Barabbas on the loose...

The Fast and Furiousi

2011-05-12T08:51:00.000-07:00

While I have refrained from watching any of the Fast and Furious sequels, I would like to suggest that the franchise be known collectively as the Fast and Furiousi.

Apostasy and Apology

2008-07-16T05:33:00.000-07:00

(Please forgive the alliteration in the title.)

An associate of mine has announced to the world that he has left the Christian faith. He has done this by way of a blog that also proclaims his new religion of love, love, love. In addition to explaining the abandonment of orthodox Christianity, the blogger is also seeking to proselytize.

His post may be found here:

My Journey from Christianity to Love

Another known associate of mine has sought to give a defense of the Christian faith in response to the pantheism or panentheism that is being propagated by the blogger of love. It is well worth your time to engage his ideas. The link is below:

A Response to My Journey from Christianity to Love

Obamaballoon

2008-07-06T13:35:00.000-07:00

While attending 4th of July festivities on the VMI parade grounds in Lexington, Virginia, I noticed a small, blue, helium-inflated balloon tethered to a family’s picnic blanket. Two Obama stickers were afixed on opposite sides of the balloon (two stickers for a congressional candidate were also attached). I couldn’t help but be transfixed by this floating ball of blue. The balloon had done nothing noteworthy, and had in no way made any impact on our nation or me—yet, I could not avert my gaze. The balloon drifted about so elegantly that I could feel hope springing forth from deep within my soul. A calm happiness brought a smile to my face as I thought, “Is this the change I’ve been waiting for?” This lighter than air, blue-colored idol is sure to save us all. Oh, that the gaseous expanse of nothingness inside stay hidden so that we may all rejoice and delight in the ignorance of our choosing.

Indiana Jones and The Purveyors of Naturalism

2008-06-15T18:05:00.000-07:00

It has taken me some time to comment on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. An initial viewing left me too disheartened to give a reasoned response to the highly anticipated sequel. I wanted to rail against George Lucas and his attempts to destroy the fond remembrances from my childhood while seeking to ruin modern cinema in the process. Why the incessant need to add to classic works with inferior sequels and prequels? Didn’t The Phantom Menace teach anyone a lesson?

Why not ruin some more great films? Perhaps, Lucas should team with Coppola to make a new Godfather. Or maybe use Jar Jar Binks-like effects to bring back Bogart in Return to Casablanca.

My annoyance wasn’t direct towards Steven Spielberg. He hasn’t made a film I’ve enjoyed since Saving Private Ryan, but at least he was making new uninspiring films. Even when remaking an old movie or adapting a short story, Spielberg wasn’t cheapening his past films. But it only took the influence of George Lucas for the former blockbuster wizard with diminishing directorial skills to participate in the slaughter of one of the great film franchises in the short history of cinema. Thus, the CGI fetishist of The Phantom Menace teamed up with the man responsible for such underwhelming film endings as seen in A.I., The Terminal, and War of The Worlds.

Specifically, there are four scenes that ruined the film for me:

1. The refrigerator
2. Mutt swinging vine to vine
3. The drive over the cliff onto a bending tree branch (hasn’t this happened to the Road Runner?)
4. The flying saucer

For days, I complained about the movie and those scenes. The film was too over-the-top. It was too corny—too unbelievable. But I was challenged by a few who enjoyed the movie. Defenders of the film would usually bring up how strange each of the original three movies had been. The Ark of the Covenant being opened at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the hearts being ripped out in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and the cup of Christ that gives life in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade—all very strange indeed. Michael Medved writes in his positive review of Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, “If the over-the-top ending leaves you scratching your head, well, that’s true of the earlier Indie movies, isn’t it?”

Yes and no.

There seemed to be a difference between the fantastic story elements of the first three films and the new sequel. It just took me a bit of time to figure it out. The first three films had supernatural elements while the new film strictly deals with the paranormal. Even though paranormal events can’t be explained by scientific means, these phenomena still occur within our natural world. The supernatural, however, deals with that which is outside or above nature.

UFOs, aliens, and spaceships could all operate according to natural laws. They could even one day be explained scientifically. Some naturalists even take the idea of aliens starting life on earth more seriously than the idea of the earth having a divine being as a creator. For an example of this, check out the conversation between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The Ark of the Covenant and the cup from the Last Supper both contain supernatural elements based in a belief in the great other—a god who is beyond nature. The Thuggee cult that makes sacrifices and uses mind control also has a supernatural bent with hints of demonic activity—again beings that are beyond nature.

As someone who has rejected naturalism, I am much more comfortable with the events of the original trilogy. This is not to say that I believe in all the supernatural elements of the films, but I do find the idea of God acting in this world, and even demons interacting in the natural world, to be more plausible than a giant alien spacecraft taking off in a South American jungle.

Now, all four of these films are works of fiction, and I understand the place of the paranormal in fiction. I have enjoyed quite a few films that deal with UFOs and space aliens. The problem arises, for me, when a franchise that was grounded in a worldview that allowed for the existence of the supernatural uses paranormal activity interchangeably with the supernatural. It is as if to say that supernatural and paranormal events are both equally fictitious or that supernatural events are really just paranormal events that have yet to be explained. An earlier script for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is reported to even suggest that these aliens were the original reason behind man’s belief in the divine.

Naturalists view much of the historical record of the Bible as myth. The notion of little green men seeding life on earth becomes more plausible than a Creator who rises from the dead. Mix science fiction into a film franchise that uses portions of historical record for story elements, and the truth get lost somewhere. Confusion sets in. God becomes as much a fairy tale as E.T. Any film that adds to this confusion should be rejected.

Next time you wanna make a sequel, George, try mining the depths of the Howard the Duck franchise.

Google Ron Paul Supporters

2008-05-26T21:52:00.000-07:00

I am sure there are many sane supporters of Ron Paul living across the United States of America. Too often the charge is thrown about in casual conversation that Ron Paul is crazy. Many then assume that any followers of such a nutcase must be certifiable themselves. These accusations have little merit. Congressman Paul has many useful ideas to bring to the level of national discourse. A great number of intelligent citizens agree and have thrown their support behind the long shot candidate.

Occasionally, as with any candidate, you will meet a Ron Paul supporter who makes you wonder how this nation’s mental health profession has failed on such a grandiose level.

Below, you will find a short clip of a Ron Paul supporter that I met in Tennessee on Memorial Day. I make no claim that this woman is crazy. I also make no statement in support of her views. I shall simply, as any good libertarian should, let the woman enjoy her freedom of speech.

Dr. Chuck Norris

2008-05-10T16:39:00.000-07:00

Liberty University Commencement

John McCain, Newt Gingrich...Chuck Norris?

Newty, it’s cold outside…

2008-05-05T20:13:00.000-07:00

As the curmudgeon who turned on every light in his house during earth hour this year, I’m usually not one to lend much credence to the notion that mankind has tossed the planet on the barbecue. Newt Gingrich, however, has given me pause. If the man who engineered the 1994 Republican Revolution is willing to share couch time with Nancy Pelosi to stress the importance of climate change, well, maybe I should listen.

In the early ‘90’s I heard a lot about global warming. At school, we were constantly made aware of how rotten the poor planet had become. Landfills were overflowing into barges being sent to sea, our sewers were emptying into once great rivers, the ozone was fast becoming a distant memory, and Dan Quayle was feeding baby seals to the elderly. Times were grim. So grim that I was convinced my sister would kill us all every time she sculpted her bangs with a can of hairspray. You could just feel the temperature spike when the aerosol hissed from the can releasing the ozone assassin into the air.

But we didn’t all die. So I just enjoyed the warmth.

Then came real-life Captain Planet, Al Gore, and his crusade to stop global warming. The former vice-president has assured us that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gasses created by mankind. There is no room for debate. Science tells us this is the truth. Anyone who disagrees is considered to be “like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”

What I have learned from Al Gore is that when science tells you something you can be assured that it is fact.

This authoritarian view of science can be confusing. In April of 1975, Newsweek published a story titled “The Cooling World.” Peter Gwynne wrote that scientists were worried about an imminent little ice age that would come over the planet. The authorities on climate were so sure of dropping temperatures that they were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

So I now know with certainty that global warming is caused by man, and we should be in the midst of a new ice age. The scientists in 1975 couldn’t have been wrong, because science is fact. There’s no room for debate.

Then last month, an article appeared suggesting again that our planet was headed for an ice age. The evidence for this was a delay in a sunspot cycle. Geophysicist Phil Chapman says, “If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.” And once again, a scientist fears that agricultural productivity will decrease. An ice age could be very bad for us humans. All of this should also be set in the context that scientists believe that ice ages are actually the norm for our planet.

Where do these facts leave us? Global warming can’t be questioned. Who wants to be compared to a Neanderthal that thinks the earth is flat? The coming ice age can’t be questioned. After all, Mr. Gore has insisted scientists know what they’re talking about.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that humans have been warming the planet with their poisonous greenhouse gasses while solar and astronomical forces have been cooling the planet. Instead of killing ourselves with our pollutants, we are actually saving ourselves from a frozen tomb.

Newt and Nancy shouldn’t be encouraging us to find clean forms of energy; they should be admonishing the nation to be as inefficient and wasteful as it can.

We need to act, and we need to act now. The time for debate has passed. Glaciers will soon be spreading across the northeast unless we raise the level of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere. If you don’t believe it, then you’re about as crazy as the ones who think George W. Bush won the 2000 election and the ones who question evolution.

Everyone can do his or her part. Leave your lights on when you go to bed. Leave your car running all day while you’re at work. Together we can use global warming to stave off the coming ice age.

Pinellas Pentecostals Protecting Pious Property

2006-08-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

I once made the unfortunate mistake of working with self-proclaimed “Baptecostals” at a private school in Pinellas County, Florida. I took the job with the misunderstanding that many different denominations were represented by the faculty. In actuality there were about 5 Baptists and 20 some Charismatics—talk about diversity. One red flag that should have warned me things would not work out between the school and myself was the view most on staff had of their sanctuary.

This particular school is a “ministry” of a Southern Baptist Church that has turned its back on Southern Baptist beliefs. The sanctuary of said "Baptist" church is used by the school for weekly chapel meetings. I knew all of this upon entering into employment with the organization. What I did not know, however, was the value given the church sanctuary.

The morning of my first Friday as the school’s new substitute teacher, I stopped by a Starbucks on my way to work and picked up a cappuccino. When I arrived at the school, an office worker informed me that it was chapel day so I should meet my students in the church sanctuary. As the office worker and I walked towards the sanctuary, she kept eying my cappuccino. She herself was holding a Styrofoam cup filled with coffee made in the school office. I wasn’t sure if I was being disloyal in choosing a corporate-caffeinated beverage over the down home flavorings of the office java—which tasted much like what I presume boiled water filtered through kitty litter would taste like. But then the office worker made a point of dropping her cup in the trash. Maybe she was just jealous. After we entered the foyer I noticed a sign hanging next to the sanctuary doors that read: NO FOOD OR DRINK. This slightly annoyed me, but I understood why an organization would want to keep certain rooms clean to the point of barring all food and drink. What really bothered me though was the reasoning posted just below the actual prohibition: THE SANCTUARY IS HOLY GROUND. Forgetting for a moment whether or not the sanctuary was actually “Holy Ground” what is it about food or drink that interferes with holiness? When Peter instructs the church to be holy as God is holy, does a person disobey this command any time he or she eats a Big Mac or throws back a Pepsi? I don’t have a problem with rules even if they are arbitrary, but I do have a problem with arbitrary rules being given a sense of moral justification by the use of religious language. Could that sanctuary be set apart unto righteousness? Sure. Does that mean a student can hinder such holiness with a bottle of Evian? I don’t see any scriptural support for such an argument. Since I was not needed in the sanctuary, and I didn’t want to just throw out four dollars of liquid, I asked if I could just stand in the back by the doors. I thought the matter was more like the rules for no food or drink in the classrooms—students were prohibited while teachers were above the law. Little did I know the issue dealt more with the seriousness with which the school viewed the sanctuary. Permission was granted so I stood in the back and drank judgment on myself.

A few months later after I was taken on as fulltime faculty I was required to attend teacher’s devotions every morning. These devotions educated me on the thoughts and beliefs of Charismatics. I had always thought that speaking in tongues and jumping up and down and barking like dogs was about all the charismatic denominations cared about. I was wrong. These meetings every morning informed me that Charismatics also care deeply about ecumenism and assaulting the inscripurated revelation of God (more on these in later posts). Another topic that came up frequently was the church sanctuary.

“I remember as a teenager when the Spirit fell on this church,” one teacher reminisced. “We didn’t ask for it. We weren’t lookin’ for it. It just fell on that sanctuary.”

Another teacher noted, “There is just something special about that sanctuary. I get a strange feeling every time I even walk by that place. I know that’s the house of God.”

“When I walk through those doors I know I can feel God’s presence,” said yet another faculty member.

It was becoming clear that the school viewed their sanctuary as something close to a physical home of the Spirit of God. Never mind the omnipresence of God—this sanctuary was where He could be found. Forget about what happened when the veil was torn in the temple in Jerusalem—let’s throw up a new veil made of wood and glass doors.

I wondered how “holy” the school administration would think the sanctuary if they knew all that the school basketball stars did with the fair maidens of the cheerleading squad in the restrooms adjacent to the so-called “dwelling place” of the Spirit. Or how “holy” the sanctuary became after the “sweet aroma” drifts in from the men’s restroom after the math teacher with bowel problems expels his bacon cheeseburger lunch. I guess I’ll never know.

A fuller understanding of the school’s exultation of poor architecture came when the headmaster, also the pastor of the church, spoke at this year’s first chapel.

“The most important thing here—more important than grades or sports—will be your experience with Jesus,” the headmaster began. “How many of you have had an experience with Jesus? Now, I’m not talking about some prayer or having someone pray with you. I’m talking about a real experience with Jesus. The kind of experience where you talk to Jesus…and he…talks back. Anyone ever had that?”

The room was silent until a lone kindergartner raised his hand. Then some high school students laughed.

The headmaster continued, “I know some of you have had problems with demerits in past years. Well, the experience I’m talking about can change all that. When you have this type of experience you won’t want to act up in class anymore or break rules.”

And then the headmaster spoke of his new temple, “Do you know where you can find this experience? Right here in this sanctuary. Every week you’ll get a chance right here in this room during chapel. This is where you’ll meet the Lord. This is where you’ll hear him speak. This place is special.”

Later I would hear in a more Bible-centered church a message on John 4. I thought it was interesting how the passage related to the confusion about worship being propagated at that private school. John writes about a discussion between a Samaritan woman and Jesus. During the talk, the Samaritan woman brings up one of the differences between the Samaritans and the Jews:

“Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
(John 4:20)

The Samaritans believed that Mount Gerizim was sacred. They had even at one point built a temple there that was later destroyed by the Jews. They believed that the physical place of Mount Gerizim is where one worshipped God. The Jews, however, believed that God should be worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus replied:

“Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers.
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:21-24)

The physical place where one worships does not matter. Those students can meet God just as easily in a Dairy Queen slurping unholy Blizzards as they can in that “holy” sanctuary. It is an egregious error that the headmaster did not point his students towards scripture instead of a building with cheap carpeting and uncomfortable pews. From the written Word of God they can learn of their Creator and learn that they can call on Him from anywhere in the world.

Indiana Timberlake

2006-08-24T10:36:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I read that Justin Timberlake had a hit single entitled SexyBack. This confused me. Was Timberlake proclaiming that his back was sexy? I wondered if his back truly was sexy and if it had always been sexy. Had little Justin been able to avoid those nasty back pimples that ooze pus? Was his back now devoid of all unsightly hair? Or are pimples and matted hair what make Timberlake’s back so darn desirous? Then again he could be simply singing about other people’s backs.

If only I could stomach Top 40 radio then I could actually hear the song and find out. The problem with Top 40 radio is that it tends to throw me into a grammatical malaise. The last time I tuned in I heard Christina Aguilera screeching about someone making her “fighter.” Was this like “fighter” as in “more fight?” I didn’t know that fight had a comparative or superlative degree to it. Surely she must mean that someone made her “a” fighter, but I could never hear that indefinite article when I’d listen to the song. So I googled the song and found the “a” at least written in the lyrics. Pop music was just more trouble than it was worth.

The other night, however, my brother convinced me to listen to SexyBack and the whole issue became at once clearer and more confusing (or confuseder in Aguileraspeak). So I finally heard the lyric in context: “I’m bringing sexy back…” OHHHH, so “Sexy” isn’t modifying “Back.” “Back” is simply where “Sexy” is being brought. How foolish of me to assume that “Back” was a noun (the words put so close together like “SexyBack” instead of “Sexy Back” confused me). But now new questions began to surface. Where did Sexy go? Why did Sexy go? How long was Sexy missing? How was Justin able to bring Sexy back?

I just don’t understand why Sexy would leave us all alone like that? Did we as a collective race do something to offend Sexy? Maybe Sexy didn’t mean to go away. Maybe Sexy was on the ill-fated Oceanic Flight 815. Or Sexy could have strayed to close to a Hezbollah safe house. Or maybe Sexy was picked up from school one day by John Mark Karr. The point is that we just don’t know, and Justin Timberlake fails to tell us in his song. And this is sad because Timberlake could very well be a hero. Why is he so modest? Apparently, like Indiana Jones bringing back the Ark of the Covenant, Mr. Timberlake has sought out Sexy, rescued it, and returned it to us. (I’m also guessing that Timberlake’s mention of whips and chains is an allusion to an Indiana Jones type adventure.)

Personally, I believe Justin Timberlake was responsible for the disappearance of Sexy. I think Sexy was scared off two and a half years ago when Timberlake “exposed” Janet Jackson on national television. Aging pop star nudity tends to send otherwise sane people running from their homes. That ghastly sight actually provoked two of my roommates to smash through our front window, gouging their eyes with glass shards as they ran shrieking into oncoming traffic. If this was the reaction of two unshaven, overweight college students with bad vision, how much more would Sexy have been offended? This time frame for Sexy’s disappearance also fits in nicely with the rise to fame of Paris Hilton. (And isn’t it interesting how far Tom Cruise has fallen since Sexy left?) But even if Justin did drive Sexy from us at least he is bringing it back. Hopefully, he will learn a lesson from this and not drive Taylor Hicks away. I mean, who wants to hear TaylorBack? Ok, maybe I do…I’m bringing Taylor back. Those other guys don’t know how to act…get you Taylor on…get your Taylor on…get your Taylor on…get your Taylor on…

6/20/78

2006-06-20T08:30:00.000-07:00

With the first gasp of air the corruptibility of his flesh was apparent. But for the will of the maker the little boy would have fallen forever into the fiery flames that free the world of all its filth. Men of science in their ignorance did their best and in the end thought themselves victorious. It was merely the plan that saved him though. The plan that was conceived before the first man made the catastrophic blunder that murders his descendants to this very day. The plan holds the boy together even as a single choice of a single ancestor continues to tear and break down his flesh decades after his conception granted him an inheritance in this suffering, and the plan keeps him still as he too often delights in his earthly inheritance.

Another little boy burst into this world through quite extraordinary circumstances long ago. He could have no part with the corruption of his age so the plan allowed the corruption to consume him upon a tree. All of eternity then shuddered as the boy was butchered amongst all the evil that ever was or ever would be. Men of religion in their arrogance thought themselves victorious. But as is often the case, the world would march on ultimately according to plan. The boy burst into the world again through circumstance more extraordinary than even his birth. (Men of religion and men of science should take note that this is the only victory.) He spoke through the ages concerning his plan and departed ‘til the ending of his own design.

So now as the man of corruption waits for the man of incorruption he is protected by the very words of a man who was a boy who is the maker who spoke the world into existence. And soon that maker will burst once more into this world. All corruption will pass away, and all will be made new…all according…

…to plan

24

2006-05-17T18:38:00.000-07:00

As the end of the season for 24 approaches I propose that we all celebrate Monday as 24 Day. The festivities should include empathizing with Jack Bauer by not eating or using the restroom from 10 p.m. on Sunday until the conclusion of the last episode at 10 p.m. on Monday. All drinking should probably be restricted to coffee and water. Just think how much more intense the last episode will be as you try desperately not to wet your pants. Jack Bauer holds it every season; we should honor that heroic continence with our own bladders.

Hopefully, the ending will prove intense even if one doesn’t participate in 24 Day. The conclusion of this season could be the best ending of a day yet. The producers of the show have a great chance to wrap the season up by paying homage to President James Marshall of the 1997 film Air Force One. Ever since we learned several episodes back that President Palmer’s body would be shipped back to Washington, D.C. at daybreak, we knew that an explosive confrontation aboard Air Force One between Jack Bauer and President Logan was a real possibility. If only the season could come down to President Logan and Jack Bauer exchanging fisticuffs in the cargo hold of Air Force One while in flight towards Washington. President Logan could open the cargo bay doors in hopes of making Mr. Bauer plummet to his death, but Jack Bauer would thwart this by tackling the President. The casket of the assassinated ex-President would have been knocked about during the earlier scuffle and would now slide towards President Logan pushing him out of the cargo bay. President Logan, however, would grasp on to Bauer’s leg just as he’s falling out of the plane. As President Logan tries to climb up Jack, and thus back into the plane, Bauer would kick Logan in the face and yell, “Get off your plane!” Now that’s an ending. The only better ending I can think of would involve Air Force One miraculously crashing into a hotel occupying Kim, Jack’s annoying daughter.

One final note: Where are the public service announcements about U.S. presidents? Last season when Jack had to deal with Arab terrorists FOX had Kiefer Sutherland appearing during the commercial breaks to tell all the viewers at home that most Arabs are good citizens and love this country. And after all the viewers at home stopped laughing an episode aired with two storeowners who just happened to be Arabs risking their lives to help Bauer fight the bad guys…and the laughter started back up again. So, this season, why isn’t Mr. Sutherland doing a PSA for the commercial breaks that let’s viewers know that most U.S. presidents don’t authorize the assassination of ex-presidents? (That’s normally the CIA Director’s job...and that usually just involves sitting presidents) And how come we haven’t yet seen Jimmy Carter trying to broker some sort of peace agreement between Logan and Bauer? Or maybe at just the right moment George H. W. Bush throwing up in Kim’s lap…now that really wouldn’t help Jack Bauer or CTU much, but it would at least let us viewers know that U.S. presidents are on our side…kind of like the Arabs and Muslims.

He is risen.

2006-04-16T07:47:00.000-07:00

He is risen indeed.

Sabbatical

2006-04-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

I haven’t posted for well over a month, because I had to use that time to finish up what I thought was to be a surefire bestseller at Christian bookstores across the nation. Unfortunately, Tyndale House Publishers decided not to go through with the first printing of Finding God in Basic Instinct 2. We had thought that with God being found everywhere from Middle Earth to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry that evangelical consumers would jump at the chance to find God in the poorly conceived, vanity project of an aging AIDS activist. Sadly, with the box office whimper of Basic Instinct 2 (I think the film made just enough money last week to cover the cost of Sharon Stone’s clozapine prescription) the book has been put on hold. After all, as one editor told me, “We’re only supposed to rip off ‘popular’ secular culture.” I’m still at a loss to understand how an erotic thriller starring a woman nearly a half-century old could possibly fail. Aren’t wrinkles and menopause sexy anymore? Besides the book, this development will likely put a damper on other Sharon Stone sequels, which may deprive the world of Action Jackson 2 (and unlike Ms. Stone, Carl Weathers simply improves with age…he’d beat the plastic surgery off Stallone’s face if Rocky was filmed today) and the follow-up to her 1995 hit western, The Quick and The Dead, which is tentatively titled 2 Quick 2 Dead.

So it’s back to the drawing board for book ideas. I’m thinking of jumping on the bandwagon of this summer’s The Da Vinci Code film. I’ve researched several journal articles that use the film titles of Tom Hanks movies to prove the divinity of Christ. So I might plagiarize those scholastic works and use the material in a fictional story centered around a handsome, 45 year old college professor who works nights at a video store until he finds the body of his teenage boss diced into pieces and arranged to spell “Turner & Hooch.” Our hero would then try to solve the mystery by wading through films like The ‘burbs and Joe Versus the Volcano all the while trying to stay one step ahead of FBI copyright enforcement and 144,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses who will stop at nothing to make sure the truth stays covered up by the likes of Penny Marshall and Ron Howard. (Peter Scolari could play the lead in the film version). Or I could just use that research for another crack at non-fiction writing with either Finding God in Second-Rate 80’s Comedies or Looking for God in a Frequent Meg Ryan Co-Star.

And the Oscar goes to...

2006-02-28T13:34:00.000-08:00

If only the statuette would be given to the producers of the film Crash. All of this year’s best picture nominees have a political agenda to shove down our throats, but Crash is the only nominee that is not decidedly liberal. You would think that a film about the evils of racism would be right up Hollywood’s alley, but Crash does something unforgivable. In the film…gasp…white men aren’t the only racists. Oh, horror of horrors, how could such a lie be put forth in the cinematic world? The film asks that you believe, against all your better judgment, that Persians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians can be just as racist as a disc jockey for a country music radio station. This certainly conflicts with the standard worldview of the Hollywood elite that all the world lived in peace and harmony until Christopher Columbus began barbecuing Native Americans while tap dancing in black face. So a number of critics have panned the film by saying that it lacks “subtlety” and is too preachy. Many of these same critics have fallen madly in love with Brokeback Mountain. What is so subtle about the message of gay cowboys suffering in a supposedly intolerant society? If Brokeback Mountain wins for best picture it will not be for its subtlety, but rather for marching lockstep with the social agenda of the left. Last year Hollywood’s “best picture” asked us to believe that people facing adversity like Stephen Hawking are better off dead, and this year the “best picture” may well ask mommas to let their baby boys grow up to date cowboys. Paul Haggis, the writer/director of Crash, was the screenwriter behind last year’s celebrated Million Dollar Baby. He should have learned that there is no tolerance for free thought among those wishing to establish a cultural diktat…geez, they still have the Supreme Court, couldn’t they have left our movies alone?

of power and light

2006-02-28T07:19:00.000-08:00

Good post from WC Haynes.

for my nephew

2006-02-24T16:00:00.000-08:00

Until this day there was but one who knew him, but as a son of Adam he drew his first breath with the curse already corrupting his flesh. A brother in his plight, I pray that one day he is given the sight to seize the gift that will wake him from the walking dead and return him to the one who first knew him.

Roundball

2006-02-12T17:34:00.000-08:00

After I watched Duke defeat Maryland yesterday I thought to myself, “Huh, I still like basketball.” Then today I watched an exciting game as Georgia Tech pulled one out over NC State, and I thought, “I really like basketball.” So why can’t I stomach the NBA anymore?

When I was a kid I enjoyed the NBA season even more than the NFL season. Year after year I would follow my favorite player, Mark Price, as his team reached the playoffs and then lost. I knew that it would take a miracle for the Cavs to ever reach the NBA finals with the Bulls in the same conference, but I still watched. Even when Craig Ehlo would open his big mouth to the detriment of Cleveland fans everywhere, I watched. So what has happened? Has the league changed? Have I changed?

There is a lot that I don’t like about the NBA these days. I don’t care much for the unsportsmanlike attitudes and the cocky personalities. I know that when I was a fan there were punks like Charles Barkley and Bill Lambier, but at least they weren’t rapists. Some of my dislike has to do with the uniforms. My favorite team, the Cavs, in an attempt to return to their old colors has adopted a uniform style that could have been designed by such fashion moguls as Snoop Dogg or P. Diddy. That bugs me. The free agency (while I agree with it in theory) and trades have also hurt the NBA. When players who you’ve watched play for years for a certain team start jumping from ship to ship your loyalties get confused. It’d be like Captain Kirk joining the Klingons or Michael Moore suddenly joining the US Military. Who do you root for? Your favorite team? Your favorite player?

But I don’t think any of these factors are the main problem. There are still players who I can embrace and fan favorites who stick with a team. The NBA has even tried to cut down on their gangsta subculture by trying out a dress code. So if none of these annoyances are the problem then what is? I think I can isolate it.

The problem is John Tesh, or rather a lack of Tesh and his “Roundball Rock.” When ABC won the rights to the NBA for the 2003 season they unfortunately did not take with them the NBA on NBC theme written by the darling prince of Entertainment Tonight, John Tesh. I miss the music. I miss the excitement channeled into my very bones when those sweet sound waves hit my eardrums. In a happier age as a commercial break approached the music would rise as a thrilling replay was shown in slow motion, and this gave the viewer the buzz needed to get through the dull commercials. But in today’s colder and harsher world the viewer receives no rush and thus may pick up the remote and seek out exhilarating fulfillment from Arena Football or…dare I write the acronym…NASCAR. Those divine notes allowed me to forget all the other nonsense that went along with the NBA. How I miss the 90’s with that glorious forehead seated next to Mary Hart every weekday evening and that glorious music ringing out before every NBA game break. So without John Tesh redeeming professional basketball from all its hip hop depravity I return to the Edenic world of the NCAA for James Naismith’s beautiful creation.

Super Bowl XL MVPs

2006-02-05T23:21:00.000-08:00

Bill Leavy
Garth DeFelice
Mark Hittner
Mark Perlman
Steve Zimmer
Tom Hill
Bob Waggoner

Sheehan's Explosive Protest

2006-02-01T19:44:00.000-08:00

In a bizarre turn of events protestor Cindy Sheehan was blown into a million tiny pieces Wednesday morning. While protesting outside the White House Ms. Sheehan fell victim to an Al Qaeda attack. Onlookers heard Ms. Sheehan shouting out eviction notices directed at President Bush; presumably she was in her own witty manner trying to say that President Bush should leave office. During this tirade a Muslim woman covered from head to toe in traditional Islamic garb approached Pennsylvania Avenue. Ms. Sheehan ran towards the woman crying out, “I’m sorry…So sorry for how our nation is persecuting your peaceful reli…” Apparently at that moment Sheehan detonated the bomb as she threw her arms around the peace loving yet explosive-strapped Muslim. This action may have been responsible for no damage being done to the intended target, the White House.

The Al Qaeda cell group responsible for the bomb released a statement later that evening:

“We had no idea that a friend of Allah’s would be near the Great Satan’s house. We offer our deepest regrets. To ensure no further disasters we have requested that Michael Moore and all members of the MoveOn.org family keep us informed of their whereabouts…but obviously not by way of international telephone calls.”

A wave of criticism rolled through Washington after the attack. Senator John Kerry denounced President Bush for not having the courage to protest outside the White House himself, Senator Hillary Clinton noted that on the plantations of the antebellum South women were often exploded by whitey, and DNC Chairman Howard Dean began barking like a dog.

Across the nation in Hollywood Stephen Spielberg announced that a film adaptation of Cindy Sheehan’s blog entries would be rushed into production starring Ellen DeGeneres as the courageous hero and George Clooney as the villainous President Bush. Not to be outdone director Ang Lee made public his plans for a sweeping romantic epic about the Muslim woman who died in today’s attack and the husband who had years before, in an act of love, beat her into submission. Lee said, “It’s a very human story that teaches us that love can be brutal and misogynistic; we’re arrogant to think that the American way to love is the only way to love.”

Back in the nation's capital The Department of Homeland Security is currently rethinking their strategies. “We might start surrounding all government buildings with peaceniks,” said one DHS spokesman. “I mean, it’s like killing two birds with one stone.”

for life

2006-01-31T18:08:00.000-08:00

4-5 now

On film

2006-01-26T14:30:00.000-08:00

Hollywood should realize that there is one easy way to make any film better. Take the truly awful film Armageddon. Michael Bay’s 1998 disaster of a disaster flick starts with the premise that a huge asteroid is headed for earth. A deep core drilling team is sent to the asteroid to burrow into the space rock and set off a nuke from the inside. (The only better idea movie characters have come up with is when Bill Paxton and Chris O’Donnell decided to climb an icy mountain with nitroglycerin strapped to their backs in Vertical Limit.) Armageddon also makes the egregious error of killing off Bruce Willis while letting Ben Affleck live. So aside from following the maxim, “Always kill off Ben Affleck’s character,” how could this film have been better? Simply fill the asteroid headed for earth with monkeys. Monkeys improve any film. Now when the astronauts and deep core drilling team arrive not only must they plant the nuke but they also must dodge feces being hurled at them by the meteor monkeys. And in the end the wise monkey leader could coax Ben Affleck out of the space shuttle with some bananas so that Affleck is blown apart into space dust, and the monkeys curl up at the feet of Bruce Willis for the voyage back to earth. Who wouldn’t love that movie?

Peter Jackson and other Hollywood players understand the power of monkeys. One of the best films of 2005 was Jackson's King Kong, and it’s about a giant gorilla…which is basically a tailless monkey. Clint Eastwood also found big returns at the box office with his primate projects, and Ronald Reagan rode the popularity he gained from Bedtime for Bonzo all the way to the White House. Let’s also not forget that legendary actor Charlton Heston added to his impressive list of films when he landed on a planet full of talking apes. Same goes for Sigourney Weaver when she looked into the mist and found some gorillas.

This doesn’t mean that all monkey films are great films. There have been some notable flops: Ed, Buddy, and Dunston Checks In to name a few. But imagine those films with some other animal instead of monkeys…they could have been a lot worse.

Several films last year missed the mark by not including monkeys. If Ang Lee had really wanted to tell an untold love story he could have had Heath Ledger cozy up next to a spirited spider monkey instead of Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain (the little monkey would have been a wee bit more masculine too). Speilberg could have found a saner leading actor in a chimpanzee for War of The Worlds (Katie Holmes could have done better with a chimp as well). And Harry Potter could have learned that his nemesis, Lord Voldemort, was really just a baboon in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire.

So Hollywood, please give us more monkeys.

Must see films:

Monkey Trouble (1994)
The Barefoot Executive (1971)
Bedtime for Bonzo (1951)
King Kong (1933)
King Kong (2005)
Planet of the Apes (1968)

Bastogne and Bin Laden

2006-01-20T11:41:00.000-08:00

The answer we should give in reply to Osama Bin Laden’s truce offer can be found in a story from World War II. The 101st Airborne holding Bastogne was surrounded by German forces in the winter of 1944. On December 22nd the German commander sent terms of surrender to the Americans. When General Anthony McAuliffe received the terms he wrote out his response and sent it back to the Germans. The reply read:

To the German Commander,

NUTS!

The American Commander

The Americans, of course, held Bastogne and won the “Battle of the Bulge.” So if our surrounded American forces offered such a response to German forces capable of annihilating them, how should our nation reply to a terrorist group that has been so devastated by our military that its leader has become the Eric Robert Rudolph of the Pakistani border? All this cave dweller has accomplished is the toppling of two Al Qaeda friendly governments. Why would he want a truce? At this rate the current Syrian government might not see the next decade. The United States could simply reply to the Al Qaeda commander:

NUTS!

MLK Day

2006-01-16T19:40:00.000-08:00

It was sad to hear racist and divisive words coming from a Gulf Coast city on Martin Luther King Day. The mayor of the Louisiana town of New Berlin, Mark Goebbels, said today in a speech to his hurricane ravaged town:

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Berlin-the one that should be a vanilla New Berlin. This city will be a majority White Caucasian city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Berlin any other way. It wouldn't be New Berlin."

Sounds pretty racist, right? On the very day our nation celebrates the life of a man who wished for a colorblind society, Mayor Goebbels speaks of his longing for a white dominated city. Even more infuriating, he claims that God would want his city that way. Every politician and elected official in our country should be condemning these racist views. The local clergy of the city should also speak out against Mayor Goebbels' view of a God who would condone such bigotry.

Of course, there is no New Berlin, Louisiana, at least to my knowledge. And no Mayor Mark Goebbels (I made him up). But there is a New Orleans and a Mayor Ray Nagin. These were his words today:

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans—the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans…This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Where is the outcry against such a blatantly prejudiced statement? If a white mayor had made similar statements as in the New Berlin scenario he would quickly be condemned and probably forced to resign from office. Where are the calls for Mayor Nagin’s resignation? I have a dream that all of America’s elected officials, local and national, will be held to the same standard when it comes to racism.

The Book of Ak'med

2006-01-09T20:38:00.000-08:00

The new hit series on Friday nights is NBC’s controversial The Book of Ak’med. The show follows the day-to-day struggles of a middle aged Muslim cleric, Ak’med Al Arian, who lives in Miami, FL. The cleric is a devout Muslim who often sees and talks with Mohammed the Prophet.

“For Ak’med, Mohammed is the personification of his faith,” says actor John Stamos who plays the cleric. “After I read the first script I kissed Jake in Progress goodbye and signed on.”

Ak’med’s professional life is a mess. An Imam (Gary Shandling) is upset with Ak’med for not backing his attempts to impose shari’a law on a retirement community funded by Ak’med’s mosque, and Al Qaeda recruits are constantly seeking food and shelter from the cleric.

At home things are almost as troublesome. Ak’med’s wife, Faatin, (Delta Burke) is starting to rebel by showing a little ankle at the bottom of her garments and a little forehead from behind her head coverings. Their son, Hasan (Jonathan Lipnicki), is secretly spending too much time with the pet goat, and their daugher, Haifa (Hillary Duff), pays for her community college classes by ratting out terrorists to the CIA.

The stress from his life forces Ak’med to smoke pot and talk to his visions of Mohammed. Actor Bronson Pinchot plays the Prophet as a more hip version of his classic character Balki. “I think the show is basically a more culturally significant version of Perfect Strangers where one of the strangers just happens to be a centuries dead prophet,” says Pinchot.

The executive producer of the show (who is not revealing his name) said in a phone interview that the original title underwent some revisions. “Originally we were going to call the show The Sura of Ak’med, but then we realized that none of the writers on the show knew what a sura was…or much of anything about Islam," says the producer. “We then realized lack of knowledge about a religion didn’t stop CBS from making Joan of Arcadia so we just changed the name to The Scroll of Ak’med and then eventually settled on The Book of Ak’med. We’re still not sure if ‘Ak’med’ is even a real Muslim name.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has hounded the new president of NBC for not casting any Arabs in the series. “The producers of the show tell me they tried,” explains the president. “Most of the Muslim actors told us that they would have to kill too many infidels to make up for offending Allah by appearing on our show.”

The controversial show has already set off a round of protests from Muslims. NBC’s affiliate in Detroit had the first floor of their station blown up by a backpack bomber, and anchor Brian Williams has started receiving letters caked in a curious white powder. All of this dissent has caused NBC to rethink the worth of good ratings.

“I never thought as President of NBC that I’d be too scared to tell anyone,” says the anonymous executive. “Salmon Rushdie has offered me some tips so I think I’ll be OK.”

The executive producer, who is keeping a low profile for the same reasons, tells us, “I think with my next show I’ll go back to mocking Christians. Their boycotts are nothing compared to a fatwa.”

Unwise Remarks, Our Condition

2006-01-06T13:48:00.000-08:00

The recent headline-grabbing remarks by Pat Robertson will be our focus today. But first let us turn our attention to the Stalinesque comments that the Anti-Defamation League made in response to Robertson. The Anti-Defamation League was quick to rebuke Robertson for his statements claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was God’s way of punishing the politician for giving away parts of Israel’s land to the Palestinians. Setting aside the validity of Robertson’s beliefs about Divine Judgment, his statements were very Pro-Israel and thus pro-Semitic. Is the Anti-Defamation League pro-Palestinian? Or is it just that nothing can be said about a person of Jewish descent without attracting the ire of the ADL? It was this same league of thought police that came out swinging with the release of The Passion of Christ, all because the film made the egregious mistake of sticking to the historical data concerning the Jewish leadership’s involvement in the death of Christ. Are we still allowed to call Meyer Lansky a criminal? Or do his ethnic credentials absolve him of all mafia involvement? Let us look to the words of the ADL’s ‘General Secretary’ Abraham H. Foxman:

It is outrageous and shocking, but not surprising, that Pat Robertson once again has suggested that God will punish Israel's leaders for any decision to give up land to the Palestinians. His remarks are un-Christian and a perversion of religion. Unlike Robertson, we don't see God as cruel and vengeful.
We would hope that good Christian leaders would distance themselves from Pat Robertson's remarks. It is pure arrogance for Robertson to suggest that he has divine knowledge of God's intent and purpose based on his interpretation of scripture.

Is it not pure arrogance for Foxman to suggest that we should interpret events based on his understanding of God and religion? Foxman should argue more logically against Robertson and not just offer these knee-jerk responses. There is cause for disagreement with Robertson, but there is no excuse for the ADL’s continuing campaign to limit public discourse and stifle free speech.

Now we reach the mumblings that started the whole mess. Robertson claimed on his television show that Sharon’s disengagement of Gaza warrants the woes called for in Scripture for those who would divide the land. Several problems with these remarks arise even if you have the same Biblical understanding as Pat Robertson. Is the current nation of Israel to be viewed as the Israel of the Old Testament? Do the same warnings and blessings of the ancient nation apply to the current secular state? Would God strike down a man trying to bring about peace? Robertson really cannot answer any of these questions definitively with just scripture as his guide.

The other issue at hand is a part of the problem of evil. Why do bad things happen to good people? With the understanding being put forth by Pat Robertson in his remarks about Sharon and earlier statements about hurricanes, bad things happen because of the judgment of God. Someone messes up and God strikes that person down. This is not a healthy understanding of divine judgment and perhaps Robertson should look to the book of Job. What did Job ever do to cause all of his heartache? In his attempt to offer political commentary Robertson has missed the chance to say something about the human condition and the only hope that we have.

The very question ‘Why do bad things happen to good people?’ is flawed. Bad things do not happen to good people, because there are no good people. All of humanity is depraved. Bad things do not necessarily happen as individual judgments based on individual sins. It is rather that bad things happen, because we are all tainted by the fall. So sin is the cause of Sharon’s stroke, but sin was also the cause of the deaths of C.S. Lewis, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, and the Apostle Paul. There are those who we think don’t deserve such suffering when we overlook the wickedness of their hearts. We look at someone like the Baptist minister John Piper and wonder why he would get prostate cancer or why Billy Graham would get Parkinson’s. We forget that these men are inherently sinful. It is not that God must be judging a particular action, but that as members of the human race we all suffer the consequences of the fall. Where is our hope then if even the most devout and righteous men may be stricken by sickness, suffering, and death? Our hope is in the one man in all of history who walked through life sinless. Our hope is in the man who took upon himself that ultimate consequence of the fall and conquered death. When a man like Sharon is stricken we should not be quick to point out a personal action that led to his current state; we should instead reflect on our own membership in this wretched humanity and pray that Sharon recovers enough to accept the hope that the sinless God/man offers.

Brokeback Mountain

2005-12-20T11:46:00.000-08:00

I’ll resist the urge to list the variations of the title Brokeback Mountain that would prove quite humorous when talking about a movie dealing with homosexuals. We will look instead to the reasons why anyone hoping to turn a profit at the box office would make a film about gay cowboys. Perhaps, even our beginning question is wrong. Maybe a profit isn’t what these filmmakers seek. Maybe this film is another attempt to tear down that supposed misconception that homosexual men are effeminate and vice versa. And I say it’s high time we rid ourselves of these stereotypes. I mean, I’m sure most of the jocks we all knew in high school have turned to either fashion designing or figure skating. And all those limp-wristed, neatly groomed then-thought-of-as-queers from high school could probably be found at any sports bar guzzling Budweiser and ogling waitresses, and are not, as we imagined they would be, wearing a lot of purple, working for Disney, and tending to whatever letter of the Hepatitis alphabet they’ve acquired. This film puts things straight (maybe that’s the wrong word). It is altogether inspiring to see two cowboys with such raw masculinity that they could either kick your tail or gently caress it. If only those westerns of yesteryear hadn’t been so puritanical maybe they would have opened our minds a little more to the truth. Gary Cooper could have ditched his wife for Lloyd Bridges in High Noon or Jimmy Stewart could have hooked up with the Duke himself in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. What about The Good, The Bad, and Rock Hudson? Heck, change the girl in True Grit to a little boy and put a twinkle in old Rooster Cogburn’s eye and you’ve got a NAMBLA approved flick right there.

Hopefully, Brokeback Mountain will usher in a new era of stereotype-bashing films. Maybe they could make a film about fundamentalist Muslim strippers or Talmud loving neo-nazis. What about Shakespeare quoting gangstas? When you take an exception to the rule and make it the rule you can turn the whole world upside down.

Air Marshals, Terrorists, and Bears. Oh my.

2005-12-09T15:41:00.000-08:00

With the Federal Air Marshals' recent campaign to rid the world of bipolar disorder one unmedicated nutjob at a time, and with the release today of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe I thought that I would post a few quotes from the second book in the Chronicles of Narnia that speak to the incident. In Prince Caspian, the four children from the first book return to Narnia centuries later (at least for Narnia). Talking animals have become very rare, and dumb animals are now common. On their journey a bear confronts the children. Susan hesitates to shoot an arrow at the bear, but a dwarf, Trumpkin, kills the bear before it can attack young Lucy. C.S. Lewis writes:

"I—I left it too late, " said Susan, in an embarrassed voice. "I was afraid it might be, you know—one of our kind of bears, a talking bear." She hated killing things.
"That's the trouble of it," said Trumpkin, "when most of the beasts have gone enemy and gone dumb, but there are still some of the other kind left. You never know, and you daren't wait to see."

Later Lucy speaks to Susan:

“Such a horrible idea has come into my head, Su."
"What's that?"
"Wouldn't it be dreadful if some day in our own world, at home, men started going wild inside, like the animals here, and still looked like men, so that you'd never know which were which?"

Greatest Christmas Movie of All-Time

2005-11-29T18:12:00.000-08:00

When thinking about great holiday films, titles such as It’s A Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street instantly come to mind. But does either of these films warrant the honor of Greatest Christmas Movie of All-Time? I think not. Both lack the timelessness necessary of a film considered the greatest of all-time. So what movie would qualify? Could it be any of the numerous versions of A Christmas Carol or the Bing Crosby classic, White Christmas? There are many films to consider. And let’s not forget the great holiday comedies like National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, The Santa Clause, and Elf. Still none of these films rise to the level of greatness.
What makes a Christmas film the Greatest of All-Time? Well, for starters the film must be an actual Christmas movie having a Christmas theme and setting. The film should also transcend time so that it speaks to today’s audiences as well as it did at the time of release. The film should be well acted and have a strong story. Good characters and a strong plot are also a plus. Great films often teach a lesson and add to the tradition of the holidays themselves. So then, what film deserves this honor?
Quite simply, the Greatest Christmas Movie of All-Time is…Die Hard. That’s right, John McTiernan’s 1988 cinematic masterpiece is hands down the best Christmas film ever made. The film is definitely a Christmas movie; it takes place at an office Christmas party after all. The film’s message of standing up to thieves who pose as terrorists rings as true today as it did in the late 80’s. And let’s not forget the fine acting of Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, and that guy who played Carl Winslow in Family Matters. The marital relationship at the center of the film between Bruce Willis and Bonnie Bedelia makes you forget all about Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. I mean, George Bailey never jumped off of an exploding building with nothing but a fire hose tied around his waist to save the woman he loved. Plus, there’s the great script. Sure, you might not think that “Yippee-ki-yay mother#*@$er” has the same yuletide appeal as “God Bless us, everyone” or “Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings,” but the phrase is still gaining ground as a proper holiday greeting. And the images of Bruce Willis being caught in his bare feet remind us that we need to be on our best behavior if we dare hope of getting our Christmas stockings filled with goodies. For all of these reasons as well as the fact that it has the highest body count of any Christmas movie Die Hard is the Greatest Christmas Movie of All-Time. The runner-up would probably be Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

Geraldo

2005-11-16T15:53:00.000-08:00

Not having watched television in a few days I was surprised to turn on my set at 7:15 or so last night and hear the ever-calming voice of Geraldo Rivera. His show was about to go on break and the title flashed across the screen: Geraldo at Large. That sounded amazing. Was it a show about hunting Geraldo? Was it an adult version of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego with contestants answering questions to get clues as to Mr. Rivera’s whereabouts? Or did the show go the more engaging route by having hunters, trackers, and maybe retired law enforcement officials actually trying to hunt down the journalist and shoot him? I hoped for the latter. I could picture Geraldo out in the wild, maybe trudging through a swamp, with nothing but his cunning and mustache to keep him alive. All the while Mr. Rivera, microphone in hand, could be providing hard-hitting coverage on the war on terror, which could prove tough given the lack of mosques and Al Qaeda cell groups located in the Florida Everglades. But our hero undaunted in his task would give his pursuers the slip episode after episode. Sometimes his hunters would get close and exchange rounds with Geraldo. He might even get hit occasionally and experience massive blood loss or lose a limb. Wouldn’t everyone watch a show like that? With the recent UK ban on fox hunting maybe the Geraldo at Large producers would allow some of those wealthy Brits to come over with their bloodhounds. At certain angles Geraldo vaguely resembles a fox. And if Geraldo ever was hunted down and shot or mangled and throttled by a hound the show could just start a new season with a different TV personality…and call it…Povich on the Run…or Oprah v. the Big Game Hunters. Man, that would be some quality television. The commercial break ended, and I was saddened to see that Geraldo at Large was actually just Mr. Rivera’s attempt at having a Dateline type show with A Current Affair type journalistic integrity. Oh well, what about Hannity and Colmes: Deathmatch!? I’d watch that.