Wednesday, February 25, 2004
In the Movies: The Passion of the Christ opens today, and one can only hope now that people can actually see it for themselves, they will, instead of endlessly debating the merits of the idea. In this article, Paul Greenberg discusses the latest trend in castigating Mel Gibson's character for a movie no one has seen and appears to, more or less, stick to a factual, documented story that we should all know by now. Anyone can read about the crucifixion of Jesus, day or night, all across the world by picking up a Bible or looking it up on the web. Mel Gibson didn't write it when he wrote the script.
It seems as though journalistic standards have taken a tailspin in the last few years, and are tending towards the popular "majority rules" of the facts whether than what the facts actually are. When I earned my degree in journalism, we were taught to divorce ourselves from the topic, check our facts, and know the background. Now it seems like we're taking a vote on "Who killed Jesus?" or "Why is the crucifixion so violent?" The popular culture seems to imply that our answers say something about whether or not we "get" what's acceptable, whether or not we "judge" other people for their liberal nature, as though one can change the facts to fit the social climate. Instead of truly embracing all proven truths, it sounds like those ideas with the most fact and most history behind them are the least acceptable, because they are constraining.
I would be embarassed to call myself a journalist and ask the questions being asked about the crucifixion in the news today. But as America negotiates its adolescence, it has begun rebelling against history, reminders of tradition, religion, and standards, through character assassination of all but the most modern ideas. The Founding Fathers have already fallen over the last couple of years, and now it's the Bible under the lens, or at least the most important story in it. For starters.
Perhaps the apostles, in writing their account, were not entirely accurate in keeping a minute-by-minute record. Perhaps they did include their feelings amongst the words of history. But how many events, having been documented by multiple people from different vantage points, are still disbelieved? How many events recorded by the ancients are doubted because of their very nature?
Today I read a "movie review" in our local entertainment paper, which is geared towards people in their 20s and 30s and generally on a liberal slant. Even still, I never expected a review written of a movie the writer hadn't seen, in which they listed how controversial it was (which is normally a good thing to them), how churches in town were buying tickets in bulk (included as fact in order to later prove that no "real" people actually saw it), and how the "faithful" would be "duped" into a "hollow religious experience" by seeing it as anything other than one man's idea of what happened. Sounds like paranoia rather than journalism.
Eventually, when the fervor dies down, and in coming years the pendulum swings back towards a search for the meaning, genuineness, and authenticity that they so eagerly reject in their attempt to dismantle the facts in haze of suspicion, the facts will remain. And history will have the last laugh. Because it is written in stone.
It seems as though journalistic standards have taken a tailspin in the last few years, and are tending towards the popular "majority rules" of the facts whether than what the facts actually are. When I earned my degree in journalism, we were taught to divorce ourselves from the topic, check our facts, and know the background. Now it seems like we're taking a vote on "Who killed Jesus?" or "Why is the crucifixion so violent?" The popular culture seems to imply that our answers say something about whether or not we "get" what's acceptable, whether or not we "judge" other people for their liberal nature, as though one can change the facts to fit the social climate. Instead of truly embracing all proven truths, it sounds like those ideas with the most fact and most history behind them are the least acceptable, because they are constraining.
I would be embarassed to call myself a journalist and ask the questions being asked about the crucifixion in the news today. But as America negotiates its adolescence, it has begun rebelling against history, reminders of tradition, religion, and standards, through character assassination of all but the most modern ideas. The Founding Fathers have already fallen over the last couple of years, and now it's the Bible under the lens, or at least the most important story in it. For starters.
Perhaps the apostles, in writing their account, were not entirely accurate in keeping a minute-by-minute record. Perhaps they did include their feelings amongst the words of history. But how many events, having been documented by multiple people from different vantage points, are still disbelieved? How many events recorded by the ancients are doubted because of their very nature?
Today I read a "movie review" in our local entertainment paper, which is geared towards people in their 20s and 30s and generally on a liberal slant. Even still, I never expected a review written of a movie the writer hadn't seen, in which they listed how controversial it was (which is normally a good thing to them), how churches in town were buying tickets in bulk (included as fact in order to later prove that no "real" people actually saw it), and how the "faithful" would be "duped" into a "hollow religious experience" by seeing it as anything other than one man's idea of what happened. Sounds like paranoia rather than journalism.
Eventually, when the fervor dies down, and in coming years the pendulum swings back towards a search for the meaning, genuineness, and authenticity that they so eagerly reject in their attempt to dismantle the facts in haze of suspicion, the facts will remain. And history will have the last laugh. Because it is written in stone.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Wanted to share this bit of wit from our email today:
If a barber makes a mistake, it is a new style
If a driver makes a mistake, it is an accident
If a doctor makes a mistake, it is an operation
If an engineer makes a mistake, it is a new venture
If parents make a mistake, it is a new generation
If a politician makes a mistake, it is a new law
If a scientist makes a mistake, it is a new invention
If a tailor makes a mistake, it is a new fashion
If a teacher makes a mistake, it is a new theory
If your boss makes a mistake, it is your mistake
If a barber makes a mistake, it is a new style
If a driver makes a mistake, it is an accident
If a doctor makes a mistake, it is an operation
If an engineer makes a mistake, it is a new venture
If parents make a mistake, it is a new generation
If a politician makes a mistake, it is a new law
If a scientist makes a mistake, it is a new invention
If a tailor makes a mistake, it is a new fashion
If a teacher makes a mistake, it is a new theory
If your boss makes a mistake, it is your mistake
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
American Idol Update: So Matthew made it to the American Idol finals, along with Camille, which I did not see coming. I enjoy Camille for the pure marketing potential she represents to advertisers--Kleenex, Camille, and Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River" are a match made in heaven. That girl cries like nobody's business. When other people get voted out of the finals before she does, and she cries, I might actually believe her, unlike some people from last season.
News Irony: Experts say that they may have located the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin's famous ship, buried in the muck of Essex. Now the debate is whether or not to drag it up or leave it down there. Given that the theory he developed on that very ship was "survival of the fittest," shouldn't we just... let it go?
News Irony: Experts say that they may have located the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin's famous ship, buried in the muck of Essex. Now the debate is whether or not to drag it up or leave it down there. Given that the theory he developed on that very ship was "survival of the fittest," shouldn't we just... let it go?
No snow yesterday as far as I know, but the weather was atrocious. And to think it would have been the first snow since '94! *laughing silently at North*
American Idol: Speaking of atrocious, American Idol was on with its second group of finalists and they were bad. Fortunately, only 2 will advance, although I'm pretty sure only two were on key. It should be a combination of Lisa, Marisa, and Matthew. Unfortunately, at least one of the finalists will probably turn out to be a truly weak singer and stick with us all for weeks to come, much like Corey, Julia, and Charles did last year.
Can I also ask, why is it that they're all singing songs written before they were born? Are you telling me that they've grown up listening to the E-Z listening channel? I don't even know half these songs, and I'm older than them. And, I thought they were supposed to become pop stars, "pop" being "popular." The last time those songs were popular was 1974. Think about it.
24: However, 24 was riveting as usual, especially since we are now rid of Nina. If he'd fallen for that "I have even MORE valuable information." line one more time, I think I would've started rooting for her instead of Kiefer. And we can't have that happening, now can we?
American Idol: Speaking of atrocious, American Idol was on with its second group of finalists and they were bad. Fortunately, only 2 will advance, although I'm pretty sure only two were on key. It should be a combination of Lisa, Marisa, and Matthew. Unfortunately, at least one of the finalists will probably turn out to be a truly weak singer and stick with us all for weeks to come, much like Corey, Julia, and Charles did last year.
Can I also ask, why is it that they're all singing songs written before they were born? Are you telling me that they've grown up listening to the E-Z listening channel? I don't even know half these songs, and I'm older than them. And, I thought they were supposed to become pop stars, "pop" being "popular." The last time those songs were popular was 1974. Think about it.
24: However, 24 was riveting as usual, especially since we are now rid of Nina. If he'd fallen for that "I have even MORE valuable information." line one more time, I think I would've started rooting for her instead of Kiefer. And we can't have that happening, now can we?
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
It might snow today! In Jacksonville, FL!
In the Garden: One of my Valentine's presents was a nice set of berry plants: 2 blueberries, 1 blackberry, and 1 raspberry. With a few exceptions, my entire garden is in containers, since my Florida yard is full of sand and pine tree roots. Here are some great sites I found on how to grow berries in containers and otherwise. Seems simple enough...
Oregon State: some good information on varieties
Florida Extension Service: focused entirely on growing fruit in containers
Univ of Florida: growing blackberries and raspberries
Oscars: As crazy as I am about the movies, I'm not going to watch the Oscars this year. Maybe the red carpet preview. But it seems like this is one of those years where it's all snob appeal, and the Academy is saying "I saw this movie and you didn't." Come on. Nobody saw those movies. So to celebrate the off year, here is MSN's take on the worst choices for past awards. Hint- Benini is the top picture.
Oregon State: some good information on varieties
Florida Extension Service: focused entirely on growing fruit in containers
Univ of Florida: growing blackberries and raspberries
Oscars: As crazy as I am about the movies, I'm not going to watch the Oscars this year. Maybe the red carpet preview. But it seems like this is one of those years where it's all snob appeal, and the Academy is saying "I saw this movie and you didn't." Come on. Nobody saw those movies. So to celebrate the off year, here is MSN's take on the worst choices for past awards. Hint- Benini is the top picture.
