Why is this movie not coming to the Seattle Metro??? Rush fans, get together and bring this movie here. I want to see this on the big screen! Strange, I'm writing a piece of my own personal history related to Rush, and then I find out about this new documentary last night. It gives me the chills.
I'm am thrilled for the idea that my brothers and/or friends come join me to see Rush on August 7th.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Friday, April 09, 2010
Carbonated Beverage Tax
Returning to the Pacific Northwest brings a daily joy during the spring and summer months. While productively keeping my household in order, I listen to my favorite sports team, the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club (Ichiro led off the game with a ground-rule double and came around to score as I write).
After 30 minutes of the broadcast, a commercial decries the proposed carbonated beverage tax in Washington State, three times during that span. The merits of the tax are debatable. Seth Godin makes an interesting argument about these types of beverage taxes. What I appreciate about Godin is his creative approach to looking at issues, ideas and concepts. I have to think about the merits of the tax, but the commercial adds nothing to the debate.
I realize the goal of almost any political ad is to create an emotional response. The ad depicts a couple going over their budget. Their budget is busted by taxes on carbonated beverages (Even seltzer water! Even club soda!). I find it amusing that the ad attempts to establish that carbonated beverages are an essential grocery item. Regardless of carbonated beverages value to a diet if carbonated beverages are busting your budget, then you don't know how to live with a budget.
The website (linked above) goes even further, by making carbonated beverage bottlers the victim, that the tax will "depress (nice word choice, eh?)" sales. Carbonated beverage bottlers and companies are far from the ranks of victims.
I am not against the right of free speech for the ad, and I'm not making a statement about the merits of taxes. I am such a victim that the joy of listening to the Mariners game by a terrible ad has been compromised. Woe is me.
Political advertisements with poor emotional baits that do not benefit public discourse on state government revenue? Put it on the Lame List!
I miss Almost Live.
After 30 minutes of the broadcast, a commercial decries the proposed carbonated beverage tax in Washington State, three times during that span. The merits of the tax are debatable. Seth Godin makes an interesting argument about these types of beverage taxes. What I appreciate about Godin is his creative approach to looking at issues, ideas and concepts. I have to think about the merits of the tax, but the commercial adds nothing to the debate.
I realize the goal of almost any political ad is to create an emotional response. The ad depicts a couple going over their budget. Their budget is busted by taxes on carbonated beverages (Even seltzer water! Even club soda!). I find it amusing that the ad attempts to establish that carbonated beverages are an essential grocery item. Regardless of carbonated beverages value to a diet if carbonated beverages are busting your budget, then you don't know how to live with a budget.
The website (linked above) goes even further, by making carbonated beverage bottlers the victim, that the tax will "depress (nice word choice, eh?)" sales. Carbonated beverage bottlers and companies are far from the ranks of victims.
I am not against the right of free speech for the ad, and I'm not making a statement about the merits of taxes. I am such a victim that the joy of listening to the Mariners game by a terrible ad has been compromised. Woe is me.
Political advertisements with poor emotional baits that do not benefit public discourse on state government revenue? Put it on the Lame List!
I miss Almost Live.
Friday, January 29, 2010
More on satellite radio, iPhone, podcasts and social networking sites
I've been listening to a free trial of XM Radio in our Honda Element during my 60 minute commute. I appreciate the variety and range of easy access music that gives me ideas for worship services and sermons. I've learned of a few more new bands I to whom I wish to give a deeper listen. But it's still not worth $13-14 per month.
My iPhone is the free link to a much broader spectrum than XM radio. I have Pandora and CBC Radio free apps on my iPhone--and I'm sure I could find more. Since I've expanded my contacts on Twitter to more music-related forums--I know I can dig around my Twitter contacts for ideas for music. I am not at a loss for expanding my musical universe. And there's always the good folks I know at Trade Root Music who can fill me in on great music ideas. I will not be at a loss for music once the XM trial expires in March. Thank goodness XM doesn't have a credit card number for me anymore to renew me without permission.
My iPhone is the free link to a much broader spectrum than XM radio. I have Pandora and CBC Radio free apps on my iPhone--and I'm sure I could find more. Since I've expanded my contacts on Twitter to more music-related forums--I know I can dig around my Twitter contacts for ideas for music. I am not at a loss for expanding my musical universe. And there's always the good folks I know at Trade Root Music who can fill me in on great music ideas. I will not be at a loss for music once the XM trial expires in March. Thank goodness XM doesn't have a credit card number for me anymore to renew me without permission.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A New Old Citizenship
When I attended McKnight Middle School in Renton back in the early 1980's, my report card gave other grades besides performance. One of those other grades was "citizenship." I wasn't exactly sure what that meant and how one teacher who saw me for a few hours per week (and worked hard to keep me occupied and learning) could observe my life as a citizen, let alone give me a grade. I think even the most self-aware of my classmates could attach this grade to behavior rather than performance. After leaving McKnight, I never saw this grade for citizenship again.
I once had very high and positive expectations for President Obama--though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "hope." Though I've always had interest and passion about politics, I never held an illusion that politics and politicians were a place to invest the energy of hope. For me, party politics has sunk to a new low. I've haven't taken well to the two-party system in the United States since my college days, and the actions of Democrats and Republicans in my adult life have not inspired me to draw any closer to political life outside of being an educated voter. It's hard to advocate for misguided or power hungry leadership.
However, I am still a citizen of the State of Washington and the United States. I am not required to support a political party to be a citizen. To be a good citizen, I can participate in public life, independent of decisions of Republicans and Democrats--to make lives better for my family and other people. Ideology does not come in to play. Democrats or Republicans will not prevent me from volunteering at my daughter's school. I volunteered at my daughter's elementary school last Friday for the first time, and I had an awakening to the meaning of citizenship. I realized that my energy toward Republicans and Democrats was misplaced for all of these years. My energy will be placed toward being a good citizen.
More on this topic later--but today I had to make a proclamation of a personal investment in a new old citizenship.
I once had very high and positive expectations for President Obama--though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "hope." Though I've always had interest and passion about politics, I never held an illusion that politics and politicians were a place to invest the energy of hope. For me, party politics has sunk to a new low. I've haven't taken well to the two-party system in the United States since my college days, and the actions of Democrats and Republicans in my adult life have not inspired me to draw any closer to political life outside of being an educated voter. It's hard to advocate for misguided or power hungry leadership.
However, I am still a citizen of the State of Washington and the United States. I am not required to support a political party to be a citizen. To be a good citizen, I can participate in public life, independent of decisions of Republicans and Democrats--to make lives better for my family and other people. Ideology does not come in to play. Democrats or Republicans will not prevent me from volunteering at my daughter's school. I volunteered at my daughter's elementary school last Friday for the first time, and I had an awakening to the meaning of citizenship. I realized that my energy toward Republicans and Democrats was misplaced for all of these years. My energy will be placed toward being a good citizen.
More on this topic later--but today I had to make a proclamation of a personal investment in a new old citizenship.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Satellite Radio vs. Podcasts
During my days of driving the back roads of South Dakota, satellite radio was almost a necessity. In 2003, my cassette player and radio broke down in my 1992 Honda Accord with well over 200K miles. I remember some drives I could pick up 1-2 stations if I was lucky--a Jesus station and a bad country station. I could get NPR news and talk in the morning, but I could only listen to so much classical or jazz music. If I was meeting colleagues in the more desolate areas of the state, I wouldn't get any stations at all. I saved up a little money and took the plunge into satellite radio, which was the wave of the future at the time.
I loved satellite radio so much my brothers and I bought my father one for Christmas one year. I bought and set up satellite radio outlets in my house. Depending on contracts and mergers, it was the best way I could listen to Seahawks, Mariners, Oilers and Kansas Jayhawk games on the radio in the hinterlands of South Dakota, where the Big 10, Vikings, Twins and Wild ruled. I listened to the CBC often in the morning in between sporting events and I had better reception for good college radio music, without the faint signal of an actual college station. The service was well worth the 11 dollars a month I was paying. I had every media outlet I could ever want, and I wasn't tied to a television--so I could multi-task on some of my lower mentally engaging activities. With my long commute, I was engaged and had some good thinking time before arriving at home or at work.
Satellite radio was one of the first services to go when my dear wife and I started to be more sensible and cautious with our money. I missed it a lot, but my iPod and the expanding world of podcasts began to fill the gaps. I didn't have to pay for the podcasts. In canceling my service with XM, I was to receive a refund. I never received it after several inquiries into my account, and I gave up, learning a lesson about satellite radio that cost me about $142.
It turns out that XM/Sirius is quite desperate to get some customers back. I received a letter that my service was reactivated for 3 month--Free. Ha.
Sorting through my piles, I found the documents that pointed to my sizable refund. I called XM and asked them, what gives? You're offering me 3 free months when you didn't offer any customer service with integrity? I was on the precipice of giving up on satellite radio for good, and after 2 agents, I found someone who promised me a check, rather than a credit to my account (I was open to a credit, but I'll take a check).
I agree with Bill Simmons that satellite radio lost its niche with a younger generation when the podcast world expanded. The only folks I see using their satellite radio are elderly folks who purchase higher end new vehicles. This observation is completely subjective and anecdotal, but I hear little if any buzz about satellite radio. I am at least somewhat media savvy.
I think satellite radio is going in the tank. Why would I want to pay approximately $14 per month for a good product when I can get a better product for free on my iPod? Or pay less than than a satellite subscription for equal or better content via iTunes? I control the content on my iPod, whereas XM/Sirius controls the content on their end. What I have appreciated about satellite radio over the years on the music level is that I am introduced to music I may not have considered otherwise. However, as I have become reengaged with media after a little hiatus as a stay at home dad (with my iPhone and Twitter and a little with iLike) I still don't need satellite radio to expand my musical palette. I turned on my satellite radio for three free months, but spending 14 dollars a month for good content isn't a necessary expenditure and borderline foolish.
If anyone else has a satellite radio story, I would love to read about it.
I loved satellite radio so much my brothers and I bought my father one for Christmas one year. I bought and set up satellite radio outlets in my house. Depending on contracts and mergers, it was the best way I could listen to Seahawks, Mariners, Oilers and Kansas Jayhawk games on the radio in the hinterlands of South Dakota, where the Big 10, Vikings, Twins and Wild ruled. I listened to the CBC often in the morning in between sporting events and I had better reception for good college radio music, without the faint signal of an actual college station. The service was well worth the 11 dollars a month I was paying. I had every media outlet I could ever want, and I wasn't tied to a television--so I could multi-task on some of my lower mentally engaging activities. With my long commute, I was engaged and had some good thinking time before arriving at home or at work.
Satellite radio was one of the first services to go when my dear wife and I started to be more sensible and cautious with our money. I missed it a lot, but my iPod and the expanding world of podcasts began to fill the gaps. I didn't have to pay for the podcasts. In canceling my service with XM, I was to receive a refund. I never received it after several inquiries into my account, and I gave up, learning a lesson about satellite radio that cost me about $142.
It turns out that XM/Sirius is quite desperate to get some customers back. I received a letter that my service was reactivated for 3 month--Free. Ha.
Sorting through my piles, I found the documents that pointed to my sizable refund. I called XM and asked them, what gives? You're offering me 3 free months when you didn't offer any customer service with integrity? I was on the precipice of giving up on satellite radio for good, and after 2 agents, I found someone who promised me a check, rather than a credit to my account (I was open to a credit, but I'll take a check).
I agree with Bill Simmons that satellite radio lost its niche with a younger generation when the podcast world expanded. The only folks I see using their satellite radio are elderly folks who purchase higher end new vehicles. This observation is completely subjective and anecdotal, but I hear little if any buzz about satellite radio. I am at least somewhat media savvy.
I think satellite radio is going in the tank. Why would I want to pay approximately $14 per month for a good product when I can get a better product for free on my iPod? Or pay less than than a satellite subscription for equal or better content via iTunes? I control the content on my iPod, whereas XM/Sirius controls the content on their end. What I have appreciated about satellite radio over the years on the music level is that I am introduced to music I may not have considered otherwise. However, as I have become reengaged with media after a little hiatus as a stay at home dad (with my iPhone and Twitter and a little with iLike) I still don't need satellite radio to expand my musical palette. I turned on my satellite radio for three free months, but spending 14 dollars a month for good content isn't a necessary expenditure and borderline foolish.
If anyone else has a satellite radio story, I would love to read about it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Attempting to figure out my degree of disgust
My dear wife and I are working through season two of Mad Men. It took her a little longer to get hooked than I did. I think the writing on the show constitutes true story telling, at least the way I was taught. A story involves change in a character. The twists and turns in Don Drapers life and the changes he endures makes the story fascinating, regardless of his skewed moral compass. Peggy is also an interesting character in that sense.
Fine storytelling aside, there are some aspects to the stories in Mad Men that are challenging to watch. Some reflect "old-fashioned values," other values reflected:
+ Blatant sexism--though it is a heroic storyline to watch what Peggy encounters as she makes her way through the advertising world.
+ Smoking cigarettes wherever you darn well please without consideration for others.
+ For all the talk about the lack of social graces in today's world, the objectification of women is startling, it only happens in different ways and places today that is certainly not "social grace".
+ No social stigma for marital infidelity for a man (Draper is known as a "connoisseur" of women).
+ Alcohol consumption during work hours was no big deal.
I could go on and on, but I was most disgusted by another "old-fashioned value" in episode four of season 2, when the Draper family shares a picnic, and they actively leave their garbage in the middle of the park. I'm not sure why this scene troubled me the most, but for all of the things I could have screamed at the television related to Mad Men--the litter was the most disgusting. For that action of litter I could come up with no sympathy. What was more interesting is justifying that action with the question of daughter Sally to her parents. "Are we rich?" Soon after that statement, the garbage went flying.
Mad Men constantly makes me wonder what our children will find utterly foolish about our social conventions and values. Some of them truly are foolish, and we will be exposed. I think that is part of the intent of the show--and I find this writing and storytelling more provocative and effective cultural analysis of the 50s and 60s than films like "Welcome To Pleasantville." The characters in Mad Men are much more interesting and the story lines still connect viewers to current societal themes.
Fine storytelling aside, there are some aspects to the stories in Mad Men that are challenging to watch. Some reflect "old-fashioned values," other values reflected:
+ Blatant sexism--though it is a heroic storyline to watch what Peggy encounters as she makes her way through the advertising world.
+ Smoking cigarettes wherever you darn well please without consideration for others.
+ For all the talk about the lack of social graces in today's world, the objectification of women is startling, it only happens in different ways and places today that is certainly not "social grace".
+ No social stigma for marital infidelity for a man (Draper is known as a "connoisseur" of women).
+ Alcohol consumption during work hours was no big deal.
I could go on and on, but I was most disgusted by another "old-fashioned value" in episode four of season 2, when the Draper family shares a picnic, and they actively leave their garbage in the middle of the park. I'm not sure why this scene troubled me the most, but for all of the things I could have screamed at the television related to Mad Men--the litter was the most disgusting. For that action of litter I could come up with no sympathy. What was more interesting is justifying that action with the question of daughter Sally to her parents. "Are we rich?" Soon after that statement, the garbage went flying.
Mad Men constantly makes me wonder what our children will find utterly foolish about our social conventions and values. Some of them truly are foolish, and we will be exposed. I think that is part of the intent of the show--and I find this writing and storytelling more provocative and effective cultural analysis of the 50s and 60s than films like "Welcome To Pleasantville." The characters in Mad Men are much more interesting and the story lines still connect viewers to current societal themes.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
When I thought I couldn't hear anything interesting about Tiger Woods
It took me two days of Tiger Woods coverage since November to gloss over any comment about him. Analysts and reporters struggle to say anything new and interesting--and many of these same folks are actually intelligent.
Once again, Chuck Klosterman breaks the mold. In his December 21st podcast interview with ESPN's Bill Simmons, Simmons asks for a different angle, and Klosterman delivers. I am weary of sports, PR, and news folks saying that Woods needs to come forward. This proclamation is boring and unoriginal. The interview is great dealing with Woods, but the entire two-part podcast is worth your while (as if I could say anything different about Klosterman).
Klosterman says that two things could change the public perception of Tiger Woods at this point. One is that if stories came out saying that Woods did generous things for his mistresses, like pay for their chemotherapy. Two, that Tiger Woods go completely in the opposite direction of his current intensely private public persona and become like Charles Barkley, where he comments on everything and become this gregarious, joke-cracking guy who comments on race, politics and sports. I think this seems unlikely, but intriguing. Barkley has his detractors, but generally he is loved by many, even if people don't agree with him. His recent problems with DUI arrests haven't taken away people's affection for him, because he is at least authentic. I think it also helps that Sir Charles is funny. I find Klosterman's take on Woods interesting, because I find that the typical call for Woods to go public (usually the preferred strategy is to appear on Oprah) is a retread of any public figure path when they commit any type of indiscretion. This typical path is boring, and it's not really a story.
During my studies in creative writing in college, one of my professors said that what makes a story is the revelation of change in a character. Without change, there is no story, there's only a description or a report. I suppose that Tiger Woods doesn't have to change for the sake of a story, but I do find stories much more interesting than mere reports. Klosterman turned a series of reports and analysis into the prospect for a compelling human story. That angle from Klosterman, should it or any similar variant, come true, would make the Tiger Woods story interesting.
Once again, Chuck Klosterman breaks the mold. In his December 21st podcast interview with ESPN's Bill Simmons, Simmons asks for a different angle, and Klosterman delivers. I am weary of sports, PR, and news folks saying that Woods needs to come forward. This proclamation is boring and unoriginal. The interview is great dealing with Woods, but the entire two-part podcast is worth your while (as if I could say anything different about Klosterman).
Klosterman says that two things could change the public perception of Tiger Woods at this point. One is that if stories came out saying that Woods did generous things for his mistresses, like pay for their chemotherapy. Two, that Tiger Woods go completely in the opposite direction of his current intensely private public persona and become like Charles Barkley, where he comments on everything and become this gregarious, joke-cracking guy who comments on race, politics and sports. I think this seems unlikely, but intriguing. Barkley has his detractors, but generally he is loved by many, even if people don't agree with him. His recent problems with DUI arrests haven't taken away people's affection for him, because he is at least authentic. I think it also helps that Sir Charles is funny. I find Klosterman's take on Woods interesting, because I find that the typical call for Woods to go public (usually the preferred strategy is to appear on Oprah) is a retread of any public figure path when they commit any type of indiscretion. This typical path is boring, and it's not really a story.
During my studies in creative writing in college, one of my professors said that what makes a story is the revelation of change in a character. Without change, there is no story, there's only a description or a report. I suppose that Tiger Woods doesn't have to change for the sake of a story, but I do find stories much more interesting than mere reports. Klosterman turned a series of reports and analysis into the prospect for a compelling human story. That angle from Klosterman, should it or any similar variant, come true, would make the Tiger Woods story interesting.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Football, music, and my evolving relationship with coffee (part 8)
I recently accounted for Daughter #2's assertive calls for particular songs. Stephen Colbert is probably the favorite now. The other night we had some good friends over to our home for a little surf and turf. We thanked them for being on our team of hospice respite caregivers for our late dog, Hunter. While playing some music to enhance the festivities, Daughter #2 had to chime in for her own requests. It was easier to heed those requests. Once we made it through most of her own personal play list, she made another request, a bit far afield from the usual songs. I didn't understand what she was saying, until I discovered she wasn't asking for a song at all. She asked for the "College Football Podcast." I wonder who taught her to listen to that?
Also from the "where did she get that?" file, we were shopping at Fred Meyer yesterday, and Daughter #2 had the privilege of riding in a shopping cart/toy bus. She extends her neck out of the bus window and shouts, "I NEED and iced mocha!" I had a hard time containing my laughter thinking of her observing me trying to keep my energy up while taking on my new work life. I've had way more coffee than I'd ever imagined I would drink, and at least enough for Daughter #2 to engage in her own brand of mockery. The folks in Fred Meyer weren't exactly sure what she was saying, but someone told me she's getting early training as a Pacific Northwesterner with coffee acumen.
Also from the "where did she get that?" file, we were shopping at Fred Meyer yesterday, and Daughter #2 had the privilege of riding in a shopping cart/toy bus. She extends her neck out of the bus window and shouts, "I NEED and iced mocha!" I had a hard time containing my laughter thinking of her observing me trying to keep my energy up while taking on my new work life. I've had way more coffee than I'd ever imagined I would drink, and at least enough for Daughter #2 to engage in her own brand of mockery. The folks in Fred Meyer weren't exactly sure what she was saying, but someone told me she's getting early training as a Pacific Northwesterner with coffee acumen.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Waiting for Klosterman
I have a short list of authors whose books (in various genres) I would buy soon after release, in hardcover, and possibly at regular price (but with Amazon, this is foolish).
1. Chuck Klosterman
2. Douglas Coupland
3. Bill Bryson
4. James Wellman
5. Nancy Ammerman
Klosterman makes great appearances on Bill Simmons' B.S. Report Podcast at ESPN.com. Pastors generally don't get into weddings, but I would have loved to officiate at Klosterman's wedding. He tells about the event in his October B.S. Report podcast interview. My favorite part was the music at the reception done by an ELO tribute band. That would have been AMAZING. If money was no expense, I imagine that my wife might have enjoyed an ABBA tribute band at our wedding reception, maybe someone like Bjorn Again. I'm considering taking her to one of their shows in the Puget Sound region.
I ordered Klosterman's new release Eating The Dinosaur and should cruise through it in a few days, probably wanting more, and wishing Klosterman would blog, tweet, something. He has great material, but my voracious web appetite leaves my expectations too high, thus he is able to get me to buy a hardcover copy of his book. Nice move on Chuck's part, he can get people to pay for his content, while Bill Simmons writes about stuff I can't care about anymore, the NBA. I hope he enjoys his book tour--at least he stuck up for the Seattle Sonics.
1. Chuck Klosterman
2. Douglas Coupland
3. Bill Bryson
4. James Wellman
5. Nancy Ammerman
Klosterman makes great appearances on Bill Simmons' B.S. Report Podcast at ESPN.com. Pastors generally don't get into weddings, but I would have loved to officiate at Klosterman's wedding. He tells about the event in his October B.S. Report podcast interview. My favorite part was the music at the reception done by an ELO tribute band. That would have been AMAZING. If money was no expense, I imagine that my wife might have enjoyed an ABBA tribute band at our wedding reception, maybe someone like Bjorn Again. I'm considering taking her to one of their shows in the Puget Sound region.
I ordered Klosterman's new release Eating The Dinosaur and should cruise through it in a few days, probably wanting more, and wishing Klosterman would blog, tweet, something. He has great material, but my voracious web appetite leaves my expectations too high, thus he is able to get me to buy a hardcover copy of his book. Nice move on Chuck's part, he can get people to pay for his content, while Bill Simmons writes about stuff I can't care about anymore, the NBA. I hope he enjoys his book tour--at least he stuck up for the Seattle Sonics.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The fun and joy of college football
This is one of the reasons I enjoy college football.
Of course one could complain about the resources wasted on bottled water, or that football is a game that causes brain injuries (something I still attempt to reconcile in my somewhat healthy brain), but sometimes it's really fun to watch Nebraska lose, and to see a jubilant team see the fruits of their labors and that team work really matters. I'm with Pat Forde from ESPN--this is a great celebration for college football.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Forget Limbaugh and Olbermann, the comedians are a lot closer to reality
The United States is sitting at a high level of anxiety if political commentary screamers have the most power. They're only accountable to their own power bases, and not to the general public. The louder they scream, the higher ratings they get. What greater good is served in watching/reading/listening to already agreed upon commentary?
I enjoyed Saturday Night Live's take on Obama's presidency, even if PolitiFact gives Obama a little slack on some of Obama's promises lampooned on SNL. What I like about PolitiFact is that it steers clear of ideological based critique and hold Obama accountable for what he said he was going to do--which is much more interesting and at least more objective than ideological screaming heads like Olbermann, Beck and their ilk.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Is it worn-out language? Will it be worn-out language? Snarky
The word "snark" anecdotally has picked up steam in public discourse. Keith Law calls himself a "deliverer of snark." One of my favorite twitter feeds is SnarkyJesus. Keith and SnarkyJesus have a following because of their snarkacious abilities.
I have to admit, I like the word snarky. I'm not sure I like snarky as a general posture or attitude. I like how Keith Law tends to use it for instances when he receives a statement that has little or no thought behind it. I'm not sure snark inspires growth in the snarkee, but in this newly expanded idea of "all the world's indeed a stage (imagining Geddy Lee rockin' out to one of my favorite songs of all time, Limelight)," I enjoy watching someone get snarked. If I receive snark, it needs a foundation in thought to be enjoyable.
Hard to tell what the shelf life of this word will be. Time to go read some Keith Law for my Recommended Daily Allowance of snark today.
I have to admit, I like the word snarky. I'm not sure I like snarky as a general posture or attitude. I like how Keith Law tends to use it for instances when he receives a statement that has little or no thought behind it. I'm not sure snark inspires growth in the snarkee, but in this newly expanded idea of "all the world's indeed a stage (imagining Geddy Lee rockin' out to one of my favorite songs of all time, Limelight)," I enjoy watching someone get snarked. If I receive snark, it needs a foundation in thought to be enjoyable.
Hard to tell what the shelf life of this word will be. Time to go read some Keith Law for my Recommended Daily Allowance of snark today.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Worn out language (September 30, 2009 edition) "No question"
This worn out language catch phrase has a limited scope, but it's a doozy. Sports talking heads get so passionate sometimes about a topic that they lose their ability to work with the English language. Granted, the talking heads are a step above grunting, which is a layman sporting fan's response of choice.
I am amazed how a quickly a sporting catch phrase explodes in usage, then turns into droning. This happened a few years ago with the term "thrown under the bus," a phrase referencing that a sin of disloyalty had been committed. The phrase quickly became the hyperbole of choice in sports talk, which is also prone to happen in any testosterone-driven verbal exchange. Watching the movie "Patton" with my Dad as a child was my first encounter with this kind of conversation. The great thing about the screenwriters for Patton was that George C. Scott was given a variety of testosterone-driven hyperbole that was enjoyable. Sports talking heads just drive phrases into the ground until intolerable.
Such is the case with the phrase "no question." This is a testosteronic method of declaring a statement of fact or opinion that should be considered on a higher level of truth--such a high level of truth that it can't be debated. Sometimes that level of affirmation about a theory is warranted, but the talking heads can't be selective with this high level of truth. Their analysis hit the airwaves, and immediately vaults itself to a higher level of truth.
"Brett Favre looks good in a Vikings' jersey. I think purple is his color."
"Oh, NO QUESTION!"
"Hey, pass the cheese curds."
I hope the over use of the term gets called to account by sports broadcasting leadership soon. I'm sure they don't care that I'm turning off my radio or skipping the podcast.
I am amazed how a quickly a sporting catch phrase explodes in usage, then turns into droning. This happened a few years ago with the term "thrown under the bus," a phrase referencing that a sin of disloyalty had been committed. The phrase quickly became the hyperbole of choice in sports talk, which is also prone to happen in any testosterone-driven verbal exchange. Watching the movie "Patton" with my Dad as a child was my first encounter with this kind of conversation. The great thing about the screenwriters for Patton was that George C. Scott was given a variety of testosterone-driven hyperbole that was enjoyable. Sports talking heads just drive phrases into the ground until intolerable.
Such is the case with the phrase "no question." This is a testosteronic method of declaring a statement of fact or opinion that should be considered on a higher level of truth--such a high level of truth that it can't be debated. Sometimes that level of affirmation about a theory is warranted, but the talking heads can't be selective with this high level of truth. Their analysis hit the airwaves, and immediately vaults itself to a higher level of truth.
"Brett Favre looks good in a Vikings' jersey. I think purple is his color."
"Oh, NO QUESTION!"
"Hey, pass the cheese curds."
I hope the over use of the term gets called to account by sports broadcasting leadership soon. I'm sure they don't care that I'm turning off my radio or skipping the podcast.
Monday, September 28, 2009
For all you Mariner fans out there...this is fun
I know Dave Niehaus is not at the same level as in earlier days, but this call is a reminder of why Dave is so awesome. I want Kevin Calabro in the booth eventually, but this is vintage Dave, and I don't want him to go. He's a Pacific Northwest classic and a baseball legend.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Beck may be "arguing with idiots," but doesn't exactly encourage intelligence
I don't waste a lot of time reading or watching Glenn Beck. I don't understand why a public event protected by free speech needs to be stopped.
Thousands will gather today in Seattle and Mount Vernon to hear and meet a man who is puzzling in his vitriol at best and maniacally foolish at his worst. I don't understand the petition to cancel his appearance in Mount Vernon. People are free to protest his appearance, but seeking cancellation? I suppose Beck is broadly adept at attracting foolishness--which means I should never write about him again.
Thousands will gather today in Seattle and Mount Vernon to hear and meet a man who is puzzling in his vitriol at best and maniacally foolish at his worst. I don't understand the petition to cancel his appearance in Mount Vernon. People are free to protest his appearance, but seeking cancellation? I suppose Beck is broadly adept at attracting foolishness--which means I should never write about him again.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
This Show Stinks: Mr. Tony is back on the radio, boys and girls!
After listening to Tony Kornheiser on the B.S. Report podcast last week, I learned that after leaving Monday Night Football and the Washington Post, Mr. Tony is back on the radio. I am glad for this. I have completely gorged myself on local sports radio this summer. And though I generally like the local radio personalities, especially Kevin Calabro, Mike Salk and Brock Huard, with a smattering of the KJR personalities if I can't stand what's going on with the other guys. I can't say that I feel more intelligent after I listen to my local sports pundits, but they provide the background conversation to some chores where I need to concentrate--and I love the daily rhythm of baseball in the summertime for which the radio is a great companion.
Kornheiser is different than most sports pundits. Like Colin Cowherd and Keith Law, I feel a little smarter after partaking of his material. He doesn't confine himself to game breakdown or emotionally fanatic rants about a particular team--he brings in his own cultural niche. Cowherd appeals to his target demographic in a smart way with cultural features other than sports. Keith Law also comments on books and food/cooking/restaurants. Mr. Tony hits politics, relationships, movies, news, a little pop culture, a little feature called "Old Guy Radio," and sports, in no particular order.
The show announced that the iTunes link is not quite working yet, so here is a link to listen to Mr. Tony. I'm looking forward to listening to this on my commute or in the office when I'm doing the more mindless section of work as a pastor.
If you don't know anything about Tony Kornheiser on the radio, just know this: THIS SHOW STINKS. It stinks.
Kornheiser is different than most sports pundits. Like Colin Cowherd and Keith Law, I feel a little smarter after partaking of his material. He doesn't confine himself to game breakdown or emotionally fanatic rants about a particular team--he brings in his own cultural niche. Cowherd appeals to his target demographic in a smart way with cultural features other than sports. Keith Law also comments on books and food/cooking/restaurants. Mr. Tony hits politics, relationships, movies, news, a little pop culture, a little feature called "Old Guy Radio," and sports, in no particular order.
The show announced that the iTunes link is not quite working yet, so here is a link to listen to Mr. Tony. I'm looking forward to listening to this on my commute or in the office when I'm doing the more mindless section of work as a pastor.
If you don't know anything about Tony Kornheiser on the radio, just know this: THIS SHOW STINKS. It stinks.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
What is "white culture"?
Once before I have referenced the oddity that is Glenn Beck--not nearly as many times as Keith Olbermann--but I don't need to beat a dead horse in order to get people to watch my show. Olbermann beats up on Beck to help his ratings. Beck does the same kind of thing, but Beck sometimes adds tears.
Beck is on his way back to the Northwest, returning to a town of his youth. Beck was not a controversial figure in South Dakota because many people share his perspectives on the world. But in the Northwest, Beck will often be vilified, and some folks in Mount Vernon, Washington are angry about a Glenn Beck Day in Mount Vernon. One of his more recent controversies involves calling Barack Obama a racist and hold a desire to dismantle "white culture."
Regardless of whether someone believes Obama to be racist, or whether his leadership is detrimental to the country, my question is what is "white culture?" An who is white? Are Italians considered white? How about Greeks? Does one have to be completely white, like a native, but non-aboriginal Norwegian? If all of these aforementioned cultures are grouped as white, then what monolithic "white culture" do you have? If there is a white culture, I'm not sure how I participate or influence white culture. Please Mr. Beck, help me understand.
One of my favorite blogs is "Stuff White People Like." The Canadian author Christian Lander is not necessarily proclaiming a white culture per se, but identifies proclivities that are hard to deny. Race, culture and skin color aren't interchangeable words, and to call Obama a racist attempting to dismantle white culture is a poor choice of concepts to criticize Obama's body of work.
But hey, Beck gets the ratings.
Beck is on his way back to the Northwest, returning to a town of his youth. Beck was not a controversial figure in South Dakota because many people share his perspectives on the world. But in the Northwest, Beck will often be vilified, and some folks in Mount Vernon, Washington are angry about a Glenn Beck Day in Mount Vernon. One of his more recent controversies involves calling Barack Obama a racist and hold a desire to dismantle "white culture."
Regardless of whether someone believes Obama to be racist, or whether his leadership is detrimental to the country, my question is what is "white culture?" An who is white? Are Italians considered white? How about Greeks? Does one have to be completely white, like a native, but non-aboriginal Norwegian? If all of these aforementioned cultures are grouped as white, then what monolithic "white culture" do you have? If there is a white culture, I'm not sure how I participate or influence white culture. Please Mr. Beck, help me understand.
One of my favorite blogs is "Stuff White People Like." The Canadian author Christian Lander is not necessarily proclaiming a white culture per se, but identifies proclivities that are hard to deny. Race, culture and skin color aren't interchangeable words, and to call Obama a racist attempting to dismantle white culture is a poor choice of concepts to criticize Obama's body of work.
But hey, Beck gets the ratings.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
An interesting global warming link
If you do not follow my posts regularly, you may have missed my links to Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington, Cliff Mass. He makes atmospheric science not only accessible, but in a presentation that defies hype and hysteria, while also giving us lay readers something to think about.
His recent posts on global warming have received a bevy of responses, to which he responds with further data. This post shows that the most recent weather events don't reveal a trend, but the general trend is still warmer, and that CO2 output has mattered. He strikes me as a responsible scientist.
His recent posts on global warming have received a bevy of responses, to which he responds with further data. This post shows that the most recent weather events don't reveal a trend, but the general trend is still warmer, and that CO2 output has mattered. He strikes me as a responsible scientist.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Preaching for August 23, 2009
Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18
Psalm 34:15-22
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69
Once again, I am skipping over the bread imagery in John 6. Since a significant majority of Lutheran pastors I know preach on the Gospel lesson somewhere near 90 percent of the time or more, I'm guessing that any congregation where I preach to give a pastor a break will have already heard about Jesus and bread imagery ad nauseum.
I'm not enamored with the image of the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians, either. I understand the good connections with this imagery, like preparation and struggle for a community in the Christian life. However, I think this passage was almost ruined for me as it has been used in connection with a reason for military build up. I once associated this quote with Ronald Reagan, but I could not find a quote where he directly used this passage. It says something about how fleeting memory can be and that propeganda is subversive. Though the text has its merits, this text represents damaged goods, and I don't think I can preach it faithfully.
As a Lutheran Christian, I have a mixed relationship with this text from Joshua. The text is used as a biblical foundation for a book on marriage by Walt Wangerin. My dear wife and I read this in preparation for our marriage. Though we don't explicitly reference the Wangerin book as part of strengthening our marriage today, the book has some foundational qualities about how the depths of human existence and our relationship with God through that relationship. Our lives are formed by Christian vocation. Almost every decision we make has a relationship to Christian vocation. Therefore, I make a connection between this text and the gift of marriage. Though Joshua is not specifically speaking about marriage in this text, the practical application between God and relationships doesn't appear to be an unfaithful one. The uneasiness with the text comes from weighting the interpretation more toward the choice of Joshua than the action of God. Anyone familiar with Lutheran theology and life knows that generally speaking are uneasy with any proclamation glorifying any choice by humanity--corporate or individual, because human beings are flawed creatures, therefore human choices are fraught with peril. This doesn't mean I feel the need to beat myself down or my fellow human beings, nor do I have to live a jaded life. I am skeptical, however, about trumpeting human choice. The classic text referenced in this idea is from Jesus in John 15: "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
What is a Christian or one considering the Christian life to make of choice? Choice is a buzz word and concept in our day to day life. Think of all the topics upon which choice is debated. Abortion (pro-choice), health care (choice of coverage), war (we have a volunteer armed forces in the United States) reveal that the concept of choice is the fulcrum of many topics of public discourse. The United States economy thrives on the availability of choice. For those who want to expand choices or restrict choices--someone always ends up choosing. Where will the line be drawn for choice? Libertarians seem to thrive in this discussions. Conservatives tend to want to restrict moral choices for the sake of societal morality, liberals tend to want to restrict economic choices for the sake of societal justice. Any restrictions on choice from either end of the continuum, according to Libertarians lead to societal problems as well.
Humans really don't know what to do with choice. I remember reflecting on the philosophy of Neil Peart and his 1980 song, "Freewill". I loved the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I didn't ponder this song so much theologically as a teenager--though I recognized it had theological ramifications, my epiphany was that my choices had consequences, and that not choosing was a choice in itself. I still ponder that idea today, and that pondering is made more cool by one of my favorite bass solos by Geddy Lee (or of any bass player) of all time.
After returning from living in Denmark for a year, I remember the shock over returning to an American retail establishment and being overwhelmed by the amount of choice. I missed having some choices while living there, but I also saw that choice can be crippling. Is choice the source of goodness in the world? I wasn't so sure.
With one more year of seminary and a new congregational ministry call, I was able to place some deeper theological context on my reflections on choice. In my first congregation in Wisconsin I realized my shallowness of knowledge in Lutheran theology by grappling with the notion of choice to the point of foolishly saying that humans really had no choice at all--an idea I quickly retracted when I realized the ramifications of that line of thinking. But I recognized that choice is tenuous--in terms of human relationship with God, Luther called this "the bondage of the will." Some people in my congregation recognized my theological grappling, and took up with me the discussion about free will and whether it exists on any level. I had one intelligent person write me a paper on his argument against Luther's "Bondage of the Will." I deeply admired the fact he respected me enough to gather his thoughts, share them with me in a coherent fashion, and valued his faith enough that this was a good investment of his time and energy.
At best I can say that choice is tenuous, and that Joshua is really stating that we need to look at the work of God in the biblical witness and our own lives and compare that work with the other paths and gods. Choice may be tenuous--but God is faithful.
Is this Gospel? If so, will it preach? Usually I know this by this point of the sermon preparation, but at this point, I am under some pressure, I have the ubiquitous sermon title to create. Even if I choose not to choose a sermon title, I still have made a choice.
Psalm 34:15-22
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69
Once again, I am skipping over the bread imagery in John 6. Since a significant majority of Lutheran pastors I know preach on the Gospel lesson somewhere near 90 percent of the time or more, I'm guessing that any congregation where I preach to give a pastor a break will have already heard about Jesus and bread imagery ad nauseum.
I'm not enamored with the image of the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians, either. I understand the good connections with this imagery, like preparation and struggle for a community in the Christian life. However, I think this passage was almost ruined for me as it has been used in connection with a reason for military build up. I once associated this quote with Ronald Reagan, but I could not find a quote where he directly used this passage. It says something about how fleeting memory can be and that propeganda is subversive. Though the text has its merits, this text represents damaged goods, and I don't think I can preach it faithfully.
As a Lutheran Christian, I have a mixed relationship with this text from Joshua. The text is used as a biblical foundation for a book on marriage by Walt Wangerin. My dear wife and I read this in preparation for our marriage. Though we don't explicitly reference the Wangerin book as part of strengthening our marriage today, the book has some foundational qualities about how the depths of human existence and our relationship with God through that relationship. Our lives are formed by Christian vocation. Almost every decision we make has a relationship to Christian vocation. Therefore, I make a connection between this text and the gift of marriage. Though Joshua is not specifically speaking about marriage in this text, the practical application between God and relationships doesn't appear to be an unfaithful one. The uneasiness with the text comes from weighting the interpretation more toward the choice of Joshua than the action of God. Anyone familiar with Lutheran theology and life knows that generally speaking are uneasy with any proclamation glorifying any choice by humanity--corporate or individual, because human beings are flawed creatures, therefore human choices are fraught with peril. This doesn't mean I feel the need to beat myself down or my fellow human beings, nor do I have to live a jaded life. I am skeptical, however, about trumpeting human choice. The classic text referenced in this idea is from Jesus in John 15: "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
What is a Christian or one considering the Christian life to make of choice? Choice is a buzz word and concept in our day to day life. Think of all the topics upon which choice is debated. Abortion (pro-choice), health care (choice of coverage), war (we have a volunteer armed forces in the United States) reveal that the concept of choice is the fulcrum of many topics of public discourse. The United States economy thrives on the availability of choice. For those who want to expand choices or restrict choices--someone always ends up choosing. Where will the line be drawn for choice? Libertarians seem to thrive in this discussions. Conservatives tend to want to restrict moral choices for the sake of societal morality, liberals tend to want to restrict economic choices for the sake of societal justice. Any restrictions on choice from either end of the continuum, according to Libertarians lead to societal problems as well.
Humans really don't know what to do with choice. I remember reflecting on the philosophy of Neil Peart and his 1980 song, "Freewill". I loved the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I didn't ponder this song so much theologically as a teenager--though I recognized it had theological ramifications, my epiphany was that my choices had consequences, and that not choosing was a choice in itself. I still ponder that idea today, and that pondering is made more cool by one of my favorite bass solos by Geddy Lee (or of any bass player) of all time.
After returning from living in Denmark for a year, I remember the shock over returning to an American retail establishment and being overwhelmed by the amount of choice. I missed having some choices while living there, but I also saw that choice can be crippling. Is choice the source of goodness in the world? I wasn't so sure.
With one more year of seminary and a new congregational ministry call, I was able to place some deeper theological context on my reflections on choice. In my first congregation in Wisconsin I realized my shallowness of knowledge in Lutheran theology by grappling with the notion of choice to the point of foolishly saying that humans really had no choice at all--an idea I quickly retracted when I realized the ramifications of that line of thinking. But I recognized that choice is tenuous--in terms of human relationship with God, Luther called this "the bondage of the will." Some people in my congregation recognized my theological grappling, and took up with me the discussion about free will and whether it exists on any level. I had one intelligent person write me a paper on his argument against Luther's "Bondage of the Will." I deeply admired the fact he respected me enough to gather his thoughts, share them with me in a coherent fashion, and valued his faith enough that this was a good investment of his time and energy.
At best I can say that choice is tenuous, and that Joshua is really stating that we need to look at the work of God in the biblical witness and our own lives and compare that work with the other paths and gods. Choice may be tenuous--but God is faithful.
Is this Gospel? If so, will it preach? Usually I know this by this point of the sermon preparation, but at this point, I am under some pressure, I have the ubiquitous sermon title to create. Even if I choose not to choose a sermon title, I still have made a choice.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
On Sam Harris' book, "Letter to a Christian Nation"
I read Sam Harris' short book "Letter to a Christian Nation" because I wanted to get a feel for neo-atheist writing without having to completely delve into the entire body of work.
I initially learned the name Sam Harris through a bit of a media blitz where either Harris or Christopher Hitchens appeared in book reviews, numerous television discussions on C-Span or public television or the like, and in a feature story in one of my regular print reads, The Christian Century.
I believe that this short book is mostly driven by accessibility, because the people he most hopes will read this tome might be driven away by his work and other writers of his persuasion. Harris doesn't seem to have as much a chip on his shoulder as Hitchens in comparing my exposure to each on television and what little I have read of or about their writing. I can understand why, for them, the stakes for their lifetime is high. The body of evidence points them to know that this life is absolutely it for them, therefore the fundamentalists of the world are on a fast track to destroy the world in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In that sense, Harris is like Bill Maher, religion doesn't make the world better, and if the anti-religionists of the world don't speak out and speak to reason, the world will continue to suffer more than it has based on religion, only exponentially in the future. Maher is much more explicit than Harris in this respect.
The stakes are indeed high for the world and religion in the world. However, I am not a sweet bye and bye person of faith and look to Revelation as a means for interpreting the direction of the world. I believe as a Christian that I am called to do the best I can in this life that God has given me. I let God be concerned with what is going to happen after death. I can only deal with what has been revealed to me. Maybe it is that approach that doesn't produce Harris or Maher levels of anxiety about the current state of the world. I can only do the best I can. My thoughts on religion are what Harris might call a "religious moderate" position. Harris thinks moderates can be more destructive to this world filled with religion than fundamentalists, because moderates help create space for fundamentalists to exist, lead and make decisions on national and world stages that are corrosive to life today. Moderates use mystery as a crutch, and religion comes down to a crux of whether religion is true, and therefore the only real argument is between those that think religion is an illusion and the fundamentalists.
As I haven't read much atheist or neo-atheist writing, I must admit that at times I felt a little defensive reading Harris, because Harris has implicitly labeled me a fool at worst, misguided at best. It's difficult to face critique regarding my understanding, seeking, work and vocation of the last 30 years of my life. My investment level is high. I also find it important to read this kind of work, because in my work, if I can't form coherent thoughts about religion and faith, I will have lost my integrity. Though I don't find myself to be a Christian apologist, my struggle with Harris has forced me to sharpen my thought.
Reading the aforementioned critique in the Christian Century has also helped me recognize some of the holes in Harris' writing. The author is a professor from Georgetown who points out that Harris and Hitchens would not even make a reading list of atheist authors for a class he teaches because these authors merely make lists regarding the evils of religion and write little, if anything, about the consequences of a world without religion. Writing about the evils of religion is shallow, because the body of evidence is wide, and easily taken up by anyone with minimal thought. The classical writers of religionist critique go far deeper in their consideration of a world without religion. I'm guessing I need to read a little Nietzsche in order to ponder the depth of religionist critique rather than merely go wading with Harris.
I initially learned the name Sam Harris through a bit of a media blitz where either Harris or Christopher Hitchens appeared in book reviews, numerous television discussions on C-Span or public television or the like, and in a feature story in one of my regular print reads, The Christian Century.
I believe that this short book is mostly driven by accessibility, because the people he most hopes will read this tome might be driven away by his work and other writers of his persuasion. Harris doesn't seem to have as much a chip on his shoulder as Hitchens in comparing my exposure to each on television and what little I have read of or about their writing. I can understand why, for them, the stakes for their lifetime is high. The body of evidence points them to know that this life is absolutely it for them, therefore the fundamentalists of the world are on a fast track to destroy the world in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In that sense, Harris is like Bill Maher, religion doesn't make the world better, and if the anti-religionists of the world don't speak out and speak to reason, the world will continue to suffer more than it has based on religion, only exponentially in the future. Maher is much more explicit than Harris in this respect.
The stakes are indeed high for the world and religion in the world. However, I am not a sweet bye and bye person of faith and look to Revelation as a means for interpreting the direction of the world. I believe as a Christian that I am called to do the best I can in this life that God has given me. I let God be concerned with what is going to happen after death. I can only deal with what has been revealed to me. Maybe it is that approach that doesn't produce Harris or Maher levels of anxiety about the current state of the world. I can only do the best I can. My thoughts on religion are what Harris might call a "religious moderate" position. Harris thinks moderates can be more destructive to this world filled with religion than fundamentalists, because moderates help create space for fundamentalists to exist, lead and make decisions on national and world stages that are corrosive to life today. Moderates use mystery as a crutch, and religion comes down to a crux of whether religion is true, and therefore the only real argument is between those that think religion is an illusion and the fundamentalists.
As I haven't read much atheist or neo-atheist writing, I must admit that at times I felt a little defensive reading Harris, because Harris has implicitly labeled me a fool at worst, misguided at best. It's difficult to face critique regarding my understanding, seeking, work and vocation of the last 30 years of my life. My investment level is high. I also find it important to read this kind of work, because in my work, if I can't form coherent thoughts about religion and faith, I will have lost my integrity. Though I don't find myself to be a Christian apologist, my struggle with Harris has forced me to sharpen my thought.
Reading the aforementioned critique in the Christian Century has also helped me recognize some of the holes in Harris' writing. The author is a professor from Georgetown who points out that Harris and Hitchens would not even make a reading list of atheist authors for a class he teaches because these authors merely make lists regarding the evils of religion and write little, if anything, about the consequences of a world without religion. Writing about the evils of religion is shallow, because the body of evidence is wide, and easily taken up by anyone with minimal thought. The classical writers of religionist critique go far deeper in their consideration of a world without religion. I'm guessing I need to read a little Nietzsche in order to ponder the depth of religionist critique rather than merely go wading with Harris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
