The Grand Inquisitor

If you've never read The Brothers Karamazov, I encourage you to because it's an excellent novel. But it's not something you read for fun -- no Russian novel is a fun read.

Anyway, The Grand Inquisitor is labeled as, perhaps, the greatest chapter in all of literature. Which, is somewhat funny because I think it's the second best chapter in the book (The first being "The Devil. Ivan's Nightmare". A close third is the chapter that precedes The Grand Inquisitor entitled "Rebellion").

For precis of the chapter, I recommend you click on the link. But here's my summary: Set during the Spanish Inquisition and describes the return of Christ to the town of Seville, Spain. There, the day before, 100 "heretics" were burned alive by the presiding cardinal who is called The Grand Inquisitor. Christ, as he walks through the town begins to perform miracles. This leads to his imprisonment and eventual interrogation by this cardinal. The Cardinal, believing He is who He says He is, eventually takes the lines of questioning back to Christ's temptation in the wilderness when Satan tempted Christ three times.

The Grand Inquisitor questions him on the nature of "free will" and comes to the conclusion that it is too much for any human to bear -- except for the elect, the strong -- and Christ was wrong to make it this difficult. He should've, the cardinal points out, turned the stones to bread, for that would've made it easier for humanity to follow him. Instead, the burden and responsibility of free will is too difficult and Christ had too much faith in humanity to leave us with it.

Really, you should read it -- even if you only read the chapter. I was struck by the idea of "the burden of free will". On the iPod this morning was Derek Webb's "New Law" . A song with much the same idea:

Don't teach me about politics and government ;
Just tell me who to vote for.
Don't teach me about truth and beauty;
Just label my music.
Don't teach me how to live like a free man;
Just give me a new law.

So...the burden of free will. Reminds of the scene in Bruce Almighty when Bruce is overcome by the difficulty of his omnipotence and the inability to make people love him (This isn't the actual scene I'm referring to but it carries a similar point).

I've never thought of free will as a burden. But I'm seeing it now...hmmm.

Stuff Your Sorrys

So it's the newest list to hit the internet: The list of all-time TV catchphrases, or neologisms for my GRE audience (btw, 620 Verbal, 630 Quantitative). It's a very confusing, contradictory and memorable list. Of note in this list only 2 Seinfield quotes and 1 Friends quote. This is very disturbing because both shows are two of the most popular all-time. Several quotes they could've included but for unknown reasons did not:

"Stuff you're sorry's in a sack!" - Seinfield
"Giddyup!" - Seinfield
"Are you master of your domain?" - Seinfield
"We were on a break!" - Friends
"When were you ever under me?" - Friends
"Could ___ be ___?" - Friends
"Don't have a cow, man!" - The Simpsons
"To the moon, Alice!" - The Honeymooners

And this is off the top of my head. C'mon! (JOB, Arrested Development). And I'm not the guy in the $6,000 suit (JOB, again) but I could remember better catchphrases. JFK? A quote from a vice-presidential debate? Boston Legal? Are you freaking kidding me? Sorry but Denny Crane is no James Tiberius Kirk. And presidential speeches are not riveting entertainment and don't belong, no matter what you think of them, in the same list as "Cowabunga man!" (also, not on the list from The Simpsons).

There should be a standard for memorable quotes, like, do they play out when used in real life. I'll admit, it's not often when I stub my toe that I yell out "Ask not what you can do for your country"; to mock a co-worker that I utter "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy". Actually, that last one I might start using -- it could be pretty funny. You know, even if they apologized for making this list so devoid of proper catchphrases, I'd tell them where to stuff their sorry's. See -- it works!

Any other quotes not mentioned?

Word Of The Day

No more pendantry. Back to writing in simple prose and incomplete sentences...one's that are run-on's and never seem to end...

GRE Test
8am
Tuesday, November 28th (tomorrow)

WKRP in Cincinnati

A great thanksgiving day bit from a classic TV show.

As God as my witness....

Some Trimmings

Hope everyone had a lovely Thanksgiving. I do not, however, wish any of you a happy Black Friday. That even includes my crazy, pregnant wife who was up at 6:30am shopping. Any misery you incur today is brought upon by yourself. By 9am I'd already made about 5 phone calls regarding gifts and sales and ideas. I love her -- but she's crazy!

Anyway, my nephews will love the gift we got them. Yeah...the uncles are gonna have fun at Christmas. On that note -- it is much cooler to be a kid nowadays, so many more high-tech toys.

And here are some trimmings (things worth mentioning but not extrapolating upon):

Props to Terrell Owens for representing the Salvation Army(and my fantasy football team).

Cranberries are the most underrated, yet essential, Thanksgiving dish.

Turducken. Why?

There's this new phenomenon called Sweet Potato Balls. I'm sure it's healthy.

My sister was at the Dallas-Tampa Bay game yesterday. She was holding a red sign during half-time (if you were curious).

My nephew wants to "bust open" my wife's stomach and take the baby out. He was very distressed that no other family members were at his Thanksgiving yesterday.

Apparently my little boy will also be getting a St. Louis Cardinals Sleeper to wear. Not sure how I feel about that. Seems like he'd be perpetrating (like when someone used to wear Reebok and Nike at the same time).

"Boom!" goes the chemical plant in a residential neighborhood.

Oh No He Didn't

There's a video on CNN.com you must watch. I can't link to it so you'll have to go there yourself. It's about a Katrina victim living in Memphis who flipped a house that was donated to him by a local church.

When confronted about it by a local news station, his reply, and I quote, was: "Take it up with God."

Quotes and stories like these are priceless the day after Thanksgiving. Brilliant, really.

Not Strange At All

Saw a fantastic movie last night. Best movie I've seen since I Heart Huckabees and easily entering the realm of my favorite all-time movie: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Stranger Than Fiction is in the same class of originality as those two movies. It's challenging. Not in the sense that it will change your life; rather in the sense of lottery numbers in Ohio matching the score from Saturday's game (no joke!). It's thought-provoking; it's humorous; it's a delightful movie. Much can be offered on the perspective of literature, character, philosophy and even religion in this movie - but you must see it first.

Two ideas, however, stand alone. First, the ever-present notion that life is a story. More than that, life is a narrative. You may not have a narrator that speaks with a British accent, but your life is most certainly a tale. It is being played out by characters you know and characters you do not. You have a limited narrative perspective. It's first-person perspective in the present; it's third-person perspective in hindsight (though not everyone makes the required effort to see life this way). And there is the startling idea that you are the main character in your story. Seems obvious enough, but it takes a bit of detached humor to appreciate the notion. And is your life a book you would read? Is it a masterpiece?

A final note on this notion, I have only recently come to see life as a narrative. In fact, it's a very post-modern viewpoint. It's one I haven't worked out and didn't give much credence to at first. I still can't explain it past the obvious -- but I am swimming in its sea of implication. And this movie was a refreshing dip in to what is a very new world-view.

Ebert sums it up best:
"Stranger Than Fiction" is a meditation on life, art and romance, and on the kinds of responsibility we have. Such an uncommonly intelligent film does not often get made. It could have pumped up its emotion to blockbuster level, but that would be false to the premise, which requires us to enter the lives of these specific quiet, sweet, worthy people. The ending is a compromise -- but it isn't the movie's compromise, it belongs entirely to the characters and is their decision. And that made me smile.

The second thing about the movie I liked was one of many memorable and challenging quotes: I wanted the change the world, so I decided to make cookies.

It's really that simple. It's really that child-like.

Draft Day Coverage

Re-instituting the draft? Perhaps.

Having not been around for the first draft -- though I've seen the movie Hair! -- I know not how this would go down. Would ESPN be involved? Who would have the first overall pick? The Marines? Green Mountain Boys? Would you trade that pick for three second rounders? And who would be Mr. Irrelevant? Would Mel Kiper, Jr. be involved?

The thing of it is: I think the Coast Guard should get the first pick in the draft. They've had a rough schedule this past year.

Because This Is A-"Pope"-priate

Good article in TIME on the Pope's upcoming visit to primarily Muslim Turkey. Given Benedict's recent comments, the current barometer of Islam in general and the fact that this is a somewhat historic visit in it's own right, the article is worth your read.

Two things of note:

1. Benedict's comments and uproar from the visit to Regensburg, Germany in September, are again, mentioned in the article...along with the quoted quote from Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what the Muhammad brought that was new." This idea is interesting in lieu of my second favorite book, "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton. By far it is his most difficult book to read. In it he traces the history of the world, religiously, up until the supposed coming of Christ and then looks at the history of the world, religiously, from that point on. It's a marvelous work that makes a similar point as Paleologus: That nothing like Christianity existed until the supposed coming of Christ and since then subsequent "new" religions that have propagated the world are merely derivations of Christianity (i.e. Islam, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism).

He makes the point with a little more romanticism and imagination and, in my opinion, although it is a truly sublime (GRE word!) work, well worth a read and re-read. It's quite challenging. G.K. doesn't force you to agree with him. He isn't polarizing either (meaning you don't have to be religious to find it engaging). I mention the book because it's well written and will make you think-- for good or for bad.

2. Along the same lines and back to the article, the TIME author, in hopes of, for some reason, proving Benedict a fool for the quoting (which has it's merit -- to a point) mentions that Islam is widely credited with bringing about algebra. Gee. Thanks.

Of Note

The Celtics have put together a modest three game winning streak. And, yes, I know I'm the only one who cares

It's Kind Of A Big Deal

You may have heard about this football game being played this weekend? If not -- shame on you.

I am not a college football fan -- for a number of reasons that don't need to be mentioned in this post. I have no allegiances to any college football program like I do the for Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins and Celtics. But I am a sports fan -- a passionate sports fan. Plus I live in Columbus -- in the heart of Buckeye country.

So why am I wearing Maize and Blue today? Two reasons:

1) As mentioned before, I hate college football. Hate it. But being a sports fan I grew up watching this rivalry. From Desmond Howard's Heisman pose to Charles Woodson's INT, I watched the Michigan-OSU game every year. And every year, I pulled for Michigan -- with, perhaps on a season level, the exception of maybe the Woodson year -- I was a fan of the Bobby Hoying/Terry Glenn/Eddie George era. Such things happen in lieu of zeal (GRE word!) for college football. But, I have been and will continue to be a Michigan fan. If, only, because of my favorite athlete Tom Brady (have you heard about my Man Crush on Mr. Brady) -- and despite the allegiance of my most hated, yet respected, athlete Derek Jeter.

2) It annoys the crap out of everyone I work with.

Now objectively I think OSU will win by 14 points at least. For my job's sake (I'm producing the news in Columbus on Saturday night) I want OSU to win and make life easier (hey, it's the weekend!).

But: Go Maize and Blue!

Pleasure or Virtue

Being unable to sleep this morning, I elected to finish a tome (GRE word!) I'd been working on for the past week (For the record: finishing a book proves nothing. It's highly overrated). Overall, I didn't like it. But I had to read it for class, so here I was at 7:30am stumbling across a rather challenging paragraph while Jars of Clay played on the iPod -- keeping me awake until this point. Richard Swinburne presents an example I think you'll find challenging:

Suppose you were to exist in another world before your birth and this one and you were told you would have only a few minutes in this world. During that time you would be a perfectly salubrious (GRE word!) adult. You are given two options for such an existence: a few minutes of considerable pleasure of the kind usually incurred by taking a drug like heroin; a few minutes of childbirth whereby you would bring a living, sentient (GRE word!) being into existence.

Which would you choose? It's the choice between pleasure and virtue; between a greater and lesser good. Still, as obvious as that is -- it's not an easy choice...or is it?

A Pregnant Thought

So we're in a bit of a quandry. We know we're having a boy and we're about 85% sure what his name will be. Of course, we, the Mrs. and me, have been referring to our baby by this name. Yet the difficulty has come when referring to the baby with other people. Last night, the Mrs. slipped the name out on the phone with a friend. Thankfully the friend didn't hear it and the secret was safe. But still...

You see, we're not wanting to tell anyone what his name will be until he is born. There are a couple of reasons: a) it's always a nice surprise; b) that way people cannot form an opinion, yeah or nea, for said name -- they just have to accept it (we're not thinking anybody would do this, but it's something we considered). Mainly, it's reason (a). We want to surprise people. And we want to have a secret.

Okay, back to the problem. We can refer to the child as the baby/him/child/bundle of joy. But it may be a little vague. What I'm thinking I'm in need of is a temporary sobriquet (GRE word!). My father-in-law has referred to our child as A.J. (Aaron Junior) since before he was even a "glint in our eyes". I'm in favor of the nickname Bob (of course this implies his name will not be Robert) for now. My father might prefer Angus.

Any ideas?

It's All Aesthetics

So it occurs to me recently that there is no aesthetic argument for the existence of God. Aside from the obvious question: does there need to be one, it poses an interesting topic for discussion.

Currently there are four, out-dated and yet classic arguments for the existence of OOG God (an all-knowing, omnipotent, omni-good being -- not necessarily associated with any religion). The Teleological, Cosmological, Ontological and Moral arguments. My favorite is the Moral Argument -- best espoused by C.S. Lewis. Though I am an a priori guy so I do thoroughly enjoy Anselm and the Ontological Argument: "God is that which nothing greater can be conceived". Simply brilliant.

While the Teleological Argument comes the closest to what would be called an Aesthetic Argument, it's not quite the same thing. There is beauty to be found in complexity. The primary example of that is the human body taken as a whole.

My overall thoughts concerned the fact that there is lacking a formal apologia for God's existence in the face of a pretty woman (or man), in the warmth of a sunset, in the rhythm and lyricism of a song. Could one even begin to be proposed? I certainly lack the resources to formally present the argument for the argument.

But I am moved by beautiful things -- by the beauty of my wife, by songs and pictures. It leads me to OOG God. And certainly, isn't it implied that if there were an OOG God then beauty would be something he would be very much concerned with since beauty is most certainly a good and wonderful thing? I think so -- but it can be better stated.

Maybe the poet is the Aesthetic Argument, or it is the job of the poet to present the Aesthetic Argument for the existence of OOG God. Not the philosophers; not the theologians.

The thing of it is: which is more likely to make you believe there's an OOG God: Horton Hears A Who or The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock?

NOTE: A FRIEND, WHO DOESN'T BLOG ANYMORE FOR SOME REASON, IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO THIS IN HIS GRADUATE STUDIES IN TEXAS.

A Terrible Thing To Waste

Now that my mind is fully functioning again, I've spent most of the morning reading Richard Swinburne. Nobody was as excited as me. Nobody.

And now that I'm returning to good health, this means no more re-runs of Girlfriends. Yes. For three afternoons I sat through this show. Not a bad show. Not a good show either. Such is what happens when you don't have cable and a disease people used to frequently die from.

I supposed you could call this my first physical brush with death. No. Not Girlfriends, the pneumonia. I wasn't that sick -- but my fever was pushing 102+ and I was coughing, hurling and quite delirious. Still, people used to die from pneumonia -- so I'm calling it my first official brush with death.

Seems I didn't miss much though. It was a bad week to be a Republican (though less and less I'm considering myself one -- seems I'm more libertarian). It was a bad week to be a Celtics fan. Here's my season preview: they suck and Doc Rivers is the worst coach ever. It was a bad week to be a Patriots fan -- I'd rather not discuss the propositions that back up this statement.

On a more positive note: We're having a baby boy(!) and tonight we buy his/our first official outfit for him/us. And no, it won't be a Red Sox sleeper (though that will be the outfit he comes home from the hospital in). This is very exciting.

I'sa Ill Yo!

I've been sick for the past week. Seems I've caught pneumonia. Knocked me pretty much out. Except for a rather heroic election day where I worked 10 hours producing live television coverage from the headquarters of the Ohio Republican Party. If I had to compare my ability that day -- given how sick I was -- to something, it would be the night MJ scored 40+ while throwing up on the bench in the NBA Finals. Ok. Maybe not. But it still was pretty heroic.

I won't go into details. But you don't want pneumonia. Though it came in handy to be married to a doctor. After correctly diagnosing me, she was unable to treat me at home. So she called in some favors at the ER and took me in...and I got the royal treatment. Still it was like a 5 hour visit even with no line. I was very, very dehyrdrated.

Anyway, doing better. Operating at about 65% and still not eating, but back at work.

Also, today marks the first time since Tuesday I've been able to use my head and think. The medication makes me unable to concentrate on ANYTHING for more than a few minutes. I couldn't even read a sentence and remember what I had just read. It was very disconcerting. But then again, I wasn't aware it was disconcerting. If that even makes sense...

HavingABabyIt'sABoy

Yup. We're having a boy!

Show's you what I know.

And we're very excited.

We're Having A...

Actually, we don't know yet. We'll find out tomorrow at 10am whether we're having a boy or a girl. Needless to say, it's a pretty exciting time for us. But I wanted to go on record with my prediction. Let me preface by saying I was way off on last night's Pats-Satan's Dominions game. I had us winning in a blow-out. I was wrong.

Anyway, for my offspring prediction -- of infinite more importance to me right now -- I offer these criteria:

1. The Mrs. and I are sure it's a girl. We have been since we found out we were pregnant. There's no doubt. None at all. It's not even something we convinced ourselves to believe, we've just both had this incontrovertible, undeniable feeling that we're having a girl.

2. There are certain "old-wives tales" in both families that have been accurate predictors in the past:

a) (She'll kill me for saying this) But there's no hair growing on her legs. Her sister incurred the same phenomenon when she had both of her girls.
b) The Mrs. is carrying the baby low -- again, I refer you to her sister as an example.
c) According to my grandfather (Go Cards!) it's all in the eyes. If her eyes are dull looking then it's a boy. If they're glowing: it's a girl. They're glowing spectacularly.

3. I actually, kinda-of, want a girl.

Now let's take these three criteria into account. 3 is neither here nor there. 2 is very convincing, but not enough to sway me in the end. I've gotta say it's number one. It's this amazing feeling that is beyond explanation or proofs. It just is. I don't know where it came from or how to get it rid of it (not that I want to, just adds to my example that it's very innate within me, not a feeling I can turn off or on).

So, I think it's a girl.

I'll let everyone know.

And I'm very, very ecstatic about tomorrow morning.

Thoughts and Works of Mortal Man

One of the Daves I know pointed out this artist to me yesterday. His name is Rene Magritte. He was a surrealist painter in the early part of last century. This painting's never going to sell like Jackson Pollock's paintings sell. And he was mentioned in one of my favorite movies: I Heart Huckabees.

I'm not much of one for art. I've got nothing against it -- but I also don't seek it out. And it's not that I'm intimidated. In fact, when I see good art, I'm always challenged. For instance, the Mrs. and I went the Columbus Museum of Art a few months back. It was very nice and we had some interesting discussions. There's a reason they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Now I'd be interested to know what you think of this painting. I know nothing of surrealism and I don't think you need to know anything either. My thought is if you can understand a joke, you can begin to understand art. But, it seems, art is always infinite-- there's always something more to discern. Perhaps that's why it intimidates people, because it's very subjective and people like to feel right sometimes.

I'll start my thoughts here, one of the Daves I know mentioned how the apple, placed in front of the face, suggests how temptation is always in front of us. Excellent observation. This painting, as I thought about it, really resonated with me. It's beautifully colored and horrific at the same time. It's very jarring. Thanks Dave I know for our discussion, it was very inspiring.

It's also important to note the title of this painting and there's a reason I haven't mentioned it yet. When we hear titles, we tend to work backwards from the title to form our opinions. I want you to work forwards before you know the title. Because if you do so, as I did, the title makes sense. Like any good title, it becomes the culmination of the thought of the art (this applies to songs and, even, the title of this post. Hint: It's a song lyric).

Anyway, the title of the painting: The Son of Man.

Your thoughts?

FCC Won't Censor Me

On the radio today: more political ads. On tv the other day: more political ads. It's that time of year and I've seen political ads as much as I've seen the Coug do "Our Country" (which is a political ad in it's own right -- maybe I'll vote for him). Just about every commercial break is laden with them from fade to black to the fade in from black. In fact, my TV station
(where I work) makes up most of its operating budget this time of year. So it's paying the bills.

Did you know that radio is mandated by the FCC to air political ads? How does that make sense? I'm not sure if TV has to follow the same rules, but I'm guessing. So the government orders stations to play these ads for which they charge the politician. Again, how does this make sense? Shouldn't this be free then? And why is THIS a federal mandate?

And why do people give money to candidates? I never understood that. Someone please explain to me why people give money to candidates. The money would better be used by tipping your waitress a little more each time you eat out. Don't get me wrong, I love the American government system. Sometimes. Though we should introduce some type of House of Commons to one of the branches because THAT makes for entertaining television.

Remember to vote Tuesday. The polls are your only solace from campaigns.

Worst. Halloween. Costume. Ever.

It's a couple days late, but I was thinking about this today. When I was six, my dad dressed me up like a bag of leaves. Not like a pirate. Not like a Transformer. Not like Roger Clemens or Larry Bird. Like a bag of leaves.

The costume consisted of a hefty bag with arms and leg holes cut-out. And, of course, leaves, gathered from the front yard by my all too-willing brother. One leaf, I believe, was hairpinned to my head. Another leaf was drawn on my cheek with lipstick -- just to make sure people knew what I was.

20 years later and I am still scarred by this! Thanks Dad!

Thumbs Up Or Down

In lieu of the recent thread, I've decided to postpone my Celtics preview. I know that's disappointing. Let's talk about movies instead...a much more redemptive topic I'm sure, but, whatever. Go Celtics.

So what should determine whether you go see a movie or not? Clearly not the ratings system these days. For instance, MI:3, which, I admit, I watched yesterday, is rated PG-13 for Menace. (I'm not sure what that is and would Menace to Society have been rated R for Menace as well.)The ratings merely tell you what type of "inappropriate" material is in each movie, not whether it's redemptive, not whether it serves a purpose. Look at The Passion of the Christ. Rated R. Though, clearly, the violence was the paragon(GRE word!) of redemption. I argue you almost can't decide to see a movie based on the MPAA ratings because it doesn't, nor can it, take these factors into account. Though, at the same time, the ratings system does do a good job of giving you an idea of the "inappropriate" material. Look at the new film Shortbus, it's called an art film but most reviewers, while it's got a point, admit it's basically soft porn.

If ratings system gives us an idea, I don't think it can be a benchmark(recent buzz word!) for what determines what movies we see. Though it can, and should, lead us to look at whether we should see a movie. Then it seems movie watching becomes a relative experience, something left up the person to decide. This isn't necessarily the case, but where it's certainly heading. And if it is the case, it then puts a lot of pressure on the movie-goer to decide for his/her-self and do some research -- which I thoroughly advocate.

My movie watching decisions fall along these lines. I won't see Shortbus, nor do I have any desire to. I draw the line when sex or nudity is clearly involved. I believe it most often and usually serves very little redeeming purposes within the movie and for me personally (one exception: Schindler's list). And I won't see a movie, that while it may be very good, has sex and/or nudity involved (i.e. Cold Mountain, Monster's Ball). Violence and language don't really bother me all that much and I can deal with that. I grew up in the ghetto afterall.

Am I compromising what I believe and who I am? I try not to. I really do, but realize I may fall short in some way. Some of my readers may think I'm too gray, others may think I'm too much of a prude. Either way, it should be an interesting thread.