In an effort to steer the boy in a better direction, I made a CD for him. He refused outright my offer to put on some blues or jazz. "Christian rock, Dad. I want Christian rock." I told him that's what I'd put on there, only some that's better than what he's likely to hear on the radio.

So I loaded it up with tolerable Christian rock. Lifehouse, because their lyrics are thoughtful. Jars of Clay because their Who We Are Instead album has some nice gospel-sounding, bluesy numbers. Kutless because if you're going to do Christian rock, then let's rock. As Sheryl Crow says, this ain't no disco.

I also put on a Sam Cooke gospel number, along with Johnny Cash's "God's Gonna Cut You Down." Redemption can be a slow process. One song at a time, I'm going to win this boy back from the beige side.

Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

There are some great rock/pop bands who are Christian, but who aren't in the limited Christian genre: U2, P.O.D., Collective Soul, and Arrested Development, among others. And hey, Matisyahu is Orthodox Jewish, but a lot of the messages are the same. No Jesus obviously, but lots of God and Old Testament/Torah. And the beats are so dope.
(Jason on Aug 6, 2008 9:19 AM)

Tony, Highly recommend "Casting Crowns"; their music is powerful, the lyrics anything but trite! One song to give a listen to is 'There is a Reason' from Alison Krauss.
(Tom on Aug 6, 2008 9:20 AM)

what about Casting Crowns??? not "rock" but GREAT lyrics and good music.
(C. Brace on Aug 6, 2008 9:35 AM)

If you wanted your son to experience more worship-styled rock music, I'd recommend Leeland. Their first album, "Sound of Melodies", is deep, well thought out, and has great music. Also, a band who was formed at my church named "An Opiate For Angels" has their first album up on iTunes. I'd highly recommend it if you are looking for more worship-styled rock. I haven't heard an album quite like it. They use a cornucopia of different instruments that are definitely on the eccentric side. This is all coming from a youth so take that as you will!
(Evan Kincade on Aug 6, 2008 1:27 PM)

We said these things because we were stupid. I came home from Atlanta last night, and to celebrate we all went to Red Robin. Wife and I are eternal optimists, it seems, because no matter how hectic the last dining experience proved to be, we manage to tell ourselves that this time it will be pleasant.

Do you want to know why older couples go to restaurants and sit without talking? Because they've had twenty-odd years of this:

"Dad, I want to invent a hamburger!"

"Good. Isaac, get off the table."

"Dad, can I sit in your lap?"

"No. Eat your food."

"Isaac, get out from under the table."

"Why is this baby squawking? Did you bring something he'll eat?"

[Insert deadly glare from Wife here.]

"Dad, I'm going to tell them to put the burger on a Kroger bun. It will be a Kroger burger."

"That won't work."

"Yes it will."

"Kroger is just a grocery store. We buy Kroger buns from the grocery store. There's nothing special about Kroger buns."

"Isaac, stop kicking the table."

"No Dad, Kroger is a special food company."

"Fine. Do what you want."

"Isaac, get off your brother."

"Dad, can I put my head in your lap?"

"No. Honey, the baby is still squawking."

"Do you really think I can't hear it?"

"Sorry."

"Isaac, sit up."

"Maybe I'll invent a macaroni and cheese burger."

"Dad, will you rub my back?"

Sigh. "Yes. I can just eat with the one hand."

Only to really get the feel, you should make all those sentences collide, and layer that cacophony with the noise of a baby who wants to be held by his father because he senses an opportunity to get food all over his father's shirt, lay hold of his father's silverware and toss it to the floor, and otherwise give his father indigestion.

Eventually Baby Isaiah discovered a table of pretty girls nearby, and commenced to flirting. He grinned and made baby noises, and when they looked over he dropped his chin to his chest and practically batted his eyelashes at them. Soon they were all waving and cooing at him. So he tried to crawl away from us to sit with the pretty ladies. His mother had to drag him back to our table. He is going to be trouble, this boy.

Then Isaac and Caleb got in on the act. They are going to be trouble as well. Eli stayed close to me, but with those eyelashes and freckles that boy isn't going to have to work at it. He is going to be the most trouble of all, mark my words.

(Note to self: keep them on the farm once they hit puberty, at least until each of them knows a profitable trade. They're going to need to be able to support my grandchildren.)

The point is, Wife and I understand now why older couples are quiet in restaurants. It's because they are all talked out. Just watch them. They don't even speak to the waitress; they just point to what they want on the menu. I imagine once the last boy is out of the house we may go for a good solid year without saying a word. And it will be blissful. Then we'll spend the rest of our days wondering why they don't come visit more often.

But that's okay, because we'll visit them. Mostly because we love them. But also to watch them eat with their own children. Heh heh heh.

Comments (3)

Comments on this Entry:

Macaroni and cheese burger! Priceless.
(Rob on Aug 1, 2008 4:11 PM)

So you've been out to dinner with my family? I'm not really that surprised that I didn't notice you. I was busy.
(Alison Wonderland on Aug 2, 2008 4:50 PM)

I'm so glad we're not alone! We met a friend for Thai food after church, and I have no idea how things are going with him. I was much too preoccupied with keeping the tablecloth out of the 2-year-old's mouth, the soup off the floor (mostly), etc. BTW, you can get a great bowl of coconut soup in Durham these days!
(Lenise on Aug 4, 2008 2:24 PM)

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Voucher Group Targets State

The secondary headline explains that Georgia may be "the next battleground in fight over using public money for private schools."

And yet I promise you, the people who concocted these headlines are convinced that they are neutral observers practicing "public-interest journalism." At least when you read Coulter or Krugman you know they aren't insulting you by pretending they haven't axes to grind.

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

I'm not sure what to say. I want to thank all the little people who had a hand in this. And for all you seventh-graders clicking through to my site, I'm sorry you won't find what you're looking for.

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

I'd love to be google's #1 I don't care what for.
(Alison Wonderland on Jul 30, 2008 11:07 PM)

The last time we were near one of these machines my sons pestered me to let them use it. I told them No. It's not because I want to discourage them from military service, or from owning guns. Heck, their mother and I are well-armed ourselves. What I don't like is that these games simulate killing without its full effect. The splatter of blood. The smell of someone who has just died. The obscene sprawl of a body that has had life taken from it.

A father interviewed for the WSJ piece explains that he let his 13 year-old use the Army device because "he wanted his son to gain an appreciation of the sacrifices being made by the Army."

But it's precisely the opposite that results. You don't appreciate anything, after toying with one of these games, other than the false sense of power that comes from being invulnerable while luxuriating in the killing of artificial strangers who have no mothers to miss them. It is designed to produce a thrill without the concomitant fear and remorse. I think we've done enough to desensitize our children without doing it deliberately, in the name of patriotism, no less.

So my boys can have their toy guns, which they use on imaginary bad guys and animals. When the time comes I will teach them how to handle real weapons. I'll let them run their fingers over the jagged hole a shell leaves in a can filled with sand. I'll help them understand what that same shell does when it rips through human flesh.

I hope they never have to kill anyone, but I won't leave them unprepared to do so. At the same time, I hope I'll leave them aware of what it costs, the taking of another person's life. Because it isn't just a game, not for the person who pulls the trigger, and certainly not for the person who breathes his last as a result.

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

I ran into this post today too. They kind of reminded me of one another. http://www.twas-brillig.com/2008/07/30/training-for-battle/
(Alison Wonderland on Jul 30, 2008 11:48 PM)

Both men try to dress this up as a safety measure (the elimination of substandard housing) but their words betray the fact that they also see it as a way to reduce the housing supply. Reduced supply, of course, would serve the immediate interests of many homeowners and banks.

It will be a shameful day when this country destroys homes, in the face of homelessness, in order to prop up the bank accounts of the relatively well off. Not surprising, I'm afraid, but shameful nonetheless.

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

I don't know how unwanted houses could have any downward effect on the value of everyone else's homes. If anything, given constant demand, I'd expect 'wanted' home values to rise. There is no demand for 'unwanted' homes, thus no downward price pressure. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture?
(David Andersen on Jul 30, 2008 4:09 PM)

Perhaps the reason I am so hostile to this film is that, once I popped an extra Claritin and vomited into my popcorn container, I was able to see past the shaky-Jake filming to enjoy the characters. This wanted to be a modern all-American story. For the first hour, in fact, it was exactly that. Here we have the likeable Will Smith playing a sullen, misunderstood, reluctant superhero. Antics ensue. He crosses paths with a likeable, sweet-faced Jason Bateman, in the role of an idealistic P.R. specialist. (This is fiction, remember. One suspends disbelief upon entering the theater. More on that in a moment.)

Bateman has a lovely wife, played by Charlize Theron, and an adorable son. You know where this is going. Our reluctant superhero, with help from his kind-hearted sidekick, is going to overcome his demons, discover the Inner Hero that we all want to believe is inside us, and save the day. Some Lex Luthor figure will emerge to challenge our hero, perhaps possessing knowledge of his secret weakness. We know that our hero will triumph nonetheless, no doubt with some unlikely, fully expected bravery from his loveable sidekick.

This is the story we expect when we plunk down our money and willfully suspend disbelief in people who can fly. Yes, it is as old as apple pie, but you know what? People like apple pie. This isn't to say that you can't experiment with some rhubarb pie, perhaps even a chocolate-lemon mousse cake. But don't serve your customer a warm slice of apple pie with vanilla ice cream on the side, and then yank it away from him in mid-bite and replace it with some kind of funky low-carb mango-coconut bubble tea.

This is what the writers of Hancock have done. To be clear, I have no problem with twists in a movie. Norman Bates keeps his mommy in the basement. Darth is Luke's father. Soylent Green is made from people. The Crying Game changed the calculus of dating forever. And since we've invoked Christopher Reeve's greatest work, who can forget his surprising, albeit creepily enthusiastic, kiss with Michael Caine in Deathtrap?

The problem with Hancock's writers is not that they introduce a game-changing shift halfway through the movie. The problem is that they forget a fundamental rule of fiction, which is that while we viewers are willing to suspend our disbelief, most of us in possession of it are not able to suspend our common sense. Thus when a circumstance emerges to eliminate Hancock's superpowers we accept it, until we see that a moment later his powers have inexplicable returned. Suspension of disbelief can't help one make sense of this movie's ending, one needs a suspension of observational powers as well. Perhaps that's the reason for all the camera-yanking. Bullets can suddenly penetrate our hero's skin, and lay him on a deathbed, except when he needs to get up and be a superhero again. Only he is a weak superhero, so he is vulnerable to bullets. Yet he still has superstrength. But not really. Except for when he does.

Compounding this problem is the fact that we invest our imagination in characters only to watch the active become passive, the loyal and loving become alien, and the idiotic suddenly acquire brains without visiting the Wizard. We need compelling reasons to abandon the work we have put into forming attachments to these characters, which Hancock's writers don't provide. This is a Hollywood movie, they must have been thinking. Jerk that camera around some more and our woozy audience will take whatever we dish out. Let's just remember to blow up a lot of stuff at the end.

The net result is that as we approach the final scene, Jason Bateman and his son have become emotionally non-existent, Will Smith has regressed in humanity, and Charlize Theron has gone from beautiful to just plain irritating. It takes a lot of explosions to make up for that sort of destruction. Pile on top of it the nonsensical fluctuation in Hancock's superpowers, and you've got yourself rice pudding when you thought you were paying for apple pie. And that's plain un-American.

I know it's not available at the McDonald's Redbox yet, but I'm going to give Hancock a nugget rating nonetheless, because I think it will serve better as rental entertainment, plus you are less likely to get brain damage watching the herky-jerky camera movement on a little screen. I'm giving this film three nuggets, all of which should be eaten in the first half.

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

I'm really loving the "nugget" scale - it can easily be modified in SO many ways. Keep it up.
(Deoxy on Jul 29, 2008 8:54 AM)

"We are, it seems, a nation in regression. At least in the past we might have had the cold comfort of shame, but now it seems that the new mood is to proclaim childishness as a virtue."

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

"Obama's sudden plan to pack 80,000 followers into a Denver sports stadium for his acceptance of the Democratic nomination instantly reminded of Hitler's Nuremberg and Berlin rallies, moves the Nazis made as much to intimidate as acclaim."

But you know who else wrote breathless editorials devoid of paragraph breaks in marginalized publications?

Wait for it...

Hitler, that's who.

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

"The findings show that TFA [Teach for America] teachers are more effective, as measured by student exam performance, than traditional teachers. Moreover, they suggest that the TFA effect, at least in the grades and subjects investigated, exceeds the impact of additional years of experience, implying that TFA teachers are more effective than experienced secondary school teachers."

Translation: People with real degrees outperform "education experts," even when they get stuck in the worst classrooms.

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

As a teacher and coach who made a lateral move into teaching, I fully agree! Believe me, I am no educational expert. The experts just seem to complicate things. I have found, like many things in life, that keeping it simple brings about greater results. Starting out with a career in sales prepared me more for teaching than any educational class or training that I have had. As a salesman I had to find my customers' dominant buying motive (what is going to make them pull out their checkbook). As a teacher I have to find each student's dominant learning motive (what is going to make a student want to focus and learn). Some of the same techniques that I have used to get my customers to buy I use to get my students to learn. It does not take a masters or PhD in education to have high achievement in the classroom.
(Richard Brendle on Jul 25, 2008 11:17 PM)

"In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study, funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, 'Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.'"

It's not that we're getting stupider. We're just getting more networked. Now go kill your Blackberry.

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

Anyone remember "Logan's Run"?
(mdmhvonpa on Jul 25, 2008 1:51 PM)

"The history of western man is a dialectic of submission and rebellion, where rebellion means in each case the choice of a different authority, consequently of a new submission, while the goal remains always the same — individual security, the protection of individual certainty about the truth to be believed."

And now this from Edward Tingley's very fine piece in June's Touchstone magazine:

"Ask any sensible person if it is possible that God exists, does not present himself to us by way of material evidence, and yet seeks our acknowledgement on some other basis, one in which we are deeply invested. Could there be a God who does not want to be known the way the facts of nature are known or sums are known? The rational person will say: 'Yes, it is possible'...

We are told we should face the facts. Well here they are: The only world in which strictly empirical evidence is the road that we should take in our views about God is a world in which God either shows himself by such evidence or simply does not exist. Those are the options that the agnostic and the atheist like, and it is because they like them that they never pay any attention to the further fact that accompanies these: God might await us down another road. There are three options, not two."

Both suggest that Modern, Scientific Man may be using the wrong instrument, assuming he is really looking at all. Which brings to mind St. Paul's words: "Professing to be wise, they became fools..."

Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

Bravo for Tingley. His arguments against the positions held by agnostics and atheists are compelling. Thanks for recommending the article. I realize Tingley's arguments were directed at pointing out the fallacy of the positions held by agnostics and athesists (his purpose was not to offer a direct defense of the Christian faith), but I must admit I was hoping that Tingley would mention the argument for the existence of God based on the life of Jesus Christ. Didn't God choose to reveal himself in his material creation (in a manner that could be experienced by our physical senses) in the person of Jesus Christ? Isn't this the basis of Christianity...that God entered his creation in the person of Jesus Christ to reveal himself to a lost and dying world? What am I missing?
(Joe Drbohlav on Jul 29, 2008 7:57 PM)

Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry: