As a result of thyroid cancer and the issues surrounding it, film critic Roger Ebert can no longer speak, eat, or drink. In a recent blog post, he addressed the latter two issues. Although Ebert’s artistic bent causes the post to meander a bit — like I’ve got any room to comment on lack of brevity — his bottom line is that he doesn’t miss food that much, but misses the dining experience.

But there is a segment of the post that jumped out at me. I have to quote it at length so you can see where this is coming from:

I dreamed. I was reading Cormac McCarthy’s Suttree, and there’s a passage where the hero, lazing on his river boat on a hot summer day, pulls up a string from the water with a bottle of orange soda attached to it and drinks. I tasted that pop so clearly I can taste it today. Later he’s served a beer in a frosted mug. I don’t drink beer, but the frosted mug evoked for me a long-buried memory of my father and I driving in his old Plymouth to the A&W Root Beer stand (gravel driveways, carhop service, window trays) and his voice saying “…and a five-cent beer for the boy.” The smoke from his Lucky Strike in the car. The heavy summer heat.

For nights I would wake up already focused on that small but heavy glass mug with the ice sliding from it, and the first sip of root beer. I took that sip over and over. The ice slid down across my fingers again and again. But never again.

One day in the hospital my brother-in-law Johnny Hammel and his wife Eunice came to visit. They are two of my favorite people. They’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, and know I’m not. I mention that because they interpreted my story in terms of their faith. I described my fantasies about root beer. I could smell it, taste it, feel it. I desired it. I said I’d remembered so clearly that day with my father for the first time in 60 years.

“You never thought about it before?” Johnny asked.

“Not once.”

“Could be, when the Lord took away your drinking, he gave you back that memory.”

Whether my higher power was the Lord or Cormac McCarthy, those were the words I needed to hear. And from that time I began to replace what I had lost with what I remembered. If I think I want an orange soda right now, it is after all only a desire. People have those all the time. For that matter, when I had the chance, when was the last time I held one of those tall Nehi glass bottles? I doubt I ever had one from a can.

I understand Ebert’s point about missing the dining experience (he goes into that issue later in the post), but this passage is the part that hit me hard. Johnny posited the theory that when God took away one thing, He gave something else.

This reminds me of Job 1:21 :

The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is often interpreted as saying that God’s sovereignty means that He can do whatever He darn well pleases and that we ought to bless His name, regardless of how we see the circumstances. And while this is true, there also seems to be another component as well, perhaps not to be derived specifically from this verse, but in what we learn of God’s nature throughout Scripture.

Jesus, in and of Himself, is sufficient for our every need. And we ought to always strive to recognize that. When God takes something from us (for our own good, or to test us, or both), that hole in our lives somehow always winds up being just the right size and shape for Jesus to fill. But He is also gracious and recognizes our limitations as finite beings. And so, He often gives us more tangible things to fill that void. For example, when it comes in the form of another person, a friend of mine refers to that person as “Jesus with skin on”. But regardless of the nature of the gift, our challenge is always to worship the Creator, not the creature who is standing in for (and provided by) the Creator.

It also puts me in mind of Psalm 37:4 :

Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.

The grab-it-and-blab-it crowd would claim that this verse indicates situations in which God provides for us things that our hearts desire. That is sometimes an accurate interpretation of the verse. But, it seems that it is not so much an issue of God providing the things that our hearts desire, as it is that He provides the desires themselves. In other words, the more we delight ourselves in the Lord, the more He will change our desires to align with His will. And then, in something of a circular manner, God often does provide the things that our hearts desire, because our hearts desire His will.

Now if I can just convince God that His will includes that red Lamborghini over there ….

After a wait of “only” 15 months, Billy: The Early Years finally makes it from the theaters to DVD on March 9, 2010. I reviewed it back when it was still in the theater. This is a fabulous movie, and I don’t say that just because I’m pre-disposed to its message.

Oddly, the trailer on the front page of the movie’s site (now) is overly effusive of its praise for Graham, and totally out of character with the movie. So don’t let that stop you from seeing this, if you didn’t already catch it in theaters.

I’m going to present a quote from a book review. The reviewer is also an author. I am omitting all names (including the reviewer) and the topic of the book, as many (all?) can be polarizing, and I want an honest reaction to the content, not the personalities. No fair googling the quotes before you respond. (The omitted items are in italics.)

I was preparing for the worst when I read in the blurbs that this book “avoids the clamor for extremes” (name withheld), is “the first to be truly gracious” and is great “for any who are tired of straw man arguments and polarizations” (name withheld), and rises above “the usual shallow, facile critiques of [one of the primary topics of this book]” (name withheld).

Is it just me, or is it deeply troubling that the reviewer sees as contemptible (”I was preparing for the worst”) the ideas of avoiding clamor, employing clear logic, and (worst of all) the horrendous sin of being gracious?

Or maybe it’s something else. The very next sentence in the review says:

I can’t help but assume that [my book on the same topic] is one of the “extreme”, “straw man”, “facile” critiques they’re thinking of.

Isn’t this like James-Cameron-level narcissism? I keep hearing Carly Simon singing, “You’re so vain / I bet you think this blurb is about you”.

Avatar
(2009 — Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver)

I’ve, admittedly, got a lot to say about this movie.  Not that anyone who knows me has ever accused me of brevity.  But hang on.  This movie has political and spiritual ramifications, but not like you might have heard.

OVERVIEW

In case you aren’t familiar with the movie already, here’s a quick overview.

The story takes place roughly 150 years in the future.  Another planet which man has discovered contains a highly valuable mineral.  It is also the home of a humanoid race known (to us) as the Na’vi.  Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) leads a team of scientists that is studying and trying to reach the Na’vi.  The primary means by which this is accomplished is through avatars, a Na’vi-like creature spawned of the combination of DNA from a human and a Na’vi. The human from whom the DNA comes can control the avatar as though s/he was actually in the avatar’s body, by the human going into a dream-like state. The familiarity of the Na’vi-like avatars is used to gain the trust of the Na’vi people.  While the scientists’ goal for this trust is better understanding and study, the company (who is funding all this) just wants the mineral.

Jake Sully (Worthington) is a paraplegic Marine whose scientist brother donated DNA and was to be one of the avatar controllers.  When this brother is killed, Jake takes his place (his DNA is close enough to allow him to control the avatar, and the company doesn’t want to lose the money invested in the brother’s training and the creation of the avatar).  Lacking his brother’s training and knowledge of Na’vi culture, Jack is at a distinct disadvantage, but he uses his wits and Marine training to make up for it.

A group of soldiers, headed by a gung-ho (and, admittedly, one-dimensional) Marine colonel serve initially as protection for the exploration team and the other representatives of the company.  However, as the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that the peaceful means by which the company wishes to extract the mineral are failing, and so it is decided that the mineral will be taken by force, instead.  Having become deeply immersed in the Na’vi culture, Sully’s allegiance to his fellow humans begins to waver, and then breaks down completely, especially when it becomes clear that destruction of the land and Na’vi deaths are of little consequence to the company and of no consequence to the colonel.

Content advisory, then back to the article.  The main reason for the PG-13 rating is a lot of action and violence.  However, there is also a fair amount of language and one scene of a somewhat sexual nature.  It’s not as explicit as, say, Leo and Kate in the back seat in Cameron’s Titanic — but it is worth mentioning. One other reason that the MPAA gives is some smoking.  It’s fairly laughable that the nanny state would still permit anyone to smoke in 2154, but there we are.

SIDE NOTE

If you choose to see this movie, see it in 3-D, if possible (sorry, Steve G).  To say that the world created in this movie is visually stunning would be an embarrassing understatement, and the immersion of 3-D will only enhance that effect.  Please keep in mind, too, that this recommendation is coming from someone whose eyes don’t get the full 3-D impact, so you’ll be wow-ed even more than I was.

POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS

Initially, I was not going to see this movie.  The over-blown hype surrounding the movie and writer/director James Cameron’s megalomania (uh, no Jimmy, this won’t “change the movie-going experience forever”) had really turned me off. I was fairly certain that I’d be the only person in the known universe that didn’t see the movie, but I didn’t care.

Then I started hearing some of the reactions, and they further cemented my decision. I was hearing conservatives saying that it was a 2.5-hour commercial for environmentalism, and was anti-capitalist and anti-military. I figured that I get enough of that crap from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — I didn’t need to plunk down my own money to have baloney preached at me.

Then I got an email the other day from a buddy of mine telling me to “run, don’t walk” to the theater to see this movie, followed by a chastisement for delaying by continuing to read his email.  The buddy is a Marine and a bit more politically conservative than I. It occurred to me that if the alleged left-wing messages in the film didn’t bother my friend, they probably wouldn’t bother me.  Although I didn’t run to the theater, I did see the movie within 72 hours of his recommendation.

Now, granted, many of the charges of left-wing messages were fueled by Cameron’s own statements about the movie.  However, given the fact that he created the story 12 years ago, a lot of the claims that he made (and that conservatives pointed to as proof-text) regarding events that occurred much more recently fall flat.  Yes, a couple of standard left-wing talking points were clumsily (almost laughably) crow-barred into dialogue.  And the Na’vi do believe in a hybrid of pantheism and panentheism, concepts to which many tree-huggers subscribe. But the overall message of the movie is a lot less partisan than Cameron (or his detractors) would lead you to believe.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Americans were encouraged to return to their normal routines, and it was proposed that if we did not do so, then “the terrorists have already won”.  The rationale was that, if we did not return to normal routine, this was evidence that we were terrified, and the terrorists had accomplished not only a short-term goal, but also a long-term goal.

I would argue that, by listening to his grandiose claims, the conservatives who are bashing this movie (sight unseen) have set it up such that James Cameron wins.  Cameron is a liberal — big surprise.  Liberal celebrities almost always have an over-blown sense of self-importance and think that John Q Public actually cares about their opinions on political issues.  They also try to ascribe political weight to their art, rather than just do what we asked — “shut up and sing” (to borrow from Laura Ingraham).  Combine all this with Cameron’s natural narcissism, and it’s a wonder that he doesn’t claim that the entire movie was simply a personal reaction to the Bush administration.

And conservatives are buying into this stuff?  Are you people on drugs?

SPIRITUAL RAMIFICATIONS

Perhaps the spiritual ramifications are obvious by now.  But you’ve read this far, so I’ll keep babbling.

One of the great tragedies for Christian art in the 1980s was the death of the Meadowlark recording label.  For those not familiar with the label, it consisted of releases of (mostly mellow) instrumental music.  The label’s demise was brought about largely because the genre of music was very similar to the popular “New Age” music being released in the secular world.  Too many professing Christians were (at the time) looking for New Age threats wherever they could find them (or more often, imagine them).  And so the music of such well-known devil-worshipers as Richard Souther, Phil Keaggy, and John Michael Talbot was dismissed as unworthy of Christian consumption.

Today, the names have changed, but the “battle” remains the same.  I could go into specifics, but this post is already too long.

French poet Charles Baudelaire said that “[t]he greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”  Perhaps so.  But the second greatest trick may very well be convincing many Christians that he is more powerful than he really is.  Scripture tells us that “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”  Yet often we run around in fear (which “perfect love casts out” — same chapter, no less) that the sky is falling.

Should we be wary?  Certainly.  But our recognition of falsehood should stem from our immersion in the truth, not some paranoia that we try to pass off as “discernment”.  When we buy into this garbage, the devil “has already won”.

Somehow, I don’t think we want that.

It was discovered recently that a publisher (whose name I won’t grace by citing) is releasing a book critical of Sarah Palin with a cover that is very similar to that of her forth-coming autobiography. Here are the covers of her book and the critical book, side-by-side.

This is some pretty amazing bait-and-switch, and should offend anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their thoughts on Palin or their political affiliation.  The cover (of the critical book) says “My message is so lame and weak that it can’t stand on its own.”

OK, good and riled?

Now tell me, how is this any different?

Other than, you know, the implication that God’s message it too lame and weak to stand on its own?

The Obama Golf Czar has announced there will be rule changes to the game of golf. These will be effective March 1, 2010.

This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being rewritten now.

Here are a few basic changes:

Golfers with handicaps:
- below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.
- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.
- above 18 will get a check each time they play.

The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows:
- for handicaps below 10, an additional $10.
- between 11 and 18, no additional amount.
- above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot even if you do not play.

The term “gimme” will be changed to “entitlement” and will be used as follows:
- handicaps below 10, no entitlements.
- handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.
- handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes but the term ‘net score’ will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to ‘redistribute’ the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only ‘net score’ against every other player’s gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with Ability.

We’re studying Revelation in church on Sunday morning.  In Revelation 1:5, John is in the midst of describing from whom he wishes grace and peace to come (emphasis mine)

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us …

What’s with that past tense (loved)?  Doesn’t Jesus continue to love us now?  Of course He does. But the verse is particularly referring to a past event that demonstrated that love. If we look at the whole verse (emphasis mine, again):

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood

The ultimate manifestation of Jesus’ love was to wash the believer in His own blood.  Everything else pales in comparison to the forgiveness of our sins.

So when you start to wonder (as I have done 1 or 2 — or maybe 100 — times), “How can God love me when He lets me go through XYZ ?”, there’s your answer.

When former Georgia Tech athletic director (and, apparently, lifelong UGA fan) Dave Braine-less stepped down, the hunt was on for a new AD.  As I wrote when they were doing the search:

The search for a new AD came down to former Tech football coach and all-around class act Bill Curry and Dan Radakovich, who apparently is a very good businessman, but wouldn’t know a football if it bit him in the glutes. So naturally, Radakovich was the one chosen by Tech president Wayne Clough (rhymes with “puff”, as in, “what were you puffin’ when you made that decision?”)

When Georgia Tech finally fired Chan “six wins and a Tid-y Bowl appearance” Gailey as their football coach (sic), the hunt was on for a new coach.  Simultaneously proving his business savvy and absolute lack of interest in anything sports-related, Radakovich held a press conference regarding the search.  My observations on an article about the press conference:

In the quotes given in the article, he only used the f-word once. (No, not that one — I mean “football”.) Apparently, Radakovich is looking for a coach that will be economically profitable for the program. His pontificating was about finding a coach that would “inspire the market . . . to buy tickets” and talked of competition with the various major league teams in Atlanta. Granted, winning would help sell tickets, but it seems that winning is only useful to Radakovich if it does that. If free hot dogs and face-painting would sell tickets, he’d be all for that, instead.

Now, granted, I think GT did pretty well in bagging Paul Johnson. But I also think that this is further proof of Mark Twain’s observation that even a stopped clock is right twice a day (i.e. Radakovich got lucky). And lest you think I’m wrong about that, this article pretty much clinches it.

There was apparently a rumor circulating that GT was going to move its bi-annual home football game vs h(e)ated rival UGA to the Georgia Dome (with the alternating games continuing to be at UGA’s Sanford & Son Stadium). Radakovich has squelched this rumor, but has stated that there are talks about having a “neutral site” game at the Georgia Dome. There’s only one problem with that — it wouldn’t even be in the same galaxy as a “neutral site”.

When I went to Georgia Tech in the mid-to-late 80s, the “home” basketball games against North Carolina used to be at the Omni (the NBA dump arena that preceded Philips Arena).  Atlanta being the melting pot of the Southeast, there were always more UNC graduates/fans at the Georgia Tech “home” games than Tech fans. But, boy, did it fill the coffers of the GT athletic program.

But to whatever degree it was stupid to consider the Omni a home (or neutral) site for Georgia Tech versus UNC, it’s 1000 times more ludicrous to consider the Georgia Dome a home (or neutral) site for Georgia Tech versus UGA.  Not because of the venues, but because of the city.

Let’s be honest: Despite the fact that there are multiple colleges (including GT) right in Atlanta, and the fact that Athens is 80 miles away, Atlanta was, is, and probably always will be a UGA town.  One only needs to watch local news to see this or — better yet — open a copy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  The story of Georgia Tech’s upset of the #1 team in the nation will be on page E-7, right after the Montana middle school lacrosse standings, while UGA’s win over St Mary’s Elementary School for the Blind and Infirmed will be front page news.

So to consider any venue in Atlanta (other than those that are specifically Tech’s) to be a home or even a neutral site against UGA is asinine.  But, boy, will it fill the coffers of the GT athletic program.  And Radakovich has clearly shown that that’s what he’s all about.

I am more ashamed every day to be a Georgia Tech alum.

That whole 2012 thing is so last year. If you wanna see a cool prediction, check this out.