a broken mold

I recently watched the movie “Snatch”; a movie about a diamond heist, illegal boxing and British gypsies. If that sounds confusing, it was. But what was even more confusing was the movie’s rating. Though this movie was violent, it was not so much so as to warrant the R rating it received, it was the language that brought the movie into those ranks. Why is it necessary to have such foul language in an otherwise PG-13 movie? Does it make the movie more gritty or realistic?

Proverbs says “Out of the thoughts of the heart the mouth speaks.” Now, I agree that there are people out there whose hearts resemble a soiled diaper and who carry it with them in their speech. When we watch movies in which every other word is an F bomb, we are voluntarily feeding ourselves with the contents of the character’s soiled diapers. Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture?

Death. It is a fascinating subject, is it not? And funny, if you like Russian literature. I love Russian literature. Speaking of funny, did you hear about the son of a snack company owner who killed himself? He had tried to make it look like a murder. My guess is he mixed up the natural order of things because he was an idiot. “Hey, chubby, you’re suppose to commit a murder, then make it look like suicide! Not the other way around!” The question is, why is this funny? Why do people naturally laugh at this kind of thing? The fat man is dead! That’s not meant to be funny! But it is.

Here is the point. Human beings have a natural, though morbid, fascination with death. Why does the government want euthanasia? They want to kill, but they want to do it with a murder label across there face. Stalin had no problem with this label, and sported it in gold lettering on every occasion. That should tell us something. Being fascinated with death is a pass time for people like Stalin and our government, meaning, not for rational, Christian, thinking people. Now, now, I know that every Christian looks forward to that day when we die and are “present with the Lord,” and that’s all well and good, but having a love affair with black, rotting, corpses is wrong. All this to say I hate Tim Burton. Yes, hate.

Now you see where I’m going! I know your first thought was, “I’m not all that into death. What is his problem?” The truth is, you are that into death. Yes you are.

Question 1: Do you think the story in the first paragraph is funny, sick, or sad?

Correct answer: funny and sad… Your answer: sick.

Question 2: Are you angry that I speak of death in such a blunt manner?

Correct answer: You’re weird… Your answer: I don’t like to talk about death.

That’s enough; point made. If you are the one who feels “icky” when talking about the natural process of life called “death,” then you have a morbid fear of death. Not a fear of dieing, a fear of death. The correct view of death is the escape of being fascinated by it, either in fear or admiration. Think of it as what it is, the end of one life and the beginning of another. It’s really just another part of living. Equate a funeral to a wedding. They really are the same thing, except with different ways of expressing emotion.

In conclusion, Don’t worry about death, and don’t look at it with puppy dog eyes. Look at it as a cool thing everybody gets to do once, like getting married, hitting puberty, and loosing your teeth! By far, loosing your teeth seems to be the most unpleasant. And if some weirdo dies in a weird way, don’t hesitate to laugh at the irony. It’s a sign that your cultured.

Before I begin, a disclaimer: any view I write can not be blamed on me even though it is completely my responsibility. I disclaimed it, so it’s true. Deal with it. Anyways, moving on, I, the sarcastic narcissist, the hating red-head, the Irish Romanian, have decided to rant about hockey, Canadian hockey.

“Canada’s top Olympic official sees no reason to worry about the women’s hockey team’s beer-swigging, cigar-smoking celebration of its gold-medal victory over the U.S. team.” says VANCOUVER, British Columbia. (AP)

First off, I just want to say how I appreciate the fact that they don’t worry over hockey-women, who are masculine already, and the fact that they swig beer and smoke cigars. So… why did this make news? Why does any of the Olympics make news anyways? Sure, it’s entertaining to see girls smash each others’ teeth out with a stick, but why report it on televised news when everyone had already it on televised programs. “Just in case you didn’t see it the first time, let’s show it again with back story.” I hate mainstream media almost as much as I hate Canadian hockey chicks! Why would girls do that? Don’t they know they look like men when they wear those big suits?

And another thing, why are all the headlines in Bulgaria about women’s hockey? You’d think they could talk about their pollution, their communism, their stupidity, anything! But nooo! They have to focus on meaningless news and pretend it’s okay. At least this post has a purpose. It’s to rant. Mission accomplished.

So, yes, that was a while ago. Let’s move on to “current events.” Like the health care thing. It passed, right, or it’s about to? Same thing applies. It will not—but should I say it? I guess I already have—MATTER! So we’re more Socialist than we were yesterday. Big deal. Why make news out of it? We know we’re becoming the new Nazi party; stop telling us the step by step updates. It has no purpose. If I were to write news, and I don’t, I would only tell news when there was news to tell. That is probably why I would be out of a job in minutes.

So, that was my rant for the evening. I’ll expect that I offended at least one poor Bulgarian. Just remember; I disclaimed, therefore I’m safe… right?

I love Adblock Plus. Nearly everywhere I go on the web is stripped of mildly distracting to suicidally obnoxious advertisements because of this fabulous Firefox add-on.

The downside? Ars Technica hit on it in a recent article¹: you (all those adblocking types out there) and I are harming the sites we love.

There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won’t hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Because we are a technology site, we have a very large base of ad blockers. Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn’t pay. In a way, that’s what ad blocking is doing to us. Just like a restaurant, we have to pay to staff, we have to pay for resources, and we have to pay when people consume those resources. The difference, of course, is that our visitors don’t pay us directly but indirectly by viewing advertising.

Perhaps you feel guilty now. Fear not; you may easily make redress to these sites, read on. Ken Fisher of Ars continues:

My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We’ve all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.

If you read a site and care about its well being, then you should not block ads (or you subscribe to sites like Ars that offer ads-free versions of the site). If a site has advertising you don’t agree with, don’t go there. I think it is far better to vote with page views than to show up and consume resources without giving anything in return. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. People talk about how annoying advertisments are, but I’ll tell you what: it’s a lot more annoying and frustrating to have to cut staff and cut benefits because a huge portion of readers block ads. Yet I’ve seen that happen at dozens of great sites over the last few years, Ars included.

I agree heartily. This is not something I’ve thought about but it clicked and persuaded me right off the bat. I very much love certain websites, so now Adblock Plus is turned off when visiting these sites. A few ads is a small price to pay for what these sites give freely. Ars also presented this in a very gracious manner, which I think is key. They alerted readers about the issue, politely asked them to consider  unblocking their site and then left it at civilized discussion. They also made clear in the comments their policy with their advertisers not to run any ads with non user-initiated sound, flashing ads, or ones that fly out over the text.

In this issue, I believe reason can easily be shown on the side of both the site and its viewers resulting in mutual benefit. This is the sort of company-viewer relationship I like to see on the internet and it goes to show that big publishers don’t have to be faceless and brazen—the same goes for its customers and consumers.

That being said and done, the rest of the web remains clear and clean for me. The sites I stumble over in my daily browsing do not have my loyalty and so shall not have my ad views.

To wrap it up, Ars Technica posted an article soon after the first on just how to allow adverts for certain sites. Read it, add exceptions for your favorite sites, and continue (or begin) to enjoy a better-looking web while supporting sites you love.

This discussion is provoked by and expands a little on what Nathaniel wrote in the last post. He related how we often respond, “Fine,” in answer to “How are you doing?” and how we tend in this way to hide behind a mask and fail to cultivate the sort of beneficial relationship and care for others that is healthy and biblical. So how do we be honest?

I just wrote a paper on Christians and deception, so I’ve thought this over a bit recently. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “Fine,” in response to “How’re you doing?” especially when asked by, say, the grocery store clerk. Most people don’t expect any more than a one-word courtesy answer. But as of late, when any of my friends or acquaintances asks me how I’m doing, I tend to respond more thoughtfully. It may be “I’m pretty tired and unproductive. Hopefully today will be better. How are you?” Or, depending on the person and their interest in encouraging and exhorting me, I might share my struggles and ask for prayer.

There are two basic truths here: speak appropriately to the situation, and be concerned for the welfare of others. In my paper, I came to the conclusion that (shocker) it comes down to heart motives. For example, some falsehoods actually convey a more important truth, as God’s deception of his enemies communicates His justice and truth. When you say that you’d love to have someone over for dinner even though you inwardly chafe at the inconvenience, it communicates that you value their company and wish to bless them; this is as it should be, and there is no need to let them know about your moment of ungodly selfishness. You know better, deal with it, and prepare dinner in the right spirit.

That was rather long-winded, but I’m tired. What I’m trying to say is that the radical honesty approach has its good applications, and its flaws as well. Sometimes we most certainly should not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

As to the second point, let us return to the grocery store example. Or coffee shop. As I mentioned, I have been being more thoughtful in my communications with others, say, when in line for coffee at Bucer’s. (Bucer’s is a Moscow coffee shop, where I get lots of schoolwork done. Really, I do.) But sometimes they weren’t really looking for more than “I’m good,” and sometimes it’s just inconsiderate to dump your stress on someone else. The point is, in your openness and communication, be sure you are seeking to “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29).

Which brings us to what Nat said about finding out what’s happening with others. It can be difficult when they think you’re asking a trite question, but I’ve witnessed many examples of friends showing a sincere interest in the other’s welfare, and it really isn’t that hard to do. When you respond honestly and show an interest in others in your daily conversations, others notice and it benefits everyone. Encourage and sharpen one another (Prov. 27:17).

To wrap up: parents, messy lives, and God. As painful as it can be, I believe it is always best to talk to your parents and work things out. It makes your relationship stronger and enables growth as Christians. Parents are the first sphere of authority set in place by God, and they love you. And life is short. Don’t let relationships fall apart and erode. Don’t let the distance grow. Lives are messy, both ours and others’. Paul wrote as the “chief of sinners” to some new-Testament Christians with terribly messy lives, but God draws straight with crooked lines. Within covenant and communion, we have already overcome the wicked one. Sanctification is a process, but the battle is, in one sense, over.

“Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” — 1 Peter 5:6-11

I watched To Save a Life tonight with some friends at the theatre. It was a very good movie. Not watered down. Plenty of what-the-hell moments for me.

And then when we got home, Ashley, Joella, Elliot and I sat in the car and had some honest discussion.

Which has got me thinking. You know how when everything is wrong in your life and someone asks how you’re doing and you say ‘fine’? You know how you get sick of that lie over and over again and wish you would just say ‘terrible’ when someone asks you?

So what if your life is utterly chaos and despair and you hide it all behind a mask? What then? Where do you begin to recover? How do you break out?

My best guess is just starting with one person and telling them the truth when they ask. But my fear is that when you’d tell one person, you’d have to tell everybody the truth. And then what happens? They tell your parents and your world comes crashing down in a painful talk? That’s not something I want to do.

Or what if you or I started being a lot more honest to everybody? I know there are books about this. “Radical honesty”, I’ve heard the term. I distrust it because I guess it’s psychobabble. But I think there is some power in the truth whether they’re right or wrong. What if we knew what was happening in our friends’ and families’ lives instead of giving trite answers and asking questions we don’t really want to have answered? What if we actually considered that the lives of everybody around us might be just as complicated and messy as ours or even more so?

I know I’m generalizing here, but consider the questions nonetheless, I ask. I know they’re just questions, but hopefully our lives will change, even if little by little, hopefully we’ll slowly find answers to these questions. Maybe there will be different answers. I don’t know. But I do know that I’ve heard that people pay more attention when questions are answered that they already asked, so ask the questions and then we’ll try to find the answers, God help us.

Hello everyone! I’m Anna Hurley, most commonly known as “Matthew’s sister.” I just recently joined this blog, and, being rather technologically impaired, I’ll leave the tech part to other writers and stick with stuff I understand. Without intending to be typical girl here my first post is actually about Jane Austen…I know…surprise! But it may be a bit different take than you might expect so bear me out.

Thoughts on this subject have been mulling around for some while in the deep recesses of my brain, but they really came to a head this weekend. I was up in Moscow visiting my brother hanging out in Bucer’s (of course) and I got in to a discussion with Matthew’s roommate, friend, and Austen-lover Isaac Madsen. Through the course of the discussion he pointed out how much he disliked authors like Charles Dickens and Elizabeth Gaskell, but loved Jane Austen. Perhaps his reasons for disliking them are different than mine, but I know that I have always enjoyed Austen better as well. (I don’t as strongly dislike Dickens though, and I actually enjoy Gaskell). In my opinion, the greatest difference is one of flavor.

Dickens and Gaskell (to a lesser degree) flavor their works with tragedy, sorrow, pain, suffering, despair and overall bleakness. Austen, while tinting her pieces with hints of grief, really has a much more positive and upbeat view of life to the point of possibly bordering on the sentimental. Sentimentalism is something which I have come to strongly dislike. Whether it be manifested in the flowery artwork of Thomas Kinkade or the cheesy WWJD bracelets I just can’t stand it.

Here, I think is Austen’s pitfall. She tends to write in a rather fanciful style. Pleasant, enjoyable, romantic, sweet? Yes. Realistic? Not so much. I do not mean to discredit her as a writer and I fully admit to being a Jane Austen fan. BUT, I can get too much of her. I can overdose on her dream-like fairy tales. When the characters have to face no worse tragedy than being uninvited to a ball, being snubbed by the prideful rich, being forced to endure the ridiculous proposals of men they do not love…what is there to relate to? Granted there are occasionally real difficulties to overcome, but nonetheless, one cannot help feeling there is something lacking to her “reality.” Every once in a while, one can enjoy getting away from the mundane routines of life, forget the petty trials of the day and immerse oneself in the romantic world of Jane Austen, but it is not without fault (despite what Isaac may say).

However, back to the original subject: why is Austen better than Charles Dickens? Dickens tends to fall into the other ditch…and not just a little bit. He plunges whole-heartedly, almost gleefully into misery and despair. He delights to portray the lowest strata of life in their worst garments. He paints characters in such bleakness and sorrow as to destroy any fanciful notion of hope remaining in his poor reader. Is this just? To be sure, the world is a fallen place and it has it’s share of tragedy, sin and darkness, but such despairing and tragic stories are not what I consider pleasure reading. I will admit to Dickens having his moments of light, just as Austen had her flashes of reality. I can honestly say that I enjoy “A Christmas Carol” and some parts of his other works, but on the whole, one cannot help feeling oppressed and depressed by the gloom which characterizes the greater part of his books.

All this to say, Austen is a phenomenal writer, but with a tendency to slight sentimentalism, which in too large a dose can be overbearing. Dickens, probably a good enough writer in his own way, is too much gloom, depression and darkness to be seriously healthy reading. So, is there a middle ground?

In my own opinion, Les Miserables by Victor Hugo is an excellent example of reality mixed with romanticism, despair and tragedy mingled with hope, goodness and beauty. Elizabeth Gaskell is far nearer this medium than Dickens, especially in her excellent book Wives and Daughters. Austen is only slightly misplaced and there are many other authors who strike a good balance.

The purpose of this post is not to tell you not to read certain books or to read other ones, but really, my point is that to be a really good work of art (in any sense of the word; book, painting, etc) there must be an expression of sadness, sin and evil…otherwise the observer has nothing to relate to. But there must also be an element of hope and redemption which Dickens missed in so much of his work. This is necessary to the good piece of art work, because it tells our story to us. It does not deny sin and suffering, but declares to a fallen world that there is hope. Even a picture or a book with no intentional Christian message, by portraying this dichotomy of sin and redemption, paints the gospel story with more clarity than a Precious Moments “love your neighbor” scene or a plastic Jesus nightlight.