseas fans plays into Hollywood's tendency to present a skeptical, and sometimes even hostile, motion picture attitude toward the U.S.A.."

The most recent victim of this "financial correctness" has to be the upcoming remake of the 80s Cold War classic Red Dawn. The new film, about an invasion from Red China, is now being altered because MGM has decided it doesn't want to offend one of its biggest potential markets. The studio has taken the extraordinary step of digitally erasing, from the already finished film, all references to China as the invading villains; substituting dialogue, removing images of Chinese flags and insignia. Daniel Foster over at Nation Review sums up the absurdity of the studio's decision:

And who are the new invaders? North Korea. That’s right, the starving-to-death, massively brainwashed “Hermit Kingdom.” I imagine at this very moment, Hollywood script doctors are working on a revised first act in which Kim Jong Il decides it’s a good idea to let hundreds of thousands of his captive countrymen travel to America.

For similar reasons, Captain America: The First Avenger is being marketed simply as The First Avenger in Russia, South Korea and the Ukraine.

The problem with the economic argument is that it's largely based on market research and focus groups rather than box office receipts. The evidence shows that American movies, even those with pro-American views make even more money overseas. Another problem with the economic argument is that it doesn't explain why studios throw money at movies with explicitly anti-American/anti-military messages (Rendition, In The Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, and Redacted); movies that portray America as the bad guy or equate the American military to terrorists. In other words, movies they know won't make money (and didn't). At the same time, they often block the production of pro-American/pro-military films. Why? Because in Hollywood, politics and the privilege to be invited to the right parties are every bit as powerful as profits. Unfortunately, the cost of these compromises on the art of filmmaking appears to be lost on much of the Hollywood community.

Not convinced? Any guess as to the top-grossing movie overseas going into this weekend? No, not Paul or The Lincoln Lawyer. It was the big, loud, thoroughly American, critically trashed, pro-military sci-fi action epic Battle: Los Angeles.

As far as Captain America is concerned, I'll reserve judgment until I actually see the film, but I can't help but think the director just doesn't get it when he says the movie is "about a guy who wants to do the right thing, and that transcends all nationalities and borders. He's going to do the right thing no matter what flag is on his chest." Wrong. Superman and Captain America have uniquely American values. They are a part of their nature, inseparable from their character, and the basis for their heroism. Writer/director Michael Wilson describes the attempt to globalize Superman like this:

The idea, I suppose, is to make the Man of Steel a savior for all the world, for the sake of being the savior for all the world. What the people behind this shift in mythology fail to understand is that Superman serves humanity BECAUSE of "the American Way," not in spite of it.

Nerd + Computer + Too Much Time = Brilliance

2011-03-22T12:48:00.000-07:00

This made me laugh so hard, I started crying. Thank you to all those dorks who have the time and inclination to create this stuff. You have done a public service.

(WARNING: lots of profanity!)

Free Speech -- Westboro Style

2011-03-15T00:17:00.000-07:00

Five years ago, members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq. Their signs read "God Hates You," "God Hates Fags," "You're going to Hell," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" among many others. The church went further with a post on their website entitled "The Burden of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder." It reads as follows:

God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.

Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater.

Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lockstep with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?

Matthew's father, Albert Snyder sued Fred Phelps, pastor and founder of the church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. After initial legal victories, a federal appeals court reversed earlier verdicts, going to far as to order Snyder to pay court costs for the defendants. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year.

On March 3rd, the high court ruled 8-1 in the case of Snyder v. Phelps that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to verbally assault and defame fallen servicemen and their families at private funerals. The lack of outrage to this decision amazes me. Everywhere I look, we seem to be patting ourselves on the back, proclaiming another victory for free speech. I find this to be pathetic and sad. I'm certainly no legal expert, but our increasingly broad interpretation of the first amendment is bordering on absurd.

The court claims that because the protests involved matters of public concern (homosexuals in the military, the Catholic Church, etc.), it is protected speech. I fail to understand how a group of people who have the right and means to express the same views in vast numbers of ways are having their free speech rights violated should they be prevented from standing outside a private funeral, holding up profane signs and shouting obscenities with the intent to disrupt and injure. Were not the rights of Albert Snyder and his family violated by this assault? In a forceful and courageous dissent, Justice Samuel Alito makes a convincing case that they were.

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

Justice Alito goes on to outline the church's to long standing campaign to disrupt and attack the affairs of private individuals, and then addresses the question of whether or not this speech qualifies as discourse on matters of public concern.

In light of this evidence, it is abundantly clear that respondents, going far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. Both Matthew and petitioner were private figures, and this attack was not speech on a matter of public concern. While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes speech on matters of public concern, speech regarding Matthew Snyder’s purely private conduct does not.

Alito brings some much needed sanity to this debate, and I find his arguments to be effective and compelling (His dissent can be found here. It's only a few pages long and I encourage everyone to read it). The case raises obvious questions about the limits of free speech. Can speech lawfully be used as a weapon? And even more concerning -- is our privacy protected if we can be attacked in this way? How easily can something be characterized as a "matter of public concern?"

A few thoughts about the Westboro Baptist Church. These people are nothing short of terrorists. They are also cowards and hypocrites. They go out of their way to terrorize and harm people. They do this to get publicity and raise the profile of the 50-member cockroach den they call a church. They extort families and communities by agreeing to cancel their protests in exchange for free air time on radio. They did this back in 2006 when they threatened to protest the funerals of the five Amish girls killed by a gunmen in Pennsylvania. And again in January when they again called off picketing the funeral of the 9-year-old girl killed in the Tuscon shooting spree, proclaiming "she was better off dead."

Ever wonder how this tiny church can afford to send it's members all over the country, and the world? In addition to requiring members to give 30% of their income, Fred Phelps and several of his children are lawyers who fund their activities through litigation. So even though they decry this country as a "Fag Nation" and the "United States of Sodom," Westboro members have no problem manipulating our laws to their benefit and enjoying the generous fruits of our freedoms, guaranteed by the lives of the very men and women they attack.

Church leaders have promised to quadruple their protests of military funerals in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, believing it a sanction from God for their activities. "I'm very glad I get to be the voice of God in this matter," said Margie J. Phelps, the lead legal counsel for the church and daughter of pastor Fred Phelps. She added these kind words for the family of Matthew Snyder, "Shut up all that talk of infliction of emotional distress. When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God."

The Supreme Court's defense of Westboro Baptist Church and its actions is a perversion of the First Amendment. If we can't see that, then we deserve the pain and injustice inflicted by people like this.

Quest for Lost Heroes

2011-03-11T15:50:00.000-08:00

David Gemmell fans are among the most rabid and loyal fans any author could enjoy. Several of my friends bristle when an ill word is spoken of the late Mr. Gemmel's work. And it was upon their repeated prodding that I finally decided to read one of his books. I was told Quest for Lost Heroes was as good as any place to start. The story follows Chareos, a cynical war hero and master swordsman who is drawn into a quest to help a young villager rescue the girl he loves from slavers. Soon, the rest of Chareos' comrades in arms (renowned heroes of a battle years past) join him. But this simple rescue mission thrusts them into the middle of a dynastic intrigue with the fate of their civilization at stake.

I wanted to like this book. But it was a disappointment for several reasons. The first half of the book is largely set up, with little action or drama to drive the story. I actually put the book down a couple of times. Fortunately however, once I reached the halfway point, the story took off and became far more readable and engaging. But the climax proved to be underwhelming and the ending felt rushed and patched together. Another frustration is world itself. Aside from brief mentions of succeeding empires (the Drenai, the Gothir and the Nadir), there is virtually no effort to describe the people, places or cultures that inhabit the world, not even a map. Consequently, one has no sense of bearing in the story or the world.

With a few exceptions, the characters are not much better. They're not ill-conceived, just underdeveloped and not particularly compelling or engaging. Two of the main characters, Finn and Maggrig, were so faceless it was distracting. However, there were a few characters that were exceptionally well realized. One in particular, an ambassador named Chien-tsu, was absolutely captivating. And although I didn't find Gemmell's prose to be particularly exceptional or deficient, I do admire the notions heroism, honor, fellowship, perseverance, sacrifice and redemption that are thoughtfully explored in 'Quest.' Such themes are becoming increasingly rare in modern fantasy it seems to me. It is for these glimpses that I have hope for his other works.

John Barry (1933-2011)

2011-02-01T18:33:00.000-08:00

I was sad to see that the great film composer John Barry passed away Sunday. He was famous for a number of great film scores, most notably the James Bond theme. He won five Oscars during his long career. Highlights include the music for Born Free, The Lion in Winter, Somewhere In Time, and Out of Africa. I know nothing about music so I won't offer a critical assessment of his work. I can only say that I thought his film scores was great and the world of cinematic music is less grand in his absence. I will certainly think of him everytime I hear that twang of the guitar when I pop in an old Bond movie. I especially liked Barry's western themes which included his scores for Monte Walsh, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, and my personal favorite, the John Dunbar theme from Dances With Wolves.

Han Solo, P.I.

2010-08-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

OK, I admit it. I would have watched this. Watch side by side with original here.

So I guess musicals can be good...

2010-08-11T03:16:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what impresses me most about this -- the lyrics and melody that seemlessly match the movie theme music, the singer's perfect Arnold impersonation, or the fantastic amount of free time that allows one to produce something like this.

Eaters of the Dead

2010-03-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

In the afterword of Eaters of the Dead, published in 1976, author Michael Crichton explains that the book was conceived on a dare. A friend proposed to teach a college course called "The Great Bores," based on the essential writings of western civilization. His friend asserted that these texts were so tedious that no one willingly read them anymore, and the first of the great bores he would address was the epic poem Beowulf. Crichton disagreed, arguing that Beowulf was an exciting, dramatic story and he could prove it.

Crichton began working from the assumption that Beowulf, like other epic poems and pieces of mythology, may have some basis in fact. By peeling away the poetic invention and embellishment of hundreds of years of oral retelling, Crichton suggests that we may return to a kernel of human experience. The result is a modern psuedo-historical fantasy about the original events that inspired the story of Beowulf.

But Crichton refuses to let on. He enhances his illusion by writing the novel from the point of view of a comtemporary eye witness of the events. Rather than inventing this person, the author goes further by "discovering " the eyewitness narrative in the manuscript of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, an Arab sent by the Caliph of Bagdad in the year 921 as part of an embassy to the Volga Bulgars. His account of the journey provides one of the earliest descriptions of Vikings.

Crichton begins his book with an introduction intended to familiarize the reader with all of the many translations of Ibn Faldlan's manuscript, along with their backgrounds and respective merits. So convincing is Crichton's invention that I found myself completely perplexed as to what was true and what was not. And lest his readers begin to suspect something, Crichton makes sure to fill his entire book with lengthy footnotes to further legitimize the narrative.

The story begins with Ibn Fadlan's aformentioned mission to northwest Russia. Upon encountering a band of Northmen, he is forced to join them in a quest to destroy a myserious scourge of mist monsters terrorizing the their homeland. These Wendol, as the Northmen call them, turn out to be a surviving relict of Neanderthals who feed on the flesh of their victims (which is far more interesting than the cave people of the film adaptation, The 13th Warrior) .

As an Arab during the 10th century, when the civilization of Islam was by far the most advanced culture on Earth, Ibn Fadlan's perspective serves as an ideal doorway for the modern reader to enter this strange world of Vikings. His descriptions of the lands, people and cultures are detailed and vivid. The reader immediately shares his horror and disgust with the vulgar and barbaric world of the Northmen.

Never did I see a people so gigantic: they are tall as Palm trees and florid and ruddy in complexion... They are the filthiest race that God ever created. They do not wipe themselves after going to stool, or wash themselves after a nocturnal pollution, any more than if they were wild asses... Now it happened that this Buliwyf, who was drunk as the rest, commanded that I should sing a song for them. He was most insistent. Not wishing to anger him, I recited from the Koran with the translator repeating my words in their Norse tongue. I was received no better than their own minstrel, and afterward I asked the forgiveness of Allah for the treatment of His holy words, and also for the translation, which I sensed to be thoughtless, for in truth the translator himself was drunk.

Despite his role as a simple chronicler, Ibn Fadlan emerges as a real character. In the course of the story, he grows from a pampered and fearful ambassador to a courageous warrior willing to fight to the death for his Norse companions. More subtle and interesting is the way he begins to embrace their way of life during his journey.
The plot moves at a brisk pace without feeling shallow. And in only 250 pages, Crichton manages produce equal amounts of action, suspense, horror as well as humor and genuine sorrow. All told, Eaters of the Dead is a clever and thoroughly enjoyable adventure story that I highly recommend.

They are really making it difficult to gripe about sequels and remakes.

2010-03-10T22:13:00.000-08:00

Tron Legacy trailer

It all began with the Aurochs

2010-03-09T17:03:00.000-08:00

So begins the The Paradise War, the first book in the Song of Albion trilogy by Stephen Lawhead. Cynical Oxford grad student Lewis Gillies is convinced by his roommate Simon to drive to Scotland to investigate the truth behind a tabloid photo of an long extinct type of oxen. Upon arriving, they make several discoveries, including an ancient mound known as a cairn. But before Lewis can stop him, Simon goes into the cairn and disappears. Believing that he has fallen victim to one of Simon's pranks, Lewis returns home. Very quickly however, strange events begin to overwhelm him and Lewis learns that he must find Simon and bring him home before the whole world is threatened. This launches him on an amazing adventure that continues in The Silver Hand and The Endless Knot.

This hidden gem was introduced to me by a friend's wife and has turned out to be among the best fantasy literature I've ever read. Lawhead is an adoring anglophile as evidenced by his other major works, the Pendragon Cycle (his own retelling of the King Arthur legend) and The King Raven Trilogy (a retelling of the Robin Hood legend). Steeped in Celtic mythology, Albion is no different. In fact, Lawhead's expertise is such that it is nearly impossbile to tell where facts and history end, and fantasy begins.

The trilogy is written in first person which has its strengths and weaknesses. Seeing and experiencing everything through the eyes of Lewis really makes you feel a part of the story. However, as time goes on you want to respond to the story in your own way rather than being told. A narrator change in the second book is a nice touch and allows you to experience the world from a new perspective.

The setting is richly told. The plot is well-crafted and full of layers. The prose and dialogue are excellent. But Lawhead's greatest strength is his characters. From heroes to villians and everyone in between, Lawhead peoples his world with distinct, interesting and sincere characters, giving each an opportunity to show they matter.

I was also very impressed by Lawhead's powerful, yet nuanced inclusion of Biblical themes. There is too much to give it justice in this short review, but through the plot, parables, prophecies, character arcs, and imagery, Lawhead explores the corruption and redemption of creation, good vs. evil, providence, and liberation from sin. All of this is done with the right amount of thoughtfulness and subtly.

My only real criticism is with the ending where things seemed a bit rushed and incomplete. All said however, The Song of Albion is an outstanding fantasy series that has found itself among my favorites, and placed Lawhead firmly in the tradition of Tolkien and Lewis.

If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them...

2010-03-01T18:14:00.000-08:00

Normally I would take this opportunity to say how sick and tired I am of sequels, remakes and adaptations. Then I would lament our culture of nostalgia and whine about how art is dead and there is nothing new or original in Hollywood. Instead, I must confess myself a hypocrite because I must see this movie (click for trailer). I don't have a choice. I was raised in the 80s and have no strength to resist the power of the A-Team.

Ode to Swayze

2010-02-21T21:55:00.000-08:00

I would like to take a moment to remember Patrick Swayze who passed away last year at the age of 57. Swayze was, to those in my generation, an instrumental part of our entertainment education. He was a staple of 80s (and early 90s) guy movies, such as The Outsiders, Red Dawn and Point Break.

But Swayze was even more popular among women for this roles in two of the most iconic chick flicks of all time, Dirty Dancing and Ghost. To put this in perspective, imagine Hugh Grant as the tough talking, ass kicking veteran cop. Or Jason Statham starring as the aloof executive who's cold heart is melted when he meets a quirky, but charming massage therapist played by Sandra Bullock (with Bruce Willis as the gay neighbor).

See what I mean? Swayze was unique. I'm not saying this a good thing. It's just a matter of fact. Believe me, I could have gone my whole life without ever knowing about "Too Wong Foo, Thank for Everything! Julie Newman," in which Patrick Swayze plays a drag queen. And guys, how many times have you walked in the door and shuddered as the song I had the time of my life rings in your ears, only to find your wife or girlfriend sitting in the front of the TV, enraptured by the Swayze as he teaches Jennifer Grey to dance.

However, Swayze returned to his guy movie roots in 1989 with the release of the greatest (or worst) movie of all time - Roadhouse. The role of "Dalton," a thoughtful, but tough as nails bouncer who comes to a small Missouri town to rescue a local saloon is Swayze's 9th Symphony. From his feathered mullet to his pleated slacks, Swayze is in top form. And with a script that includes such cutting edge writing as "Pain don't hurt" and "My way or the highway," Roadhouse rises to the level of the sublime (or retarded).

The director, Rowdy Herrington (of course) was the first filmmaker with the inspiration (or delusion) to explore the world of "Coolers," a little known cadre of elite bouncers who, for the right price, answer the call to clean up the worst dives in the world. With unforgettable performances from Sam Elliot as Dalton's aged, but cagey mentor or Ben Gazzara as the villainous Brad Wesley, and a plot that rivals even the greatest cartoons, Roadhouse has transcended the storytelling (or comic book) medium. Only masterpieces such as Commando or Flash Gordon rival its calibur of filmmaking. And thanks to the good folks at TNT, TBS, USA, AMC and the Spike Channel, it is unlikely that we will forget this masterful (or ridiculous) piece of cinematic history anytime soon.

Perhaps the greatest complement I can pay to the Swayze is that whenever one of his movies are on, I am incapable of turning it off. My wife has accepted the fact that if, while channel surfing, we land on Roadhouse or Point Break, the remote is off limits until its over (As recompense, I must tolerate the viewing of Dirty Dancing in my house at least twice a year). So thanks to Mr. Swayze for his life and career. By all accounts he was a good guy. And I shall honor his memory by watching his movies for years to come.

Michael Crichton Lite

2010-02-15T13:36:00.000-08:00

I was recently manipulated by a friend into reading MEG by Steve Alten. I didn't have high hopes, but

decided to give it a shot since it was a bestseller, and if the Amazon.com reviews mean anything, a lot of people really like this book.

The premise, a 60-foot prehistoric shark is unleashed upon our modern day oceans, is the book's greatest strength. That's why I picked it up, so credit Alten for realizing a great "what if" concept.

A former hot shot underwater submersible pilot, Dr. Jonas Taylor is haunted by an accident that occured eight years earlier while exploring the Marianas Trench that left two men dead. Believing he saw a Carcharodon Megalodon, Taylor becomes a paleobiologist, osbsessed with the study of the ancient shark. After another accident in the trench, Taylor is lured back into the depths by an old friend to investigate.

And of course, they find the giant shark who is able to survive because of a warm water layer (heated by thermal vents) at the bottom of the trench. Six miles of freezing water keep the sharks safely beyond the reach of the surface, but through a highly unlikely sequence of events, a Megalodon escapes to wreak havoc on the high seas.

After the concept, the story itself is the book's next best asset. It moves quickly through a mostly satisfying plot involving the location and capture/killing of the giant shark. Unfortunately, the promise of the story is squandered by amateurish writing with predictable (bordering on cartoonish) characters and dialogue. And while the author does a decent job making the premise seem possible, the story begins to come off the rails as one supremely implausbile event follows another. The shark rises up sixty feet in the air to attack a helicopter. The Megalodon disables and sinks a submarine. The Meg also has more sensors than the U.S.S. Enterprise as it is apparently capable of hearing a whale heartbeat from hundreds of miles away. This stuff goes on and on and had me rolling my eyes very quickly. Alten reminds me of a much less talented Michael Crichton. But whereas Crichton made science a character in itself, Alten only uses it as tool to try and keep his ideas afloat.

The other problem with the book is that it's not scary. To me, a giant prehistoric shark roaming the ocean should be terrifying, but Alten writes this as more of an action movie (in fact, that's exactly how it reads). And his characters are so shallow, you don't care about them enough to be affected when they are eaten. On the other hand, if you're looking for a really quick, action-packed read about a prehistoric shark, this is your book.

Note: I found out after reading this book that Alten is a big 9/11 "truther." His book "The Shell Game" is Alten's fictional, but allegorical take on Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, so he may have intended MEG as a nonfiction book.

Avatar

2009-08-28T16:44:00.000-07:00

James Cameron's long awaited film Avatar (trailer here) will finally come to theaters in December. Apparently he had to wait fifteen years for the technology to reach a place where he could use the visual effects he wanted, including a breakthrough 3D experience. The VFX do look amazing, but it appears that Cameron, like many of his contemporaries, has decided to get on a soap box.

The movie looks like an allegorical sermon on the destruction of the environment. Evil military industrial complex seeks to exploit the natural resources of a pristine, unspoiled wilderness and only the noble, peace-loving natives living in harmony with nature stand between them. It's like "Aliens meet Dances with Wolves," or a science fiction version of Pocahontas. Spare me. I don't don't go to the theater to get preached to by a bunch of Hollywood elitists, especially when I've heard it before a million times. But maybe I'm overreacting.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

2009-08-10T09:25:00.001-07:00

A shark warning was issued at Cannon Beach Sunday after a partially eaten porpoise was found washed ashore Saturday night and a dorsal fin was sighted. Meanwhile, on Saturday afternoon, anglers towed a 12' Great White Shark to the boat ramp that apparently died after getting tangled up in a crab pot off Depoe Bay. Here's the video which includes them pulling a baby porpoise out of the shark's stomach.

Why the sudden presence of Carcharodon Carcharias so near the the shore? Warm water has moved closer to the shore, according to the experts, bringing with it seals and porpoises, which in turn attract the sharks.

Now, I don't go swimming off the Oregon Coast. It's the frigid water that keeps me out, so my lifestyle hasn't been affected. But I wonder how all all those surfers are reacting to this? Or scuba divers? Or fisherman in little 10' foot boats with lawnmower engines on the back?

The folks over at the Discovery channel have tried their darndest to convince us that sharks don't really pose any danger to humans (despite their sensationlist advertising for Shark Week), and that fear of these animals is just paranoia. Maybe.

Care to try your luck?

John Hughes (1950-2009)

2009-08-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

Writer/Director John Hughes died Thursday morning of a heart attack while walking in Manhattan. He was 59, far too early for a guy who created so much enjoyment for so many people. For whatever reason, only Hughes was able to capture the plight of the 1980s teenager. One reason I loved his movies was the sympathetic treatment, not only of jocks and princesses, but of nerds like me. Films such as Sixteen Candles, Breakfast Club and Weird Science convinced me Hughes knew what it was to be less than cool in high school.

He also made other great coming of age movies that I can still relate to now like She's Having a Baby. It didn't hurt that his movies were also hilarious. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a classic teenage fantasy movie and I laughted pretty much non-stop through Plains, Trains and Automobiles. Strangely, Hughes seemed to disappear suddenly in the early 1990s, writing the occasional script, shunning media and interviews.

Rarely has an artist had his finger on the pulse of a generation. In fact, I cannot think of another like him. His passing brings back the same genuine bittersweet emotions of growing up that his films were famous for. He will be missed.

Tron again?

2009-07-31T03:22:00.000-07:00

Tron Legacy (trailer), a sequel to the 1982 film Tron is slated for release next year. I don't know what the record is for time elapsed before a sequel is made, but at 28 years, this has to be up there. My first thought was the Color of Money (1986), a sort of unofficial sequel to The Hustler (1961), but that was only 25 years.

Despite my griping about all the sequels, adaptations and remakes that make up the majority of movies today, I won't complain. I loved Tron as a kid, and still think it holds up as one of the most unique and underrated movies of all time. I just hope they do it well. The SFX look fantastic, as one would expect (in fact, this isn't so much a trailer as it is a promo), but hopefully they won't mail it in.

Top 5 Christmas Movies of All Time

2008-12-21T12:19:00.000-08:00

Christmas movies have become an industry unto themselves. I narrowed the list to five because ten seemed to be stretching it. Although lots of movies take place during the holidays, films like Die Hard and Gremlins hardly epitomize the holiday spirit. However, I did have to leave some good ones off the list, like Scrooged and Miracle on 34th Street. So here are the best, according to me (Sorry Charlie Brown - no Christmas specials).

5. A Christmas Story (1983)

This family classic follows a 9-year old boy (Ralphie) as he desperately tries to convince everyone that he should get a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. Ralphie battles playground bullies, imaginary bandits, and the dreaded fear by adults that he will shoot his eye out. Steeped in nostalgic Americana and full of quirky characters, this movie gets funnier with age.

Memorable line: "Only one thing in the world could've dragged me away from the soft glow of electric sex gleaming in the window."

4. Elf (2003)

Will Farrell gives a stand out comedic performance as Buddy, a human raised as an elf in the North Pole, who travels to New York City in search of his real father. Buddy, who exudes Christmas spirit, has difficulty adjusting to the cynical life of the big city. With great performances by the likes of Bob Newhart as Papa Elf and Ed Asner as Santa, Elf has established itself as a Christmas favorite.

Memorable line: "I'm a cotton-headed ninny muggins."

3. A Christmas Carol (1984)

The best adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic, this film features the best ever portrayal of Ebeneezer Scrooge by the great George C. Scott. His cruelty, and later repentence, are truly palpable. I recommend this to anyone who has yet to see it.

Memorable line: "These are garments, Mr. Cratchit. Garments were invented by the human race as a protection against the cold. Once purchased, they may be used indefinitely for the purpose for which they are intended. Coal burns. Coal is momentary and coal is costly. There will be no more coal burned in this office today, is that quite clear, Mr. Cratchit?"

2. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)

This movie has become a staple of the holiday season. Chevy Chase is in top form as Clark W. Griswold who wants nothing more than to create the perfect Christmas for his family. He invites all their cranky, oddball relatives to his house. He goes overboard with the Christmas tree and lights. But he is unprepard for the arrival of his cousin Eddie. Unfazed, he continues to labor for a great family holiday, but the result of course, is mayhem.

Memorable line: “Surprised, Eddie? If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am right now.”

1. It's Wonderful Life (1946)

When events in his life threaten to ruin him, George Bailey begins to see his life as a meaningless failure and considers suicide on Christmas Eve. A guardian angel named Clarence is sent to save him and shows George what his hometown of Bedford Falls would have been like had he never been born. George quickly realizes how his sacrifice and generosity have blessed everyone he knows. In the end, George's family and friends come to his rescue, and he realizes that he truly is a "rich man." This movie is not only the greatest Christmas movie ever, but one the great films of all time. They absolutely do not make them like this anymore.

Memorable Line: "Merry Christmas, movie house! Merry Christmas, Emporium! Merry Christmas, you wonderful old Building and Loan!"

Honorable Mention: The Nativity Story (2006)

I would be remiss if I didn't include one movie about the real meaning of Christmas. It's amazing that it took this long to tell this story on film, and The Nativity Story does not disappoint. It faithfully recounts the accounts of Christ's birth from the gospels of Matthew and Luke without the stiffness and preachiness of a church-produced nativity film. The film centers on the relationship between Joseph and Mary as they try to understand the great task set before them. This is the movie's emotional core and serves to make the story more personal. The Nativity Story is a much needed family movie for this (or any) time of year.

Man Crush still in effect

2008-12-19T16:49:00.000-08:00

Don't look now, but we are witnessing the emergence of Brandon Roy as a superstar in the NBA.

Last night the Blazers snapped an 11-game losing streak to the Phoenix Suns, winning 124-119. Roy, who scored a career-high 52 points, had never beaten the Suns and was determined to get a win. His 52 points is the second highest point total in the NBA this season and the second highest in Blazer history.

Over the last five games Roy is averaging 36.4 points, 5 assists and 5.6 rebounds per game. Meanwhile, the Blazers are 17-10, second place in the Northwest Division with an 8-2 home record. Not bad for the second youngest team in the NBA. Credit Roy, whose leadership and ability to take over games has placed him among the elite players in the league.

So if you haven't seen Roy or this young Blazer team play, TUNE IN! Just be careful. You might end up like me -- with a Man Crush.

Posted also at West Coast Bias

"Son of Promise, Child of Hope"

2008-12-17T10:03:00.000-08:00

Looking for a great Christmas present for your kids? I found these two gems last week in the children's book section at Target. Not bad for a president-elect who has yet to do anything. Look, I realize he's the first African-American president. I understand the historical significance. I get that people are excited and I'm glad for everyone that voted for him, but don't you think we need to get a grip? With the way people are fawning over the man, I half expect guests to bring incense and myrrh to his inauguration.

Timber!

2008-11-29T20:47:00.000-08:00

Well, not much to say after this one. As a Duck fan, I couldn't be happier - stomping the Beavers on their home field and dashing their dreams of reaching the Rose Bowl for the first time since 1965. The Ducks defense didn't impress, but with the offense rolling up 65 points (most ever allowed by OSU) and an incredible 694 total yards (385 on the ground), it didn't really matter. The win was a relief too because if Oregon State had won three straight Civil Wars, Beaver fan would be intolerable. As it is, I will happily take this 65-38 drubbing and a trip to San Diego for the Holiday Bowl. Go Ducks!

My faith in humanity has just taken a serious blow

2008-11-28T23:36:00.000-08:00

I know there are greater evils around the world that deserve my attention, but this is just sick.

Wal-Mart worker dies after shoppers knock him down

Way to go shoppers. Score one for greed and callousness. I really hope all those savings are worth the descent into savagery that occurs every year on this day. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with Black Friday?

Movie Review: Quantum of Solace

2008-11-18T19:44:00.000-08:00

While it doesn't rank among the best of the series, Quantum of Solace is a solid effort and one of the better Bond outings. What is most remarkable about Quantum is its sober, and sometimes even somber tone. There is very little in the way of knowing smirks, sipping Martinis and pithy sexual innuendo with gorgeous women. Instead, director Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) has chosen to pick up right where Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond seeking revenge for the death of the woman he loved, Vesper Lynd. Along the way, he uncovers Quantum, a worldwide organization so secret that even MI-6 and the CIA are clueless. Quantum is essentially the new SPECTRE from the Connery-Moore days. Their members range from high ranking government officials to corporate moguls.

Bond's adversary this time is Dominic Greene, an environmental philanthropist who secretly attempts to corner the market on Bolivia's water supply for profit (Is it me, or have Bond villains really lowered their sights?). Greene proves to be a fairly pedestrian villain and the Bond girls are forgettable, but that doesn't slow down a well-crafted movie that moves briskly from one location to another, one action scene to the next. What really makes the movie work is Daniel Craig's performance. Craig's 007 simaltaneously exhibits a cold detachment and a subtle depth of emotion not present in previous Bonds.

Many critics have pointed out that the choice to make such a dark, serious Bond does nothing to differentiate it from the Jason Bourne movies, or most other action movies today. Although I think this is a valid criticism, the movie works because it operates within the scope of the story established at the end of Royale with Bond out for revenge. I certainly wouldn't want this to be the norm for future Bond movies, but the quality of the film outweighs such criticism. Bottom line: lacking in fun, but good nontheless.

One last critique. A subplot of the movie involves America's complicity in the evil being done by corrupt governments and corporate baddies by virtue of it's relationship with them. One could view this as the filmmakers simply trying to make a realistic spy thriller that reflects current geopolitics. But in light of many recent movies with subtle (and some not so subtle) anti-American themes (Bourne Ultimatum), I found it a little irritating. But maybe I'm being paranoid.

Universal Horror

2008-10-12T01:21:00.000-07:00

As Halloween nears, and the flood of horror movies in the theater and on television begins, I find myself ready for it to be over with. Not because I don't like scary movies. I do. But in the last thirty years, there is, for every good horror movie, about fifty bad ones. Aside from the bad acting and empty plots, there is far too much over the top gore, twisted imagery, and obligitory nudity, often mixed together. It's one thing for me to watch it, but now, as a parent, I find myself wondering if there is anything out there that my son will be able to watch someday that is both scary, but safe; that won't scar him for life.

Then I remembered how much I enjoyed watching the classic horror movies from Univeral Studios. For decades they produced loads of great horror movies featuring some of literature's and cinema's favorite characters. In the 1920s, they made The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera. In the 1930s they created a slew of classics including Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy. Later in the 40s and 50s, Universal released The Wolfman and The Creature From the Black Lagoon. These movies, featuring the talents of Lon Chaney, Boris Karloff, and Bela Lugosi were made during the Golden Age of cinema and showcased cutting edge (for the time) special effects. These films may appear cheesy by today's standards, but many (The Mummy, The Raven) were fine movies, as well as downright creepy.

Films such as Dracula and Frankenstein, based on 19th century novels reflected many of the themes of fantastic literature of the day. They questioned much of enlightenment era thinking that placed trust in science and progress. Much like the works of H.P. Lovecraft, these stories put characters that represented modernist, rational thought face to face with ancient, primitive and supernatural evils. Unlike the brainless slasher movies that would follow, they touched on basic primordial fears we all have and that is why these movies remain classics.

Since then, there have been a few gems like The Omen and Signs, but most horror movies today are gorey (or gorier) remakes of earlier movies. Director Stephen Sommmers, who claims to be a huge fan of the Universal monster movies, missed an opportunity by turning his idiotic, CGI-laden The Mummy, and its sequel The Mummy Returns into pathetic Indiana Jones homages. Then he made matter worse by directing Van Helsing, a cartoonish of vision of the classic Bram Stoker character.

But there is hope! On April 3, 2009, Universal Studios will release a remake of The Wolfman, featuring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving. The film will be directed by Joe Johnston (Jumanji, October Sky) and is set in 1880s England. Let's hope it will be a quality alternative to the Saw movies.

Help me Barack Obama, you're my only hope!

2008-09-09T17:46:00.001-07:00

In the words of Al Gore - the debate is over. The debate, that is, as to whether the news media has a liberal bias. If the past thirty years hasn't convinced everyone, or the election season of 2006 wasn't enough to seal the deal, then the coverage of this year's presidential race has established as empircal fact the cogency of the news media's bias towards, and in some cases outright advocacy for, Barack Obama.

But it seems to me that 'bias' is no longer a sufficient descriptor. As the McCain campaign somehow continues to hold even in the polls, in spite of running against perhaps, the most charismatic and inspiring candidate of all time, their appears to be a growing desperation on the part of many commentators and members of the news media. Specifically, they seem to have, for the first time, allowed the possibility of defeat to enter their minds. And they are scared. Consequently they are already laying the groundwork for what will surely be (in the case of an Obama defeat) a massive backlash against the America they believe is ignorant, racist, and corrupt. A recent article published in Newsweek by Slate magazine editor Jacob Weisberg articulates this sentiment:

"Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."

Are we racists if we don't vote for Obama? Will an Obama defeat mark then end of America? This kind of shrill posturing is the conseqeunce of several problematic trends and fallacious thinking.

The first is that Senator Obama (through no fault of his own) has been raised to such heights of sainthood by his followers that anything less than his ascendence to the American throne will be seen as nothing short of abandoning our only hope for a future.

Second, in order to compel the American people for the need for change, our political parties must paint our current state of affairs as bad as it has ever been. As Weisburg suggests, a vote for McCain will essentially send America into another dark age. I believe this kind of politicking is harmful to our country.

Third, we ignore the fact that African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condaleezza Rice have served and are serving in the highest levels of government with distinction. To therefore suggest that how we vote in November will by itself either put an end to racism in America, or confirm that we are a savagely racist and hate-filled nation, is both irresponsible and stupid.

Is it really so outrageous to suggest that people who vote for McCain have principled reasons for doing so? I for one will not be voting for Barack Obama. Like many Americans, I can't help but like the guy. He's smart, charismatic and tough. I agree with some of his rhetoric, but like many Americans, I profoundly disagree with his policies and his vision for our country. Having said this, if he wins, it won't be the end of America because I don't believe my fate or future happiness depends on who happens to be living in the White House.

But as I watch the news media and others grow increasingly nervous about the current Sarah Palin phenomenon, checking their objectivity to avoid the horror that a McCain presidency would bring, I find myself almost hoping for an Obama victory. Who wants to see our country dragged through the mud should he lose? I cringe at the thought of the media trying to "make sense of it all." Don't you?

"...a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth..."

2008-09-02T22:41:00.000-07:00

For those who are fans of Robert E. Howard and his grim, northern barbarian, a recent surge of interest in Conan has been welcome treat. Over the last few years, a number of new books have been published that collect Howard’s fantastic tales. Among them are a series of trade paperbacks by Dark Horse Comics that collect the wildly popular Savage Sword of Conan magazine. Originally published by Marvel Comics, the series got its start in 1974 during the peak years of Conan’s popularity and is now a cult classic.

The magazine was more adult in nature than the Conan comic book and featured some stunning black and white artwork by the likes of Barry Windsor-Smith, John Buscema and Alfredo Alcala. The Hyborian age never looked so good. The stories were written by Roy Thomas and included adaptations of Howard’s classic yarns as well as original Conan stories. Savage Sword was also famous for its amazing cover art which usually included Conan fighting some hideous creature while a very nearly nude woman cowered below. This appeal to young men and teenage boys undoubtedly propelled its success.

This magazine became a staple of mine right after high school when a couple of buddies and I rented a house together. Several issues of the Savage Sword could be seen strewn about the house at any one time, or as reading material in the bathroom. Since copies of the magazine are scarce these days, I am grateful that I may enjoy all of Conan’s mighty exploits in these new trade paperbacks. Each one is about 500 pages and collects around fifteen issues. So for those, like me, who occasionally need a Conan fix, look no further. The pages spark with energy and are just plain fun to read.

A New Home for Sports

2008-08-28T23:19:00.000-07:00

My recent preoccupation with sports writing has forced me to establish a new forum for all things athletic. So check out my new blog - West Coast Bias - for news, commentary and debate on sports both local and national.

This will allow me to use this blog to fully explore complex issues like the essential elements of a good Western, superhero fights, and my favorite sodas. I hope you will join me on this journey.

The Hysteria Channel

2008-05-12T23:02:00.000-07:00

Has anyone watched the History Channel lately? I'm having a hard time finding much history in its programming. In fact, the History Channel has disintigrated in recent years into sensationlist, tabloid-grade tripe. Since its inception in 1995, the History channel has gone from showing seeminly non-stop WWII documentaries to a popular, ratings driven enterprise. Don't get me wrong. There are some good shows (Modern Marvels and and Dogfights are excellent), but most of the programming today is just silly.

For example, Ax Men and Ice Road Truckers are reality shows that document the on the job drama of timber workers and truckers. History? Yes, according to History Channel execs. Apparently, they couldn't ignore the ratings of shows like The Deadliest Catch over at the Discovery Channel (Why a show that chronicles the day to day lives of Alaskan crab fisherman is a mainstay of the Discovery Channel, I'll never know either).

A more curious trend has been the History Channel's strange, fatalistic obsession with end of the world scenarios, as evidenced by shows like Mega Disasters, Last Days on Earth, Life After People, and Comets: Prophets of Doom. It seems as though the only history the network is interested in is the end of history. It's depressing. At least there's programs like Gangland, Shockwave and Tougher in Alaska to enrich my understanding of human history.

Surely the same can be said for shows like the Lost Book of Nostradamus, Vampire Secrets, MonsterQuest, and UFO Hunters. Apparently, the History Channel needed to nail down that crucial black helicopter demographic, as well as fans of the X-Files.

Seriously, isn't the History Channel essentially endorsing the notion that history is boring and has no bearing on our lives if they feel the need to sensationalize it and substitute Bigfoot for the British Empire?

Revenge of the Fanboy!

2008-05-11T21:39:00.000-07:00

You have to hand it to George Lucas. After virtually ruining the Star Wars mythology and tainting the greatness of the original trilogy with his pathetic prequels, he at least is willing to give other creative people at shot at reparing the damage he's done to the Star Wars legacy.

The first non-Lucas project was handled by emmy award winning animator Genndy Tartakovsky, creator of Samurai Jack. He created two 1/2 hour Star Wars cartoons called the Clone Wars that tell the story between Episodes II and III. I was amazed by how much I enjoyed them. They were more exciting and more inspired than their big screen counterparts. It seemed laughable that a cartoon done by a bunch of fanboy animators could be better executed, with better writing and acting than a movie created by professional producers, directors, and actors. And yet there it is.

Well now it looks like Lucas is about to be outdone again. A new CGI animated movie called Star Wars: The Clone Wars is scheduled to be released in theaters August 15 of this year. It will be the first chapter in an ongoing television series that will follow. This series also takes place between Episodes II and III. Here are the trailers:

sneak peek

trailer #1

trailer #2

I don't know about you, but this looks pretty dang cool. It looks like everything I hoped the prequels would be, but weren't. So thanks George Lucas, for realizing that you suck, and letting other people tell the story of Anakin Skywalker the way it should have been told in the first place.

Movie Review: Iron Man

2008-05-08T21:53:00.000-07:00

While the action, SFX, and plot are serviceable in this most recent comic book flick, it is Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as billionare industrialist Tony Stark that places this movie among the the best of the genre. Not since Christopher Reeve in the 1978 Superman, has an actor so embodied the role of the superhero protagonist. Stark's transformation from arrogant, carefree genius to arrogant, hero genius is handled by Downey and director Jon Favreau with the right mix of gravity and fun. The supporting cast of Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, and Terrence Howard is also excellent. If they can bring everyone back, there's no reason not to make a sequel.

Man Crush

2007-12-25T22:22:00.000-08:00

The Trail Blazers gave their fans a nice Christmas present with an
89-79 victory over the Seattle Supersonics for their league-best 11th straight win. Leading the way is Brandon Roy, who has averaged an amazing 23 points, 5.5 rebounds and 6.8 assists during the streak.

And I have a man crush on him.

I'm not sure when it started. My wife only just made me aware of it. I'm not exactly sure why I have a man crush, but here are some possible reasons.

In only his second year, Brandon Roy is the leader of this team and the face of the franchise. On the court, he's a phenomenal young talent, who plays like a veteran. He works hard and plays unselfish team basketball. But when needs to, he will take over a game and be the Man. He is a good citizen, popular with his teammates and the community.

Roy is a welcome site to fans who remember the special relationship between the Trail Blazers and the Rose City. Portland's love affair with its team began in 1976 when players like Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas brought the city its first championship. It continued through the 1980s and exploded from 1988 to 1992 as the team, led by Clyde Drexler, Terry Porter, and Jerome Kersey, appeared in two NBA Finals and was among the league's elite teams for several years. These players embraced the the fans and the city.

Blazer fans took this special relationship for granted until the mid-90s when everything changed. New General Manager Bob Whitsitt tried to assemble a team of all-stars through free agency and big contracts, with little or no thought for the chemistry and character of the team. The result was disastrous. Players like Rod Strickland, J.R. Rider, Qyntel Woods, Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Ruben Patterson, Darius Miles and Zach Randolph demonstrated an utter disdain for the city, the fans, and their teammates. And their routine disregard for the law earned them the embarassing moniker "Jail Blazers."

With fan support plummeting at the end of the 2002-03 season, the Blazers were forced to start cleaning house. They got rid of Bonzi Wells and Rasheed Wallace. In 2005, the team hired Nate McMillan as the new head coach. The following year, the team traded away troublemakers Ruben Patterson and Sebastian Telfair, while making some brilliant draft day moves to land Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. After landing the number one pick in the 2007 NBA draft, the Blazers selected future-star Greg Oden, while dumping talented, but longtime problem-child Zach Randolph.

Today, despite Oden's injury, Blazer fans have a lot to be excited about. Not only is their team winning, but the players are guys you feel good rooting for. And none more than Brandon Roy.

Last February, the Blazers entered the locker room at half-time of a game against the Lakers in Los Angeles. The team was struggling and star Zach Randolph began pointing fingers at Portland's guards. Roy (a rookie) immediately scolded Randolph and put him in his place for calling out individuals rather than taking responsibility for the team. The Blazers regrouped and came back to win the game. That was the moment when the Blazers became his team. And it was the moment when the culture of the Blazers really changed.

Brandon Roy represents the shift from a dysfunctional, poorly run organization, full of criminals and malcontents to an exciting, fan-friendly team of young stars who want to win.

Last week, I had the good fortune to get in on the fun as I watched the Blazers notch their 9th straight win against Toronto. I watched in amazement as Brandon Roy pulled off this amazing move. The Rose Garden went crazy. The Blazers won. It was awesome.

That's why I have a man crush on Brandon Roy. And I don't care who knows it.

Black Thursday

2007-11-16T18:27:00.001-08:00

The sucking sound you heard last night was the collective gasp of Duck fans everywhere as their dream season came to an abrupt end in the desert. After jumping out to a quick lead against the Arizona Wildcats on a 38-yard touchdown run, Dennis Dixon looked every bit the Heisman frontrunner, easily marching his team down the field three times in quick succesion. With 5 minutes to play in the first quarter, and the Ducks in scoring position, Dixon attempted to allude a tackler on an option play. His knee buckled, and Dixon crumpled to the turf.

The Ducks, looking shocked and rudderless without their leader, quickly went into a tailspin, giving up 24 quick points. The Ducks regrouped at halftime, holding the Wildcats to only three points in the second half, and pulling within a touchdown before Arizona iced it with a field goal and interception late.

Bye-bye National Championship. Bye-bye Heisman. And maybe, bye-bye season.

Today the news came down. Torn ACL. Dixon's brilliant senior season and his career at Oregon is done.

Let's see...I make that six starters out with season-ending injuries. Are you kidding me?

Wide Receiver Brian Paysinger - torn ACL in practice
Linebacker A.J. Tuitele - broken foot against Cal
Wide Receiver Cameron Colvin - broken ankle against Wash. State
Running Back Jeremiah Johnson - torn ACL against Wash. State
Linebacker John Bacon - torn ACL against Arizona State

Each of these injuries was a huge loss, taking their toll on Oregon's depth at wide receiver and linebacker, but the Ducks repsonded and were able to fight through them and keep winning. Dixon, however, was the one player the Ducks couldn't afford to lose. His leadership and skill running the spread option attack made Oregon the nation's most dynamic offense and catapulted them into the national championship race.

And judging by Oregon's performance after no. 10 left the game, winning their remaining two games against UCLA and Oregon State is a tall order.

It's a crummy way to end the season, especially with so much riding on it. A school like Oregon can expect to compete for the conference crown once every 5-7 years, but the opportunity to be in the National Championship hunt happens maybe once every 20 years (or more).

This rash of injuries robbed Oregon of the chance to compete and prove what they were capable of. Unfortunately, it's not the first time this has happened to the Ducks.

In 2005, they lost quarterback Kellen Clemens who was on his way to a record-breaking season. Dixon and Brady Leaf split time replacing him, eeking out wins against Cal and Washington State. They walked over a pathetic Beaver team for their 10th win on their way to the Holiday Bowl where they narrowly lost to Oklahoma. It was a disappointing way to end the season, knowing the Ducks would have won handily with Clemens at the helm.

In 1998, the Ducks were 5-0 and looked unstoppable. But after injuries took their best defender (and the Pac-10's best linebacker) Peter Sirmon and running back Reuben Droughns (who rushed for a staggering 824 yards in only six games), the Ducks went 3-3 and limped their way into the Aloha bowl, losing to Colorado.

In 1988, sophomore quarterback Bill Musgrave led the Ducks to a 6-1 record with a chance to go to a bowl game for the first time since 1963 before succumbing to a broken collarbone against Arizona State. The Ducks lost their remaining five games.

One can't help but ask - What if? It makes me appreciate how special the 2001 season was, when Oregon crushed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl, finished 11-1, and no. 2 in the polls. Luck plays a role. If nothing else, this season is a testament to how the program has grown in twenty years. Depth has allowed Oregon in recent years to overcome injuries that would have devastated teams from 10-20 years ago.

Hopefully the Ducks can right the ship. They still have a shot at the Rose Bowl if they win their last two games. But if they don't, hats off to perhaps the best Duck team ever (if not the unluckiest); Certainly the best Duck offense ever.

As for Dixon, it turns out he injured his knee against Arizona State two weeks ago, but kept it quiet and tried to play through it, which makes his long touchdown run all the more amazing. You gotta love a guy who wants to win so much he tries to play with a torn ACL. We knew he was an amazing athlete and a classy guy, but Thursday he showed us his heart and determination. Next move for Dixon: surgery, rehab, and the NFL draft.

Happy Trails Dennis. We'll miss you.

Roger - part 1

2007-09-10T20:29:00.000-07:00

Roger Federer was nowhere near his best when he beat Novak Djokovic in straight sets (7-6, 7-6, 6-4) Sunday to collect his fourth straight U.S. Open title. But when you're the best player in the world you don't always have to be. That makes 12 Grand Slam titles for Federer (Grand Slams refer to the four major tournaments in pro tennis - Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open). This places him behind only Pete Sampras (14) for most career Grand Slam titles.

So how good is he? Well, during the quarterfinals of this tournament, Federer had to face Andy Roddick. He's America's best player and would have at least three more Grand Slam titles if not for Federer. He has defeated Federer only once in his career, thwarted at every turn to beat his Swiss master when it matters. This time, Roddick came out firing, playing perhaps the best tennis of his career. Federer had to be perfect to win. And he was, beating America's best in straight sets 7-6, 7-6, 6-2.

Federer's accomplishments have placed him squarely among tennis' all-time best. But the question being asked more and more as Federer continues to dominate - Is he the best ever?

Not an easy question to answer, given the many great players in the history of men's tennis. Bill Tilden, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Mats Vilander, Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and Andre Agassi were all-time greats, but usually not considered as the best ever.

Currently, four names are in the argument as best all-time.

Rod Laver

The last men's player to achieve the tennis holy grail - to complete a Grand Slam (win all four major tournaments in calender year). And he did it twice. From 1962 to 1979, the Australian amassed 181 singles titles including 11 Grand Slam titles (tied with Borg for 3rd all-time). Laver was a technically superior player who had an excellent serve and volley game, combined with aggressive groundstrokes utilizing topspin, an innovation in the sixties. His backhand is among the all-time best shots. Despite his somewhat short stature (5'8"), Laver had both speed and strength. He was quick on the court and generated tremendous groundstrokes from a powerful left arm. He played against greats like Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, and Arthur Ashe.

Bjorn Borg
This Swede was nearly unbeatable from 1976 to 1980. He won 11 Grand Slam titles in his career. Perhaps more impressive is that he achieved what is considered to be the most difficult feat in tennis, winning both Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year. Borg did it four times!

Note: Wimbledon is played on grass, a "fast" surface because the ball bounces fast and low, making for shorter points that favor serve-and volley players. The French Open is played on clay, a "slow" surface because the ball bounces slower and higher with less forward motion, making it more difficult to hit an unreturnable shot. Points tend to be longer on clay, favoring baseline players who are generally more defensive and consistent.

To put this in perspective, only one other player (Andre Agassi) has since won both Wimbledon and the French Open in his entire career.

Borg played from the baseline, utilizing powerful groundstrokes and tremendous topspin to dominate his opponents. Borg rarely made mistakes and was famous for his unflinching focus and steely reserve on the court. This earned him the nickname "Iceman." Combined with his exceptional physical fitness, Borg appeared more robot than human.

Borg dominated tennis during one of the most competative eras of men's tennis which included such greats as Guillermo Vilas, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe, however, he retired suddenly at the age of 26.

To be continued...

Good Luck Joey

2007-09-06T20:49:00.000-07:00

The National Football League is a tough business. Just ask Joey Harrington. Despite leading the Oregon Ducks to the best season in school history, a Fiesta Bowl win, a #2 ranking in the national polls, and finishing as a heisman finalist with a 10-story billboard in New York City, most people remember him as a bum; a journeyman quarterback who doesn't have what it takes to succeed in the NFL.

To go from "Joe College", the #3 player taken in the 2002 NFL draft with your face on the cover of a video game, to a bust whose only future in this leauge is as a backup. To go from loved and adored, to hated and written off.

But that's what the NFL can do to even great college players. If you just look at other quarterbacks from the Pac-10 conference who have been drafted into the NFL over the last several years, there is mixed success. Carson Palmer is an all-pro, but Ryan Leaf (Washington State), Akili Smith (Oregon), and Cade McNown (UCLA) were busts. Marques Tuiasosopo (Washington), Andrew Walter (Arizona State), Kyle Boller (Cal), and Aaron Rodgers (Cal) have barely seen playing time.

These guys were all outstanding college quarterbacks and yet they can't cut it in the pros. It makes me wonder what might have been, if guys like Joey or Akili Smith had not been drafted by two of the worst franchises (Detroit and Cincinatti, respectively) in the NFL at the time, where their confidence was destroyed.

After four miserable years in Detroit, and a somewhat better year in Miami, Harrington was all but written off; his confidence shot. After being traded to the Atlanta Falcons in the offseason as a backup to Michael Vick, Harrington realized "I could spend the next six years as a backup and never have the chance to play another game. But I was determined I'd be ready if the chance did come."

After Vick was indicted on federal dog-fighting charges, Joey got his chance.

"I've spent the last two years trying to get my confidence back as a quarterback,'' Harrington told Sports Illustrated writer Don Banks earlier this month at Falcons training camp. "So much of what a quarterback does is about confidence. That's what I lost in Detroit. But I'm much more of a quarterback today than what I was with the Lions, or even last year in Miami. Now it's time to show that."

As a Duck fan who had the good fortune to watch his career in person on Saturday afternoons at Autzen Stadium, I hope he does. To me, Joey represents everything good about sports. By all accounts he's an honest, down-to-earth guy who doesn't get into trouble. I once heard him say that he never cared about being a NFL quarterback. His dream was to be a college quarterback. And that's how he played - like a guy living his dream, having fun and playing his guts out. I never saw a player who wanted to win more than Joey. And now, with the opportunity to play on the most talented team in his career, he may get a chance to prove it.

"I've learned a ton the last two years in this league. About myself and about how this league operates. I became so much more comfortable with who I am as a person and who I am as a player. That's what has enabled me to be ready to take advantage of this opportunity.''

2007 Pac-10 Preview

2007-08-28T20:54:00.001-07:00

Finally, it's football season again! For those of us on the left coast, it means watcing the most exciting conference in college football take the field every Saturday afternoon. Only in the Pac-10 does nearly every team have a shot at the league title. Southern Cal looks as tough as ever, but the conference is stacked in the middle with Cal, UCLA, Oregon, OSU, and Arizona State returning enough firepower to challenge the mighty Trojans. Wazzu and Arizona are longshots, but are loaded with enough talent to ruin anyone's season. Only Washington and Stanford appear to have no chance; Washington because of its brutal schedule and Stanford because of its utter lack of talent. So here are my predictions for how they'll finish.

10. Stanford

Despite some talent at QB and receiver, new coach Jim Harbaugh won't be able to pull the Cardinal out of the cellar where they've been since Tyrone Willingham left the program in 2002.

9. Washington

With highly touted recruit Jake Locker at QB, the Huskies have the potential to be good, but not good enough to overcome perhaps the toughest schedule in the country. Too bad, it's so much easier to hate the Huskies when they're good.

8. Washington State

As usual, WSU will put up a lot of points with quarterback Alex Brink and wideout Michael Bumpus running the offense. Defensively, they will give up too many points to compete in the upper half of the league.

7. Arizona
You would expect a team that returns 18 starters to finish higher, but the Wildcats have yet to prove they can field a consistent offense. A healthy Willie Tuitama at QB and new offensive coordinator Sonny Dykes from high-powered Texas Tech will go along way to solve that problem. And they'll get plent of help from a veteran defense led by All-conference corner Antoine Cason that will wreak havoc in Pac-10.

6. Oregon State

The Beavers would be higher, but they recently lost three key players for the season: cornerback Coye Francies, punter Kyle Loomis, and most painful - All-league wideout and kick returner Sammie Straughter. The Beavers will counter this adversity by fielding an outstanding defense led by senior linebackers Derrick Doggett, Alan Darlin, and Joey LaRocque. And even without Stroughter, the offense returns a deep receiving corps, an all-conference tailback, and arguably the best offensive line in the Pac-10. Unfortunately, they will still have to overcome a new quarterback and road games against the league's best teams.

5. Arizona State

New coach Dennis Erickson will give the 'Devils some much needed attitude and swagger. I expect an immediate improvement on defense. The offense will be OK with quality QB Rudy Carpenter and surprise talent Ryan Torain at tailback. The biggest help, however, will be a schedule that includes 8 home games, with the first four at home and the fifth against hapless Stanford. They may start 5-0, oozing with confidence.

4. Oregon

The Ducks head into 2007 absolutely loaded on offense. Unfortunately, they are also loaded with unanswered questions. Dennis Dixon is a senior and the unquestioned starter at quarterback, but will he collapse into a turnover machine like he did in second half of the season? Junior running back Jonathan Stewart is an uncanny blend of power and speed, but can he stay healthy? The receiving corps is deep and talented led by Jr. Jaison Williams, but will they play more consistently and cut down on the drops? New offensive coordinator and spread offense guru Chip Kelly will try and improve a unit that led the league in total offense, but can he keep them from collapsing and embarassing themselves midway through the season?

Defensively, there are more questions. The secondary is the strength of a unit that led the Pac-10 in pass defense last year, but can they stop the run? The D-line is thin and the linebackers unproven.

If the Ducks answer these questions, they are talented enough to challenge USC. But unless they can finally display the kind mental toughness that characterized the great Duck teams of the past, this team will flounder in mediocrity.

3. UCLA

The Bruins return an unbelievable 20 starters. The offense will be solid, not spectacular. Ben Olson gets the nod at QB over Patrick Cowan who played most of year replacing the injured Olson. He'll have a lot of fast, experienced receivers to throw to. And Chris Markey is a tough, versatile back who will give them another 1,000 yard season behind a veterean offensive line.

The strength of this team will be its defense. Coordinator DeWayne Walker transformed this unit into one of the nation's best last year, culminating in a 13-9 win over rival USC. UCLA has always had tons of talent but has yet to put it all together in recent years, which speaks to coaching, so I have a hard time picking them higher.

2. Cal

With only 12 starters returning (just 5 on defense), you wouldn't expect Cal to be a top ten team. But you'd be wrong. Aside from great coaching, they have a sharpshooter in quarterback Nate Longshore and the best receiver trio in the country led by bonafide superstar DeSean Jackson. If their defense is merely adequate, they'll win 10 games on the strength of 40 points a game.

1. USC

This team will be absolutely freakish. The Trojans sport more talent than the entire Big East conference. Quarterback John David Booty is a Heisman favorite but his offense will be fairly pedestrian (30 points a game). They have a solid line, but unproven (albeit talented) players start at tailback and wideout. What will drive this team is a ferocious defense that returns all but one starter. Trojan linebackers Rey Maualuga, Keith Rivers and Brian Cushing could all (and will) start in the NFL. I can't say enough about how good this defense is. They will be the best Southern Cal has ever had, and could be one of the best ever in college football history. Having said this....

Final Thoughts

USC will lose a conference game. The Pac-10 is too tough. Cal, UCLA, Oregon, or someone will knock them off. Unfortunately for them, that may be enough to knock them out of the BCS championship game where they belong. Worse still, because of the Pac-10's lousy bowl contract, only the winner plays in a New Year's Day bowl game. That means whatever teams finish 2nd and 3rd won't get the credit they deserve.

Who's the best ?

2007-08-23T01:08:00.000-07:00

A favorite topic among sports fans is "Who's the best?" Who's the greatest quarterback of all time? What's the best NBA team of all-time? Who is the best hitter in baseball? Questions like these provide hours of passionate debate for fans, sports talk radio shows, broadcasters, and athletes themselves. Unfortunately, it's an almost impossible question with hundreds of variables that most people don't consider. Why?

1. It's a completely subjective question. There are no standard measures. Statistics factor in, but don't tell the whole story. Who's better - Bird or Magic? There is no right answer, only opinion.

2. Biases. As objective as someone may try to be, their biases inevitably factor in. People naturally tend to favor athletes from there own era because they have seen them play with their own eyes. As a result, athletes from previous decades are overlooked, or dismissed because most people today don't believe they could compete with today's athletes. And then you simply have favorites - favorite players, favorite teams, favorite coaches. Everybody has them, even sports reporters. An irritating trend among sports media today is to throw every hot new athlete into the "greatest of all-time" argument. When a team wins more than one championship, the word "dynasty" immediately tossed around. It's as if they are trying to manufacture greatness in order to give the here and now a sense of significance.

3. You can't compare eras. To demonstrate how impossible this is, I'll pose this question - Who is the best golfer of all time? Only two names are even in the debate: Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. Nearly everyone today would immediately say Tiger. He's only 31 years old and has 13 major championships. Nicklaus has the record at 18 majors, but didn't win his 13th major until age 35. Woods has also posted much better scores than Nicklaus in majors and has a higher winning percentage than Nicklaus through the first 11 years of their careers.

Case Closed? Not if we factor in competition and technology.

During his career, Nicklaus competed against such greats as Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and Tom Watson, each of whom have more than five major championships. Outside of Tiger, no one in the current era can be considered great. Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, and Ernie Els are good players, but not in the same class as Jack's competition. Why does this matter? Well, Tiger runs away from the competition in most of his wins. What if he had the likes of Watson or Trevino breathing down his neck like Jack did? Could he handle the pressure? It's an important question, considering Tiger hasn't performed all that well when the score is close.

What about the technology of the clubs? Engineers have turned drivers into rocket launchers, changing the game dramatically. Players today rely on driving distance far more than in Jack's era. So this begs the question, what kind of scores would Nicklaus, Palmer and Player put up with today's clubs?

As you can see, the question of "who's the best" becomes muddled when you consider all the factors. And golf is an easy one compared to other sports.

So, how do you judge the best?

Quality of competition This includes the quality of the players or teams in a given era, but also the depth of competition. Example: The quality of competition among heavyweight boxers in the 1970s is widely considered to be far greater than it is now.

Quantity of competition In 1955 the NHL was composed of six teams with two rounds of playoffs. Today there are 30 teams and four rounds of playoffs . Although one can make the argument that talent gets diluted in larger leagues and thus making it easier to win, more teams mean more games and more opportunities to lose.

Technology The improved technology of rackets, clubs, balls, pads, helmets, shoes, and turf have all made huge impacts in their respective sports, and so must be taken into consideration.

Sports Medicine Injuries that were once career ending can be overcome in a matter of months today. Advancements in training and diet have augmented the performance of athletes dramatically in recent years. Athletes today are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. These changes have affected perhaps affected football more than any other sport.

X-factors Steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Racial segregation that for years kept many of the best players from participating, so Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Lou Gherig never had to play against some of the best competition. Rule changes from year to year, era to era. The amount of travel involved with teams today. The number of night games today(baseball). Player salaries. Domed versus open stadiums.

In light of these factors, one cannot ask questions like "Who would win a game between the 2004 New Enland Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70s?" Why? Because the Patriots would destroy them 84-0. In football, the differences in 30 years are immeasurable. That doesnt' mean the Steelers weren't a better team. They won four Super Bowls and dominated football in the 1970s.

The bottom line is that when asking "Who's the best," one must measure a team or player's accomplishments against the era in which they played, while taking all of the factors of that era into consideration.

So who's better, Bird or Magic?

Drexler.

Definitely.

Scariest thing ever!

2007-08-16T12:49:00.000-07:00

Fear is an interesting thing. Sometimes, in a difficult siutation, fear causes one to focus. Other times, fear compels us to be courageous in the face of danger. Fear may also spark a person's survival instincts, helping them to do what is necessary in a given situation.

Often times, however, fear leads to irrationality. And that is where I come in. To illustrate my point, I give you: the Camel Spider.

Those who have served in the Middle East are no doubt familiar with these monsters. A friend who just arrived in Iraq made mention of them, and to my everlasting horror and regret, I looked them up. Scary simply does not adequately describe these demon spiders (They aren't actually spiders, but a type of arachnid known as Solifugae).

What makes them scary? Well, aside from their nightmarish appearence, they can run up to 10mph chasing its prey. They can grow up to 6 inches, although returning soldiers swear they've measured ones larger. They are super aggressive and will bite you. They feed on insects, other spiders, scorpions, birds, lizards, and even small rodents. And although they are not poisonous, bites often result in infections.

Now back to my orginal point. My brain may tell me that a Grizzly Bear or Tiger Shark poses a far greater danger to my person, but the irrationality resulting from my dread of these spiders completely overpowers my ability to think clearly, and would therefore gladly pet a crocodile rather than face one of these beasts. Anything that vicious and scary-looking is to be feared and avoided at all costs. I think we'd win the war in Iraq in a heartbeat if we found a way to use them against Al-qaeda.

Simply put - Camel Spiders are evil spawns of Satan, spat up from hell to wreak horror and fear upon an unsuspecting world. Here's the proof:

Camel Spider

Camel Spider tied up

Camel Spider digging a hole

Camel Spider digging a lair and eating a scorpion

Camel Spider vs. Soldiers

Camel Spider vs. Scorpion

Apparently a favorite pastime of soldiers and Marines in the Middle East is betting on fights to the death between Camel Spiders and Scorpions.

Camel Spider eating lizard

Camel Spider vs. Mouse

Camel Spider vs. Giant Water Bug

Sleep well!

Quick!

2007-08-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

Which 80's vehicle do you choose if you need to chase the bad guys, escape the authorities and get the girl ?!!! Be prepared to back up your answer to this important question with vigourous arguments.

General Lee
1969 Dodge Charger

A-Team's 1983 GMC Van

Miami Vice's 1986 Ferrari Testarossa

KITT

1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am

Magnum P.I's Ferrari 308 GTS

Zodiac

2007-08-02T14:01:00.000-07:00

Review:
Zodiac is one of those movies that cause you to jump at every bump in the night for about an hour after you watch it. Directed by David Fincher ("Seven," "Fight Club" and "The Game"), who is a master of creating dark urban settings so alive as to be character themselves, re-creates the San Francisco of the late sixties and seventies so palpably, you feel less like a viewer and more like a bystander caught up in the fear and paranoia created by the killer who terrorized the bay area nearly forty years ago.

The film follows San Francisco journalists and detectives as they desperately try to discover the killer's identidy. The cast is excellent as Jake Gyllenhall plays the boy scout Chronicle cartoonist who becomes obsessed with solving the case because no one else will. Mark Ruffalo gives a grounded performance as a dedicated cop who becomes burnt out as the case turns up one dead end after another. And Robert Downey Jr. is brilliant as a smart-ass journalist who self destructs into drugs and alcholism.

Fincher puts us right there wrapped up in the tension, confusion, mistakes, dead-ends, hopes, and frustrations as the characters work their way through a maze investigating the case. As critic Richard Roeper points out, this movie refreshingly focuses more on the reporters and cops rather than the methodology and madness of the killer. We only see what they see. We only know what they know. And the result is a tense, thoughtfully paced thriller that completely owns you for two and a half hours.

And for about an hour afterwards too.

Shark Week!

2007-07-27T16:46:00.000-07:00

This week marks the return of one of my favorite times of the year - Shark Week on the Discovery Channel, seven straight days of documentaries on one of nature's greatest predators. As someone growing up wanting to be Jacques Cousteau, this was a Godsend and I've been watching Shark Week since it began about twenty years ago. And in those twenty years, I've noted some interesting changes in the content of these documentaries.

Some of the shows discuss the biology and behavior of sharks. Some explore specific species of sharks. Some discuss shark attacks. And some just consist of guys jumping in the water with sharks and talking about the experience. The vast majority of these shows gave fair treatment to the subject matter. The ones about sharks attacks, while discussing the horrors of these encounters, also talked about why sharks sometimes attacks people.

This is important because sharks, for a host of reasons, have a nasty reputation. Much of it comes from fear and paranoia created by movies like Jaws. People (myself included) fear the idea of being attacked in the water by large unseen predator. Unlike other maneaters (Lions, Bears), sharks aren't cuddley or cute, and aren't social or familial in the same way mammals are. Having said all this, people also fear sharks because they do, in fact, sometimes attack people.

And this brings me back to what has changed in the coverage of sharks over the years. Today, there is a greater emphasis to downplay the danger of sharks (statistically, you are three times more likely to be struck by lightning), and to demonstrate that sharks attack people because mistaken identidy. Much more time is given to discussing the danger that man poses to sharks through overfishing (especially in Asia where Shark-fin soup is a delicacy), pollution, protective nets, destruction of habitat, etc. We are also told more and more what maginificent, unique and extraordinary animals sharks are.

I don't really have a problem or disagreement with any of this. However, it seems to me there is a growing number of scientists, conservationists, and activists that have become what you might call shark apologists. At every opportunity, they tell us that we are the problem, sharks aren't really dangerous, and only attack when driven to it as a result of the consequences of man's encroachment on their environment. While there may be some truth in this, it seems to me that science and the study of the environment is increasingly being blurred with an environmental agenda that borders on propoganda.

Let me give you an example. Last Week I came across the Larry King show, where the discussion was sharks. Among the guests were Les Stroud (Survivorman), Phillipe Cousteau Jr. (grandson of Jacques), Jack Hannah of the Columbus Zoo, a wildlife photographer, a shark attack victim, and a shark activist. At one point, the host asked where the most dangerous places for shark attacks are. The answer from the one guest was "What sharks? They're almost all gone." She said that with a straight face while the rest of the panel nodded in agreement. Nevermind that we have statistics that show where most shark attacks occur, and that Cousteau Jr. had only minutes before pointed out the of number shark attacks worldwide has remained fairly constant over last 20-30 years, despite the purported decimation of shark populations.

The host then asked what the most dangerous species of sharks are. Stroud essentially blew off the question, saying that sharks aren't a threat to people; it's the other way around. Again, we have clear statistics that show what species (Great White, Tiger, Bull) are most likely to attack humans. One shark attack survivor who lost his right arm to a Bull Shark went so far as to say that if he had not put his arms out to deflect the shark away as it swam at him, the shark would have probably left him alone. Yeah, okay.

The impression one is left with after listening to this group is that shark attacks only occur when people swim into the shark's mouth. The last guest was a shark activist named Rob Stewart who has who has dedicated his life to the preservation of sharks, even risking his life in conflicts with foreign governments. His upcoming film Sharkwater chronicles his struggle. And listening to him (and the other guests) talk about sharks in the most reverant terms (their majesty and beauty), and how their lives have been changed by their experiences with sharks, I came to a realization. These people don't just love and appreciate nature and want to preserve it. I can appreciate that. No, these folks are in love with nature. I believe this reflects a growing religious tenor to the environmental movement. This love of nature accordingly involves a rejection of anything that places special importance on human beings. And this "faith" frames their worldview.

The guests on Larry King were so blinded by their faith, they couldn't even answer legitimate, straightforward questions, choosing instead to push their environmental agenda. The troubling implication is that science is becoming so politicized, it is difficult to sort out what is true, especially when you can't always trust the "experts."

One bonus to this year's Shark Week is the release of the the 1971 documentary Blue Water, White Death. It is arguably the finest film of its kind and was the inspiration for Jaws. It documents the first ever expedition to film the Great White Shark.

Faith at work

2007-02-14T04:33:00.000-08:00

A new movie being released next Friday, Feb. 23, chronicles the life and mission of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Wilberforce was a member of parliament who was inspired by his Christian faith to bring an end to the great evil of his day - slavery. It's good to see more movies where Christian faith is not only prominently featured, but portrayed in a positive light; as the remedy to evil rather than its cause.

It also got me thinking. What is the great evil of our day? And what is our responsibility as Christians in addressing it?

Terrorism? Insurgents are killing hundreds of Iraqis every week. Worldwide, Islamic terrorists are killing thousands from Africa to Indonesia. And Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Queda are planning the death of thousands more.

Slavery? The statistics show that there are more slaves today than in 19th century! Much of the slavery is associated with the worldwide sex trade industry, and most of them are children.

Genocide? Ten years ago, 600,00 people were murdered in Rwanda. Not long after, at least 8,000 Bosnians were killed by ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Today, Islamic militias are slaughtering black Africans in Darfur (Sudan).

Abortion? 1.3 million per year in the U.S. (48 million since Roe v. Wade 1973) and 46 million per year worldwide. Thankfully, partial birth abortions were banned in 2003, but horrifying procedures such as live birth abortions are still performed in the U.S.

Good arguments could be made for all of these and other evils I haven't mentioned. But do we have responsibility beyond simply denouncing these evils? I tend to be skeptical of government as the answer to our social problems. So when Jesus spoke about giving to the poor, I don't think he intended for government to redistribute income and ensure social justice, in part because I don't believe God is interested in compelling us to act. Having said this, I do believe we have a responsibility in building communities that respect and embrace human life and human dignity. This is necessary to any civil society. And this means, in part, working through our government. So just as we create laws that prohibit murder, it follows that we ought to have laws that prohibit slavery.

So again, what is the great evil of our day? And how does our Christian faith move us to act in response? Do we pray and trust that God's justice will be served as we spread the gospel? Do we become active participants and fight if necessary to defeat evil?

Its a tough question, with thoughtful arguments on both sides. But it seems to me history as shown us that standing by as evil grows has only resulted in personal and civil ruin.

We remember William Wilberforce as a giant because his faith wouldn't allow him to stand by while evil went unchallenged.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

--William Wilberforce

Star Trek Cribs

2007-02-14T02:34:00.000-08:00

I wish to express my hearfelt thanks to those men and women who dedicate their efforts and resources in the tireless pursuit of cheap laughs. They make the world a better place.

Star Trek Remastered

2007-02-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

I'm a big Star Trek fan. I got hooked on the original series in 6th grade. I eventually came to really like the Next Generation too. I even liked Deep Space Nine. I thought Voyager was lame, and I never bothered to watch Enterprise. The movies were great up until number five when they assumed that because Leonard Nimoy was a good director, Shatner must be also.

I even went to a few Star Trek conventions. When we weren't playing Contra for hours or creating new and exciting D&D characters, a friend and I used to spend a good portion of our time playing Star Fleet Battles or Starship Tactical Combat Simulator, while thumbing through the Federation Ship Recognition Manual.

Yes, we were crown-princes of geekdom, but we didn't care. Nowadays, the time spent in such lofty pursuits is limited, so it's a relief to flip through the channels and land on an episode of Star Trek. I love the original series and simply can't turn away when it's on TV. A few months ago, I was surfing through the channels and landed on the episode where Kirk and the crew run into Khan. While watching, I was suddenly blown away by something. When they showed the Enterprise cruising through space, it was tricked out with slick new special effects! It looked awesome!

A little while later, I did some research and discovered the entire original series is being digitally remastered with new sound, music, and special effects. Having seen an episode or two, these new enhancements give a whole new life to the series. And unlike the special editions of the Star Wars movies, they don't add whole new scenes or anything else that takes away from the spirit of the show. Can't wait to get them on dvd, so I can watch Captain Kirk take advantage the weaker sex, beat up aliens, and break the prime directive anytime I want.

Peyton's big win and a defense of Dan Marino

2007-02-06T19:23:00.000-08:00

I was happy to see the Colts win Super Bowl XLI win this last weekend. I'm not a Colts fan necessarily, but I was gratified to see Colts quarterback Peyton Manning shut his critics up. The rap against him was that he couldn't win the big game; that his numbers were impressive, but meant little unless he could translate them into a championship.

In contrast, his rival Tom Brady, has consistently come through in the big game, leading the Patriots to three Super Bowl rings in six years, knocking Manning and the Colts out of the playoffs in 2003 and 2004. After his third Super Bowl win, Brady was (and rightly so) added to the conversation of best quarterback of all time, demonstrating how heavily championships weigh on one's perception of greatness in the world of sports. Today, Tom Brady is regularly compared to Joe Montana, who most people believe to be the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

Peyton Manning, on the other hand , has been consistently been compared to Dan Marino, who, like Manning, put up record numbers, but never led his team to a Super Bowl win. With his big win Sunday, Manning can put these unfair criticisms behind him, but Marino having retired after the 1999 season will always be remembered for not having won the big game. As a result, his greatness has been downplayed in recent years by critics.

I believe this to be unfair and unjust.

Increasingly in our media culture, sportswriters, sports talk radio show hosts, and pundits give themselves authority to decide what we think of athletes and how we should remember them. Most of them have never been professional athletes. And many appear interested in making bold, controversial declarations to sell newspapers, get ratings, and make a name for themselves rather than give honest assessments.

Playing the most demanding position in all of sports, Dan Marino lit up the record books on almost a weekly basis. His numbers speak for themselves. He holds 24 NFL records, and is tied for four more. He is the most prolific passer in NFL history.

His albatross is that his team never won a Super Bowl. And because we hold great players to higher standards, the responsibility for that failure lands squarely on Marino's shoulders. I agree with this to up to point. Great players like Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, Wayne Gretzky all led their teams to championships. However, these guys didn't do it alone. They played on great teams with other great players and great coaches.

How far would Jordan have taken the Bulls without Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, John Paxson or his coach Phil Jackson?

How many titles would Jeter and his Yankees have without Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera and Joe Torre?

How would Gretzky's Oilers have dominated without Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, and Grant Fuhr?

The point is, that in team sports, one player cannot do it all, no matter how great. And in football, the ultimate team sport, one cannot win a championship without a solid running game and a good defense.

Dan Marino rarely had either. When he joined the league in 1983, the Dolphins had a solid rushing attack, gaining a respectable 2,150 yards on the ground (It was the only time in Marino's career the Dolphins rushed for 2,000 yards). Theirs was a running game by committee featuring little known players like Tony Nathan, Woody Bennett and Andra Franklin. The Dolphins also had the NFL's best scoring defense. Marino took over the starting job in week 6 of the season and posted the highest quarterback rating (96.0) ever by a rookie. The Dolphins went 12-4, losing to the Seattle Seahawks in the divisional playoffs.

In 1984, the Dolphins again produced a decent running game, and although the defense had slipped a little, they were still among the top scoring defenses in the league. With a year of experience under his belt, Marino responded with the best season ever by a quarterback, throwing for 5,048 yards and 48 touchdowns en route to a 14-2 record and Super Bowl bid. Unfortunately for the Dolphins, they had to face Joe Montana and a 49er team that is considered to be among the best of all time, and lost 38-16.

Following Marino's record-breaking season, the Dolphins began moving away from the running game, believing that championships would come by riding the golden right arm of Marino. In 17 seasons, Marino never had a franchise running back. Only once did he have a 1,000 yard rusher. Unlike, his contemporaries, Marino never had a Roger Craig, Emmit Smith, or Thurman Thomas.

The Dolphins quickly became a one-dimensional team, dependent on Marino to win. Opposing defenses knew this and focused all their efforts on stopping him. He still shredded them on a regular basis, leading the Dolphins to the playoffs in 8 of the next 15 seasons, including two AFC championship games. But it did stop him from ever reaching the Super Bowl again as he inevitably faced more balanced, complete teams.

This was especially true in 1990 (12-4) and 1992 (11-5) as the Dolphins put together solid teams with very good defenses only to face the Buffalo Bills who played in four straight Super Bowls. Led by Hall of Famers Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, and the league's best running back, Thurman Thomas, the Bills outmatched the Dolphins, winning 44-24 and 29-10.

An aged Marino had one last chance in 1998 as the Dolphins fielded the league's top scoring defense. After beating the Bills in the AFC wildcard game, they had to face the defending Super Bowl champion Denver Broncos led by John Elway.

Ironically, it is Elway who provides the best illustration of why Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl. Like Marino, Elway was a gifted passer known for his fourth quarter heroics, and like Marino, often carried his team, but was criticized for failing to win the Super Bowl in three tries (87,88,90). Elway played on more talented teams than Marino's Dolphins, but never had a consistent run game, despite having several 1,000 backs. Every time Elway led his Broncos to the Super Bowl, they were faced with more balanced, complete teams that physically dominated them.

That all changed, however, with the arrival Mike Shanahan in 1995. Bringing with him a run-heavy version of the west-coast offense, the Broncos committed to the ground game behind a smaller, but more athletic offensive line. Also arriving in 1995, a sixth-round draft pick out of Georgia, was running back Terrell Davis. By 1997, combined with Elway and a solid defense, Davis led the Broncos to 2,378 team rushing yards on their way to the Super Bowl, where they defeated the heavily favored Green Bay Packers.

The following year, Terrell Davis became only the third player in history to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a season. So when the Dolphins faced them in the AFC Divisional playoffs, the outcome was never in doubt. The Broncos crushed Miami 38-3 on the way to winning their second straight Super Bowl.

Before this, Elway's place in history was much like that of Dan Marino, (without the statistical dominance), a great player, but just didn't have what it took win the big game. He was certainly no Unitas, Staubach, or Montana. That's for sure.

Did a 37-year old Elway suddenly elevate his game to new level in 1997? Did he become better? No. He simply became more effective because the Broncos made a commitment to running the football. Opposing defenses had to worry about the run, which among other things, opened up the field for Elway.

It's the first truth of winning football. Running the ball...
-Wears down the defense
-Opens up the passing game
-Eats the clock, and in turn...
-Rests your defense

This formula works so well that it has enabled less than spectacular quarterbacks like Terry Bradshaw, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, and Trent Dilfer to win Super Bowls

So what does all this mean? It means Dan Marino was good enough to win multiple Super Bowls, and his failure to do so is not a reflection on him, but instead demonstrates that winning a championship in football requires the ability to run the football and play good defense.

Dan Marino is one the greatest quarterbacks of all time, certainly the best who never won a championship. He did more with less than any other QB in history. He ought to be remembered that way.

Remembering the Gipper

2007-02-05T00:09:00.000-08:00

As I reflect on upon the state of politics in our country today, it's hard not to be pessimistic. I'm sure many would say that this has been the case for many years, but I have reason to believe the political climate today is as dark as it has been for a long time. For Republicans like myself, 2006 was a rough year. The war in Iraq went badly. The president's credibility suffered as he endured his lowest approval ratings. Scandal after scandal crippled the Republican led congress. There was a failure to pass any sort of meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. And the party of small government let spending get completely out of control. Republican leaders appeared apathetic, adrift, and utterly removed from their core principles. Despite their victories on taxes and pushing through two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, the Republican party failed to unite on a number of issues, got caught up in party politics, and splintered from within.

The result was a devastating defeat at the hands of the Democrats in November, the voters choosing to end the Republican majority in both houses of congress.

Yes, they had help. The Democrats made it their full-time job to criticize Republicans without offering any solutions. Joining them was the news media, who in 2006, unleashed a smear campaign of historical proportions against President Bush, the war, and the Republicans. Unconcerned with how transparently partisan their reporting appeared, the media continued their biased attacks on all things right of the political spectrum.

The truth is, however, the Republican wounds were self-inflicted. They deserved to lose. One can only hope that Republicans learn from this defeat, get back in touch with the conservative principles which have always served the party, and the country well -- smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and an adherence to traditional values.

What better opportunity to reflect upon these issues than the birthday of arguably the greatest conservative leader of the 20th century? Born Feb. 6, 1911 in Tampico, Ill., Ronald Wilson Reagan went on to become one of America's most popular and beloved presidents.

In a new article, Michael Medved lucidly articulates what made Reagan special, and what Republicans today can learn from his example. I for one would welcome the sort of cheerful, principled leadership that Reagan embodied. America is more divided and polarized than anytime in her history and as I look ahead to the elections of 2008, I desperately hope that a leader will step forward who is unafraid to confront and articulate issues that matter, offer real solutions to problems, and who has the ability to remind us of those qualities that make us uniquely American; uniting us rather than dividing.

This is who Reagan was. And nowhere did he more clearly communicate his vision than in 1964 when he delivered his "A Time For Choosing" speech. It is, in my opinion, one of the finest (and fearless) speeches in American History. He gave this speech in support of the failed Barry Goldwater campaign for president. The political climate is that of the mid-1960s in the midst of the Cold War and the growing threat of worldwide communism, and the rapidly growing size of government and entitlement spending at home. Nevertheless, it is uncanny how relevant his words are in 2007.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

This speech is some 30 minutes long, and I don't expect anyone to listen to all of it (although they should). I must, however, insist you listen to the last 1/4 (or last 5-7 minutes)of the speech. Reading his words doesn't do him justice. Enjoy.

Seriously?

2007-01-31T02:27:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, January 27-28, thousands of protesters descended upon Washington D.C. to voice their opposition to the war in Iraq. They were led by such personalities as Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Jesse Jackson, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and my personal favorite - Cindy Sheehan. They demanded the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and an end to the war.

They claim to want peace, but the anger and hatred expressed through their signs, sentiments, and speeches would seem to indicate something different. And this leads to what I was struck by watching the protests (besides the lack of intellectual weight or substantive discourse behind their arguments).

1. The truly irrational hatred on the part the people participating in the protests.

2. The visceral anti-American sentiment expressed by the a large number of the protesters.

And I believe these two things are connected. Its clear the president is the primary target of their anger, but what is less clear is where this irrational hatred comes from. In the case of these protesters, I believe there are several sources.

For some, I believe that guilt is a contributing factor. You'll notice that the overwhelming majority of those participating are white, and my guess is that a substantial number of them come from privileged backgrounds (certainly, the celebrities qualify). Our media and universities constantly remind us that we should feel guilty for our status, our wealth, and our country because they were all created at the expense of minorities, home and abroad. However, by taking up the cause of the minority or the little guy, by denouncing "the system," and by bashing America, a member of the "privileged majority" can be pardoned of their background, gain the moral high ground and alleviate that guilt.

Second, I think envy is involved. These people represent a fringe minority and the majority of Americans don't buy their ideas. Americans don't want to live in a socialist state, they don't believe America is evil, and for whatever objections they may have with George W. Bush, they don't think he's Hitler. The simple fact is, their ideas lose. No one of their ilk will ever win an election and their best days will be spent protesting like this, but accomplishing nothing. The bottom line is they don't have a voice. I think they realize this, and it infuriates them.

Ultimately, I believe, this guilt and envy find expression in their anti-American rhetoric. And let me just say, I don't believe that criticizing the government, or the president and his policies makes you anti-American. I do believe, however, that comparing our president to Hitler, drawing a moral equivalency between America and terrorists, and blaming America for the all world's problems is clearly anti-American. So is rooting for the enemy or hating the president so much that you hope America loses in Iraq. This kind of speech strengthens our enemies and hurts America. Regardless of whether or not you believe we should have gone into Iraq, reasonable people recognize that an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster for our country and the security of our people.

Blades of Glory

2007-01-25T16:49:00.000-08:00

I haven't the words.

Church of Brunch

2007-01-24T01:39:00.000-08:00

I just read an article in First Things about a story that recently aired on NPR. The subject of the story was the Church of Brunch, a congregation of believers and atheists that leaves religion, deities, and dogma at the door and gather for a non-god-centered Sunday ceremony.

Services begin an hour before noon as the community joins in song in order to stir fire into the hearts of the non-faithful. Any song will do so long as it is inspirational, nonreligious, and has the potential to invoke full, conscious, and active participation on the part of the assembly.

On the day NPR was visiting, Cat Stevens’ classic hit from Harold and Maude, “Sing Out,” was being playfully strummed on a single guitar while what sounded like a dozen or so voices filled the air with a spirit that found itself somewhere between a campfire sing-a-long and a Steubenville Youth Conference.

Since this is an entirely nonreligious gathering, the Torah, the Qur’an, and the Bible are deemed offensive, but there is always a place for inspirational and thought-provoking readings. Whether from Shakespeare, Kerouac, or Sexton, any and all can touch the human heart in some way and remind hearers that they are alive and that something has happened, something is happening, or something will probably happen in the future. And if anyone in the assembly feels called to offer some reflections on the reading, such contributions are most welcome and appreciated.

Quiet contemplation comes next. After hearing the word and allowing it to be broken open within the community, silence is needed to allow the word to penetrate the hearts of the non-faithful. Of course, as with any Sunday service, silence is easy for some and difficult for others, but, in the end, the community is better off after three or four minutes of quiet.

Finally, the community is just about ready to approach the table of fellowship—but not until they first raise their heads and join together in a Johnny Cash number. Seeing that his most recent albums have been coated in religious imagery and metaphor, reaching back into the vault and flat-picking a hearty version of “Folsom Prison Blues” is deemed more appropriate. After the song, there is the traditional sign of peace, and then it’s time to break bread.
There's nothing like singing "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die," sharing a sign of peace, and then sitting down to a vegan potluck with your brothers and sisters in brunch.

Isn't there something just sad about all this? When I read this, all I see are lost and broken people, like all of us, trying desperately to find a sense of meaning and community. Unfortunately, they are determined to keep God out, so their search is a hopeless one. What do words mean, or songs inspire if there is no hope or truth? Where is the meaning in a world where humans are simply animals whose only reason for being is reproduction? And intelligence, conciousness, and creativity are simply to tools to ensure this? If so, what community can there be besides the herd? Why look for hope if we are no more valuable to the universe than cockroaches?

I see people wrestling with the innate longing in their souls to be in relationship with their creator. I see them reaching toward the sky for meaning. I see God with his arms open wide. And I see people turning away, looking instead for something that isn't there, choosing themselves and this world over Him.

Movie Reviews

2007-01-16T00:16:00.000-08:00

One of the consequences of having kids is that opportunities to go see movies are far more infrequent. Consequently, I have been renting more movies and have been pleasantly surprised by my most recent choices.

The Illusionist

This movie blew me away, mostly because I didn't see it coming. I never heard much about it while it was in the theater, largely because I was looking forward to the other turn-of-the-century magician movie The Prestige. The Illusionist looked like a cheaper knock-off, in the hollywood tradition of releasing two movies with similar plots at the same time by different studios (Tombstone and Wyatt Earp, Antz and A Bug's Life, Deep Impact and Armageddon).

I haven't seen The Prestige yet, but The Illusionist is one of the most unique movies I have seen in a long time. Based on a short story "Eisenheim the Illusionist," by Steven Millhauser, this movie is thoroughly enjoyable and well acted. Edward Norton and Paul Giamotti are especially good. The plot wasn't terribly original, but the story is unlike any that I've seen before.

Invincible
This was yet another feel good sports underdog story by Disney in the tradition of Remember the Titans, The Rookie, Miracle, and Glory Road. That's OK becasue these were all good movies and based on true stories. Like the others, this is a well made movie with fine performances from everyone involved. Its also the first professional football movie endorsed by the NFL, so they can use real NFL teams and player names. And it does add and sense of authenticity to the movie. However, the movie isn't remarkable in any way and I cannot help but feel like these movies are becoming a bit formulaic. Even so, its well done and I enjoyed it.

Miami Vice
Although some look back on television show and laugh, I thought Miami Vice was a cool show. I saw the first episode of the show the other night on TV and was surprised how well it still holds up. Its obviously very 80s, but not campy or so dated that its distracting. Michael Mann created the show and moved on to make a lot of good movies such as Last of the Mohicans, Heat, and Collateral. So if figures that the new Miami Vice is in good hands.

The new Miami Vice is an excellent movie. Its also very adult, with plenty of violence and a fair share of sex, but its all in context and not for its own sake. This movie is so slick, both visually and dramatically that I was hooked immediately. Even better, the movie has a great pay off at at end in the form of a great shoot out. Just like the original show, this movie epitomizes "cool."

Top 5 Greatest Intros

2006-12-20T12:44:00.000-08:00

I had intended to include some of these in my first list, but it got so big I decided to make a separate list for cartoons. There were a lot to choose from and I surely left some ou

t, but these I thought had the best intros based on pretty much the same criteria as the TV shows.

5. Scooby-Doo
I think I saw more episodes of this than any other cartoon. And for some strange reason, I never got tired of it (that is until they added scrappy-doo). Who was your favorite guest stars? Don Knotts? Sonny and Cher? Batman and Robin? The Harlem Globetrotters? I can't think of any cartoon that had real people as guests on the show (or lasted so long with the same plot for every episode). Great 70s theme music too.

4. Thundarr the Barbarian
Are there enough Star Wars rip-offs in this one? Toss in Conan for good measure and you've got a great formula for Saturday morning. Probably my first memory of must-see TV.

3. G.I. Joe
What's not to love. Action packed. Great theme. Patriotic. Scarlett and Lady J, and don't forget the Baroness. One of the all time great cartoons. By the way, if I lived in the G.I. Joe universe, I would invest heavily in companies that manufacture parachutes.

2. Samurai Jack
"Long ago in a distant land..." Perhaps the best cartoon ever, the Samurai Jack intro starts with his origin narrated by his nemesis, Aku (voiced by Mako, the wizard from Conan the Barbarian). It then transitions into a cool theme song stylishly intermixed with scenes from the cartoon.

1. Challenge of the Superfriends
This was simply my favorite cartoon as a kid, due in no small part to its awesome intro. It was the most epic, pump you up, starting to any show ever. The theme could have been used in recruiting advertisements. The show made you feel like you had a duty to watch and support the Superfriends' heroic struggle against the Legion of Doom (Even with the politically correct additions of Black Lightning, Apache Chief and Samurai).

And while we're at it, remember these?
Dungeons and Dragons

Tarzan

Voltron

Top 10 Television Show Intros

2006-12-17T18:58:00.000-08:00

I remember as a kid, part of what made television shows cool was the opening credits. In addition to memorable theme music, the opening credits would tell the story of the show so that you could jump in anywhere. It also would pump you up to watch the show. I used to get mad if I came in late and missed the credits.

One thing I was amazed with was the length of some of the credits. Compared with today's TV shows where the credits are usually very brief (presumably to give more time for the show itself), TV shows in the 70s and 80s had fairly long credits, sometimes nearly 2 minutes long. I don't have a set criteria for my choices. Basically, it comes down to music and cool factor.

10. Bonanza
Great theme music, and the burning map is especially cool. Who didn't want to ride on the Ponderosa alongside Hoss and Little Joe after watching this?

9. Star Trek
Is it me or does Shatner manage to overact even in his narration?

8. Knight Rider
This may be the only positive thing I every say about something David Hasselhoff is invovled in. This also may be the only time a Trans-Am was so cool.

7. Incredible Hulk
I think its funny that the producers of the show decided that the best example of what sends David Banner over the edge into a raging monster is trying to change his tire in bad weather.

6. A-Team
Its amazing how something so lame could be so cool. Those who loved this show as a kid and have seen it recently know exactly what I mean. It had a great intro however. Remember when anything with a Crack-commando unit was awesome?

5. Greatest American Hero
This one makes the list purely on the basis of its great theme song. And William Katt's hair.

4. Dukes of Hazzard
Its hard to believe that my brother and I used to love this show so much that we would pretend that we were the Duke boys. The great thing about the credits was the catchy Waylon Jennings theme song and the way it tricked you into believing that the show was much better than it actually was. What other TV series had characters named Cooter and Cletus?

3. Battlestar Galactica (original)
A show that was actually as cool (at least at the time) as its epic opening credits.

2. Six Million Dollar Man
These opening credits make nearly dying in a plane crash seem like a good idea. Remember the episode where he fights Bigfoot? Classic.

1. Buck Rogers
"In the year 1987..." That just cracks me up.

Honorable Mention
These are goods ones too, but just didn't fit into my top ten.

1. Kung-Fu
Can you imagine how much cooler this show would have been with Bruce Lee instead of David Carradine?

2. Tour of Duty
I really liked this show. Paint it Black by the Stones was a nice touch.

3. Airwolf
Jan Michael Vincent's one hit wonder. Cool intro and cool show.

And While We're At It, Remember These?
1. Manimal
To an 8-year old boy, this was the coolest show on TV. Scary.

2. The Fall Guy
Yes. That is Lee Majors singing.

3. Tales of the Gold Monkey
I can't even believe I remembered this one.

Evolution vs Intelligent Design

2006-05-16T15:32:00.000-07:00

Here's the press release for the upcoming OSU Socratic Club debate. I hope some of you can make it. Its gonna be a good one:

The Oregon State University Socratic Club will feature a debate on the topic, "Evolution versus Intelligent Design: Scientific Assumptions in a Free Society," on Monday, May 22, at 7 p.m. in the Ballroom of the CH2M Hill Alumni Center on the OSU campus. Speakers are Michael Ruse of Florida State University and Cornelius Hunter of Biola University. The debate is supported by a grant from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that undirected evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient to account for the existence of certain organisms and biological processes. Proponents argue that the "irreducible complexity" of such systems confirms the action of a conscious designer to explain their existence. Intelligent Design has been strongly opposed by the scientific establishment, while its place in science classrooms as an alternative to the teaching of evolution has been hotly contested. Two leading experts, presenting widely-divergent points of view, will explore the scientific and philosophical merit and I.D. and evolution. Cornelius Hunter will argue that the assumption of an unevolved intelligence better explains the history of life forms than that of a mechanism of natural selection. Michael Ruse will argue that Intelligent Design fails to meet the criteria for genuine science and that naturalistic evolution provides a fully convincing explanation. Both speakers will be given equal time for their presentations and members of the audience will have the opportunity to address questions to them. The meeting is free and open to the public.

Michael Ruse is Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, where he has taught since 2000. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Bristol in England. He has authored or edited more than twenty books on evolution, stem-cell research, and the history and philosophy of biology. They include Debating Design: Darwin to DNA (with William Dembski, 2003), The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates (2001), Cloning (with Aryn Sheppard, 2001), and Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship between Science and Religion (2001). In 1981-82 Ruse was called by the ACLU as an expert witness during the Arkansas trial over the legitimacy of teaching Creation Science.

Cornelius G. Hunter earned his Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Illinois. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, as well as Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science. His most recent book, Science’s Blindspot, is forthcoming in 2006. Dr. Hunter’s research interests include optimal estimation and control of nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics.
The debate concludes the Socratic Club’s fourth year at OSU as a student organization. It is modeled on the original Socratic Club, which was founded at Oxford University in 1941 by C. S. Lewis. For more information see http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic.

Classic Arnold

2006-05-04T18:29:00.000-07:00

I have a weakness, one that is shared by some who occasion this blog -- Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. His movies are revered for many reasons, but among them is Arnold's ability to come up with the perfect one-liner in any given situation.

Do you know all of them? Take the quiz..

http://www.funtrivia.com/quizdetails.cfm?id=13858&origin=3086

For a list of all his one liners...

http://optimusfilms.20m.com/arnold/80s.html

The movies with the best one-liners are:

Predator
"If it bleeds we can kill it"

Commando
"Don't disturb my friend... he's dead tired"

Running Man
"What happened to Buzzsaw?"
"He had to split"

His best however, isnt' a one-liner. If fact, it might be the greatest line uttered in cinema history. When asked by a Mongol general what is best in life, Conan responds...
http://eraticate.com/opf/arnold/crush.wav

Superman Returns

2006-05-04T15:46:00.000-07:00

Well, here's the new Superman trailer.

It looks pretty intruiging, but I liked the teaser trailer better.

Based on the response when I posted the teaser trailer before, I represent the minority of my friends who are excited about this movie. Some have said that Superman just isn't that interesting. Others have that superhero movies are getting to be old hat. Personally, I think a Superman movie can be very compelling because it deals with questions of how one can be good in a world that is evil. If the movie were being made by Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay, I wouldn't bother, but since Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X2) is in the director's chair, there's reason to be excited. He's a fan of the original and wants to tell a good story. Besides, how good will Kevin Spacey be as Lex Luthor?

And while I agree that Superman has rarely been done well in comics, the first two movies were arguably the best superhero movies to date. Yes, the genre has been over-done as of late, with good and bad results, but I'm ready for one more good one - especially if its Superman.

What is a Christian?

2006-03-10T22:36:00.000-08:00

This is the question that I always thought had an easy answer. I was reminded of it Wednesday night during the debate with Marcus Borg. The first time I realized that my answer to this question was not universally acknowledged was a year ago during the first Socratic Club debate I ever attended. The question being debated was borrowed from Karl Marx, “Is religion the opiate of the masses?” Dr. Paul Metzger of Multnomah Biblical Seminary was debating Dr. Susan Shaw, professor of women’s studies at OSU. Dr. Shaw opened my eyes to a whole new vision of Jesus that exists in the world. Her view represents, of course, a small minority of Christians worldwide, but a growing number of people in academia.

You see, I had always assumed that the definition of a Christian was fairly objective (silly I know, Mr. Post-modern); that while there may be differences in doctrine among various denominations, or between Protestants and Catholics, ultimately there were certain essential beliefs that characterized Christians as a unique group of people. Apparently I was wrong. However, in order to see how I was wrong, let’s look at what (generally) defines a Christian.

I would define a Christian as someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (the God of Abraham and his descendents), sent to earth to die for our sins in order to reconcile our broken relationship God, and that through faith in Christ, we have the hope of eternal salvation. A Christian may also be rightly characterized as someone who believes in the trinity, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Christian believes that the Holy Bible is the word of God (or inspired word) and that no other documents may be regarded as scripture (Q, Gospel of Thomas, Book of Mormon, etc).

Truthfully, I do not know if this definition has any historical precedent. Perhaps there has always been a broader definition.

In contrast to this, the Jesus seminar, some progressive main line churches, and others believe something quite different. Dr. Borg and Dr. Shaw both call themselves Christians, but so far as I know, hold none of the above beliefs. They do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, nor do they believe that Jesus thought he was the Son of God, or even God in flesh. They do not believe he was sent by God to die for the redemption of our sins. Some do not even believe he was really crucified. Dr. Shaw explained that the crucifixion was an invention by the patriarchal culture’s male death obsession. They do not believe in the second coming, or they believe that it’s already happened. They do not see the gospels as accurate portrayals of Christ’s life, but rather as poetic and more often than not, metaphorical narratives.

This, of course, begs the question, “What do they believe? Unfortunately, it’s much easier to talk about what they don’t believe than what they do believe. Not only are their beliefs (in my opinion) complicated and vague, but there is virtually no universal agreement, even among the Jesus seminar folks themselves. Dr. Shaw describes Jesus as the ultimate example of human potential, and this made him holy. Borg sees God as “the encompassing Spirit in whom we live and move and have our being.” Jesus was fully human person who had a unique capacity to be filled with God’s spirit, and in him, “we see the incarnation of God.” These descriptions are only pieces of what they believe and do not ably describe the whole of their beliefs. Borg has authored a number of books that articulate his viewpoint, and that of the Jesus seminar.

So……what is a Christian? Is there a description that most people can agree on? Are there necessary characteristics that define Christians? Can people with such progressive and radical views of Jesus rightly be called Christians? Is it intolerant to say “no”? And finally, as we try to spread the gospel to a world with modern sensibilities, how broad of a position can we take for the sake of inclusiveness and still maintain our identity?

The Return of the Borg

2006-03-09T00:09:00.000-08:00

Wednesday night (3/7) the OSU Socratic Club held debate/discussion between OSU professor Dr. Marcus Borg and Dr. Brad Harper of Multnomah Biblical Seminary. The topic discussed was “How different views of Jesus affect the church’s engagement of culture.” Harper holds an orthodox view of Jesus, whereas Borg has a more progressive view, as outlined by the Jesus Seminar. The debate was quite good and sometimes began to go over my head as they delved deep into a number of theological issues. This debate would have been very much at home with a room full of seminary students. However, if I had to distill their arguments into a few essential points, it would be that Borg believes that the traditional view of Jesus is too temporal and consequently results in his followers neglecting this world in favor of the next. In contrast, Harper, while acknowledging this point, found Borg’s more material view too lacking in its capacity to offer hope and redemption. The debate was far more substantive than I can justly communicate, but I believe this was the essence of the discussion.

Borg invoked images from the Left Behind novels to illustrate his point about traditional views of Jesus and the culture, citing “almost pornographic images of violence.” Borg describes this viewpoint as “warlike.” Essentially he is saying that if this world doesn’t matter, then why bother caring about the environment? Why try to end suffering? Why seek justice for the oppressed? He believes that the “Kingdom of God” was intended to be here on Earth rather than in Heaven. Harper admitted that the church has sometimes been neglectful in its zeal to save souls while ignoring their material needs, but that Borg’s view Jesus is too focused in the present (and in the material), not taking a long term view toward Jesus and that the consequences of this were important. As one might expect, they disagreed on the role of scripture in this subject; Borg favoring a looser interpretation, Harper a more literal interpretation.

There were two key points during the debate that offered good discussion. The first occurred as Harper was articulating the idea of God and Man in one person. Harper characterized this as “a mystery,” and that as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, it is not the “how” that matters, but the “who.” Borg responded to this with kind of a low blow, saying that he was biased against “unintelligible” views of Jesus. Harper countered by pointing out that the traditional view of Jesus was no more “unintelligible” than Borg’s view that Jesus is not God, but a fully human “spirit person,” in whom we see the incarnation of God.

The other good moment came toward the end of the debate when Borg tried to make Harper squirm by pressing him to acknowledge that evangelicals see Jesus as the only way to salvation. This is an unpopular view in the world today because it is seen as exclusionary and simple. Borg believes that there are many paths to God and/or salvation among what he calls the “enduring religions,” whether it be Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed. Harper handled Borg’s advance with class and conviction, not shying away from traditional Christian doctrine, but also acknowledging God’s sovereignty over our world and its people.

Despite Borg’s simplistic, generalized view of evangelicals, it seems to me that Harper represents a growing number of evangelicals, who acknowledge the good and bad of the church’s past, who do not demand a certain type of government or political point of view, and profess that living the gospel is as important as preaching the gospel

Best Ever Games

2005-10-12T16:23:00.000-07:00

With the release of Star Wars: Battlefront II, the sequel to one of my all time favorite games, I started thinking back on the best of the best video games. From the Arcade to the Atari 2600, NES, Super Nintendo, Sega Genensis, N64, Playstation, PS2, and of course Xbox, there have been countless hours with a controller that would have been better spent on getting to know girls, making home improvements, studying, being a better husband, or learning a skill.

So here are my nominations for the best ever video games... (I guess I'll include PC games as well, so as to not offend our resident computer geek)

Arcade: Star Wars, Gauntlet, Rampage, Street Fighter 2

Atari 2600: Pitfall

NES: Super Mario Bros., Contra, Metroid, Mega Man, Punch-Out

Super Nintendo: Streetfighter 2

Sega Genensis: Madden

Playstation: NCAA Gamebreaker

N64: Goldeneye, Battletank, Knockout Kings, Mario Kart, Shadows of the Empire

PS2: Madden

Xbox: HALO, HALO 2 (online), NCAA Football 06, Star Wars: Battlefront, NBA 2k3, Soul Calibur

PC: Age of Empires, X-wing

I'm sure I've left off some good ones, but based on my scientific polling of myself, it seems clear that the NES, N64, and the Xbox produced the best games.

Strangely, I'm not in any hurry to get a Xbox 360 or PS3. I think they will be mediocre systems like the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis that don't make the big leaps in technology and gameplay like the NES, N64, and Xbox. My guess is that the next big thing is a few years away.

80's Fantasy Flicks

2005-09-19T13:40:00.000-07:00

Last week, a friend loaned me his copy of Beastmaster on dvd. I remember as a kid, when they played it on channel 12 every other Saturday, that I liked it. Now, there have been several movies I have watched in the last ten years that I had not watched since before the age of 15. As a kid I thought they were great movies, but after these recent viewings, realized they weren't nearly as good as I remembered (Total Recall, The Running Man, Commando, any Chuch Norris movie). Beastmaster is no exception. In fact, its much worse. It might be one of the worst movies ever made. In loaning me this movie, my friend actually said this movie was as big a part of stimulating his imagination as Star Wars was. That's scary. To be fair, one can't take too seriously the cinematic tastes of a 10-year old boy. The kids at my church think the new Star Wars movies are WAAAAAYYYY better than the originals.

From Marc Singer's embarrasing "acting" to Tanya Roberts "I'm only here to bounce" role, to John Amos running around in a dominatrix outfit with a 12-year old kid, this movie is absolutely terrible. Marc Singer is just laughable. He's a poor man's Conan. He might be the worst actor I've ever seen. In reading the cast Bios, Marc Singer explained that Kung-Fu is the basis for all other things in his life, even relationships. What?

Marc Singer: Hello

Me: Hey, how's it going?

Marc Singer: Fine. Say, do you know Kung Fu?

Me: No, not really. Wait, does Kama Sutra count?

Marc Singer: Sorry. I'm not interested in knowing you.

Me: Uh.....OK.

Or does this mean he has to fight someone, to test their skill and honor before getting to know them?

What a dork.

Clash of the Titans!

2005-06-29T18:28:00.000-07:00

In honor of the trailer for King Kong being released (thanks Ted), I must pose that critical question: Who would win a fight between King Kong and our other favorite movie monster - Godzilla! I have had this discussion with numerous people over the years and think its worth bringing up again.

In forming your arguments, be sure to good reasoning skills to back up your claim because neither of these guys are push overs. And if you think there is another giant movie monster who could give these guys a run for their money, by all means, offer your arguements.

Attack of the Borg!

2005-05-09T15:12:00.000-07:00

For those of you that are interested:

The Oregon State University Socratic Club will feature a debate on the topic, "Who Is Jesus?" at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, in the Austin Auditorium of LaSells Stewart Center on the OSU Campus. Speakers are Dr. Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion, and Dr. Gary Ferngren, Professor of History, both of Oregon State.

The debate will explore orthodox and revisionist views of Jesus, with the two speakers presenting widely divergent opinions. The discussion will focus on how we know about Jesus, the difference between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and how Jesus shapes faith today.

Marcus Borg is a member of the Jesus Seminar and the author of more than a dozen books, including Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.

Gary Ferngren has written extensively on medicine and healing in early Christianity and is the editor of Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

The meeting is free and open to the public.

The Socratic Club is beginning its fourth year at OSU as a student organization. It is modelled on the original Socratic Club, which was founded at Oxford University in 1941 by C. S. Lewis to provide an open forum for the discussion of issues that divide Christians and non-Christians. At OSU the Club presents opposing points of view on subjects of contemporary debate related to the Christian faith. Each speaker is given 25 minutes to present one side of an issue, after which the two discuss their differences, before opening the floor to questions from members of the audience. Two events are planned for each quarter. For more information phone 602-3661 or see http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic.

Call me if you want to go. 928-1145

The Cross versus the Crescent

2005-05-09T14:13:00.000-07:00

To follow up my last post, here's a link to Steven D. Greydanus of decentfilms.com who gives an excellent review of Kingdom of Heaven where he considers many of the issues of brought up in my previous post.

One of my biggest gripes about the media, academia, and pop culture in general is the way it views the past. Rather than viewing history in its context, we take a presentist point of view. That is, we view the past through the lens of the present. In doing so, we press the past into the service of the present for the purpose of justifying our points of view. For hollywood, this means applying modern ideas or notions to past events, judging by those standards, and making conclusions.

In the case of this movie, we use our standard of right and wrong, apply it to a time and place whose concerns were so completely different than our own as to make it virtually unrecognizable. While I can understand the need to find a connection to a modern audience and appeal to as many people as possible by not suggesting anything that would advocate one theology over another, I cannot stomach the main character preaching like an ACLU spokesman; not because it is right or wrong, but because its so contrived and disparate from reality. Worse, the filmakers don't trust their ability to tell a story, so they have to tell us what to think rather than leave the conclusion up their audience.

Kingdom of Heaven does a better job than most of getting right the names, places, and events. But the movie suffers from 21st century ideas applied to the 12th century. In other words, if we want to look to the past to understand the current struggle between Christians and Muslims (which was clearly a goal of the movie), then we must view the past in its own context, not as we would like to see it.

The Cross in film

2005-05-09T13:12:00.000-07:00

I went to see Kingdom of Heaven last Friday. As you might guess from the title and the topic, it deals (however shallow) with the issue of Christianity. Strangely enough, the last two movies I saw before this one also take time to portray Christianity.

Sin City - I was the minority voice of those I attended this movie who thought the movie was awful. The visuals are cool, but that wears off after about ten minutes into the movie. Dialogue that one can accept in a comic book just sounds silly when real actors are speaking. The movie is overly violent (in fact, the violence is supposed be an art form itself), there' s plenty of skin (mainly boobs), and there is no character worth rooting for (with the possible exception of Hartigan). But to my point: the only religious (Christian, of course) characters in the movie are not only bad, but sadistic and evil. By the time our hero kills and maims his way through solving the mystery of his lover's murder, we find that a Cardinal was responsible for allowing and encouraging one of his own to murder hookers, eat them, and mount their heads on a wall like deer. Christianity is portrayed not better, nor equal to other characters/ideas/themes, but far worse.

Amityville Horror - Now I went to see this on one of those nights where you just want to see something in the theater. I didn't expect much and I wasn't disappointed. Turns out, the reason the house is so bad is because its haunted by the spirit of a 17th century Puritan preacher who performed sadistic and evil experimentation and torture on native americans to punish or convert them; I'm not sure (I think they teach something similar to this in high school history curriculums to describe Columbus' discovery of America). So it turns out that all the sick, psychotic things that happen to this family are because of a Christian preacher. It gets better though. In one scene, after the wife goes to the local parish to enlist the hope of the church, the priest, scared to death runs out of the house, hops in his car and bails on the family. Neither the church nor God has any power over or comfort from evil. Nice.

Kingdom of Heaven - Christian faith in this film is portryaed primarily in the form of zealots, a cruel priest, and a cowardly and cynical church father. Any theology described is usually negative, except that which bucks church doctrine and offers instead a sort of mushy new age alternative that is scarcely recognizable as Christian. The Muslims don't get the same treatment, but rather, they are portrayed as more just and merciful (which is hard to avoid since Saladin really was an admirable advesary). The main character, Balian, struggles (of course) with his faith, but manages to get up at the end of the film and preach a sort of modern hollywood sermon about tolerance.

While my take on these movies is seen through the lens of my particular worldview (which happens to be Christian), I don't think its a stretch to say that Christians theology is held in low regard if not with outright hostility in our popular culture.

Chinese Connection

2005-05-06T00:44:00.000-07:00

A short discussion about China emerged on the comment page of one of Ted's posts on his blog. It got me thinking and I just happened to stumble on a really good article about the future of China in the world. I wasn't sure what to think. You cannot deny the sheer size of China. I wonder if they can maintain a successful ecomony under a communist regime. Recent history suggests otherwise, but 9% growth per year is unbelievable (although they can only go up).

I won't say that it scares me or anything. I will say that its a little unsettling. I'll probably be long dead before anything happens, but it should be interesting to see how the U.S.-China relationship develops in the next 50 years.

The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!!!!

2005-03-13T16:13:00.000-08:00

Well, its finally here: The Episode III: Revenge of the Sith trailer. I know I am unreasonably hopeful that movie will be good, but I think it looks awesome. Based on only what I see, I get the sense that this will be dramatically, the most well done of the new movies.

Is it me or does the Emperor look pretty scary? The one hang-up I have, however, is that even if this were to be a really well done movie, how much will we really be able to enjoy it considering virtually all the heroes die and the bad guys win? I don't want to watch Mace Windu and all the other Jedi bite it without some redepmption. Yeah, yeah I know -- that's what the original trilogy is all about. I just hate watching the bad guys win. I hope they find a way to insert some sort of redemptive element that resonates within the movie.

What a burden....

2005-02-23T14:01:00.000-08:00

This past Monday night, I attended debate of sorts on campus over the topic "Does Christian Morality Pose Threat to Society?" The speakers were Dr. Kenneth Funk, a professor in industrial and manufacturing engineering here at OSU and J.P. Morray, an author and lawyer that lives in Corvallis.

Morray is a self-proclaimed unabashed atheist. Obviously his presentation supported the question that was the topic. He is also, I discovered , a marxist, an admirer of the Soviet system, as well a supporter of all the communist revolutionaries that the Soviets supported (the Sandinistas, for example). In addition, he worked for Fidel Castro at one time. The guy is in his mid to late 80s I'm guessing.

The debate was OK. The question alone puts the Christian side on the defensive and given the location (a college campus), and the audience, the onus was clearly on Dr. Funk to defend Christianity for its many alleged abuses. The debate wasn't really the most interesting thing; the advocation of marxism is just tired and I don't think anyone in the audience took it seriously. Morray even went so far as to claim that the world would get better if left to marxist ideals because man himself has an innate goodness and potential to solve all the worlds problems. Please.

No, the most interesting thing to me was a group of 7-10 people who sat near the front. Many of them were family and/or supporters of Dr. Morray, including his wife. I was found myself watching these people during the debate because of their very apparent visible contempt for Christianity, Christians, the political right, and the Republican party (they didn't differeniate between any of these). Repeatedly, while Dr. Funk spoke and answered questions, members of this group would vigorously shake their heads, role their eyes, sigh in exasperation, verbally mock and interrupt. Some of this was suttle, some was not. What occured to me aside from their lack of manners, was the absolute loathing these people carry around. When Dr. Funk mentioned President Bush as a possible example of Christian hypocrisy (along with Bill Clintion), you would have thought Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler walked in the room fresh after killing children.

Now, I know a lot of people dislike Christianity. OK fine. But the people I watched support a system that has done nothing except abuse humanity. However, it also occured to me that these people, who were all over the age of 40, are a remnant of people who are on their way out. Most demongraphics I have seen show that today's generations are far more spiritual and open-minded about the possibility of God.

What burden to carry around such hatred. Is this because their belief system precludes the possibility of a better world? My feeling is that anything that places faith in human beings is bound to fail. I think they realize that deep down. I would be grumpy too if thought this world was as good as it gets.

What happened to Comic Books?

2005-02-14T16:25:00.000-08:00

I started collecting comics in about the 8th or 9th grade. Recently I was reminded how far things have changed for the worse when I picked up the newest issue of Superman (#212) at the bookstore. Superman has always been one of my favorites and even though I don't collect anymore, I still look for stuff I may enjoy. In this recent run of Superman, one of my favorite artists, Jim Lee, was drawing the book so I thought I'd take a look. What begins with Superman taking Lois Lane in his arms and flying off, ends with Mrs. Lane wrapped only in our hero's cape which barely covers and in some places accentuates her nude form. In the following panel she says to him, "Incredible. Just as mind-numbingly incredible as the first time." Then she looks over her shoulder with a sexy smirk and tells him "You really are something of a man of steel aren't you?" To which our hero cleverly remarks, "Glad you noticed."

Are you kidding me?

Thank you DC comics. You finally ruined comics. You finally ruined the last GOOD superhero. You corrupted Superman by turning his comic into a thinly veiled harlequin romance. Look, I'm not naive. I realize comics have become more gritty, sexier, with a bent towards realism, but why do I need to know about Superman's sex life? Is this why people read his comic? To watch the Last Son of Krypton get busy with Lois Lane and engage in silly pillow talk? Nevermind that it does not even make the slightest attempt to be ambigious should a younger reader pick it up.

Maybe I am naive.

In the late 70s and early 80s comics began to shift toward a more realistic product. This was done sporadically with certain characters in certain comics. Writers and artists who loved the characters as kids wanted to make their heroes accessbile to a modern audience and bring the stories up to date. I can remember one of the major shifts in the early nineties when many of the top artists left Marvel Comics and founded their own company, Image Comics. I remember at this time comics were starting to be more violent, outfits became tighter and skimpier, breasts got larger, but there were still some standards. The vast majority would still be appropriate for all age groups.

Since then, comics continue to be increasingly vulgar, violent, and sexualized. In a medium that was originally intended to tell fantastic/supernatural stories of good and evil to kids, the current product is completely inappropriate for kids.

And it goes beyond sex and violence. Writers and artists now seek to use comics as a vessel to relay their politics. Back in the 60s, Stan Lee created the X-men. The appeal of the X-men is that they were different, shunned and even hated by society. Many kids at one point or another could relate to X-men for this reason. Communicating values in story telling one thing. Politics is quite another.

In 2003, Marvel restarted the Captain America series. It began with a post 9/11 story called The New Deal. In it Captain America is faced with the new threat of global terrorism. OK fine. I'm okay with seeing Cap putting the hammer down on some Islamo-Fascists the same way he did the Nazis in WWII. The story is shameful. Captain America finds himself trying to explain America's role in causing the 9/11 attacks. So now, readers are at the mercy of writers who use one the most beloved comic book characters as a platform to spout their leftist, anti-american politics.

I know comics have been marketed toward adults for a long time, but my question is at what point did comics stop marketing to kids altogether?

Batman and Wolverine always had room to be grittier and darker. But not Superman and Captain America. They're the boy scouts! Their appeal lies in their determination to stay true to their values.

Marvel and DC comics should be ashamed of themselves. Not only have they disregarded a sense of deceny in content and marketing, but they have fundamentally changed the character of the heroes that made them beloved by the public.

Flock of Ducks!

2005-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

Well, I hate put an end to everyone's fun, but its time to kill what has evolved into a sad, pathetic display by those with too much time on their hands. I thought for my second post, I would engage a topic that many of you are interested in -- the Oregon Ducks new recruiting class. Last Wednesday was signing day, where high school and junior college players ink their letters of intent to play for their university of choice. The Ducks landed a pretty solid class that fills immediate needs at linebacker and the offensive line. Most exciting however, is the signing of prep running back Jonathan Stewart from Bellvue, Wa. He is widely considered the top high school running back in the country. Just as a little perspective - two years ago, the top RB recruit was Reggie Bush (USC) and last year the top RB recruit was Adrian Peterson (Oklahoma). Both were Heisman Trophy finalists this season. Who knows?

I realize this blog may not interest anyone reading it. I admit, its a little selfish. I guess this is my swan song to college football, which I will not see for another 7 months. College basketball will last for a little longer, but soon there will be nothing but the NBA and major league baseball, both of which are completely unwatchable.

If you have any comment on the recruiting season or an opinion on the current state of professional and collegiate sports, I encourage you to share them.

Oh yeah... GO DUCKS!