From the Hollywood Reporter regarding Kiefer's DUI charge:
Sutherland's plea deal [to serve a 48-day sentence] quickly resolves the matter and avoids shutting down production on “24,” on which he also serves as an executive producer. Had he gone for a continuous jail time, he likely would have served less time, which is often the case in misdemeanor cases. Instead, he opted for two stints [during Christmas break and after the season is over], which means he will serve the entire sentence.
Said Fox and 20th TV, which produces “24” with Imagine TV: “He told us that even if he had to sacrifice more time in custody in order to protect the show and the jobs of those who work with him, he would do so. From what occurred today, it is evident he is a man of his word.”
You know, drunk driving is horribly wrong, and it was colossally stupid of Kiefer to do it (seriously, can you tell me Kiefer Sutherland couldn't get someone to drive him home?); but this is an honorable, very un-Hollywood response he's had to his arrest. One would expect someone with his power, money, and fame to do whatever he could to protect himself, but here he is, putting the jobs of his coworkers above his own personal comfort, voluntarily taking on more punishment than required to be sure they're not hurt by his actions.
Now that sounds like Jack Bauer. Kiefer probably can't help but be affected by the character he plays, as we've already seen in this hilarious incident.
I'm reminded of a verse I've always been fascinated by: Romans 5:7 – “For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.” We would prefer a person to be both, of course, but we respond more to goodness than to mere moral perfection (that is, a righteousness of rules without kindness or sacrifice for others). Kiefer may be an unrighteous sinner (as we all are, for that matter), but I can't help but like him when he goes out of his way to take responsibility for his actions and be good to others.
As Christians, we ought to strive to be good and righteous. This is a difficult task, but if Kiefer is affected by the time he spends with a fictional character, how much more will the living Holy Spirit actively conform us to Christ as we spend time with Him, immersing ourselves in the Bible!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Miscellaneous 
No Comments »
The summer issue of Salvo features an interesting interview with screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi. In it she explains that “A beautiful film is one that achieves excellence in production and message.” Technical considerations (script, design, acting, etc.) are important, but:
[A] film should also be judged according to its message. What does the movie want you to believe? Is what it's telling you the truth or a lie? If the latter, then it's a bad film, no matter how good the technique may be.
There are many well-done ugly films out there–and many badly-done nice ones. Why is this? I came across a quote from Simone Weil that seems to capture the problem (though it doesn't explain it):
Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.
The truth is, for whatever reason, it is very, very difficult to portray goodness as it really is and quite easy to portray evil as we wish it to be. Christian filmmakers, you need real skill to achieve the former. Don't give in to laziness! Strive as artists throughout history have striven to uplift our souls with real beauty and truth. Our prayers are with you.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page No Comments »
I wasn’t going to start watching any new television shows this year, but one of them caught my eye: Journeyman. I’ve always been a sucker for time travel plots or shows about people fixing things that have gone wrong (either in this universe (Early Edition) or a parallel one (Sliders)). You put both of those things together and you have the formula that frequently appears in my list of favorite shows since that king of all shows from my childhood, Voyagers!. (And yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.) So I felt that if any show was going to be so complete in its Amyness, it was my duty to at least give it a try.
The plot of Journeyman is simple. A man (Dan) suddenly finds himself unexpectedly traveling to the past (so far, only within the past 30 or 40 years) for brief periods of time. He has no control over when this happens or for how long, and at first, the trips seem to be random. But soon he discovers there’s a meaningful pattern to his journeys. He finds himself following the life of a specific person as he jumps through history. With a little help from the Internet during his intermittent returns to the present, Dan is able to figure out how he can help/protect/save the one he’s following so that person can then go on to fulfill his purpose of helping other people in the present. When Dan’s mission is accomplished, he’s on to the next episode where he finds himself tracking a new person in trouble. …Okay, maybe that doesn’t sound so simple to some of you, but for sci-fi fans, this is a pretty common formula.
So far I’ve been enjoying the show, but I’ve found one thing about it to be very odd. Dan expresses his confusion about what is happening to him and how, but he hasn’t yet even once asked the most obvious question to me: who is causing this to happen? For any thoughtful observer, there’s no doubt that a personal being is behind his travels; random forces aren’t complex (putting him in just the right time and place over and over in a specific person’s life) and meaningful (there’s a definite purpose–the person is saved so she can then do a specific act in the future that will save others). There is intelligence, foreknowledge, goodness, and care involved, and all of these things point to a personal, powerful, compassionate being. Yet, there’s no talk of God or to God, even though it seems that both of these reactions would be most natural in this situation. There’s only a strange, unnatural silence on the whole subject–particularly strange since Dan recognizes the intelligent design involved as he discovers and notes the “reasons why” he was “supposed” to help each person.
So why no talk of who might be behind this? It may be because we’ve been conditioned by Darwinian thought to ignore obvious signs of design and purpose. We want to enjoy their benefits (a meaningful life, or in this case, a meaningful story) without taking them too seriously or following them to their logical conclusion, so we’ve trained ourselves not to ask the “who” question.
Eventually, though, I think Journeyman will have to have to deal with it. We may be indoctrinated enough to accept the foolish denial of design and purpose when it comes to evolution, but I don’t think anyone will buy the idea for long that–in a play on Dawkins’s original quote about biology from The Blind Watchmaker–“Journeyman is the story of random, complicated plot twists that [only] give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
But who knows? We might be capable of ignoring even this. After all, we’ve been cultivating this blind spot since the beginning of time:
[T]hat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-21)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc. 3 Comments »
Some excerpts from Ryan T. Anderson's review of Frank Beckwith's new book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice for National Review:
He begins by marshaling medical embryology to show that “from a strictly scientific point of view . . . an individual human life begins at conception.” Whereas sperm and egg each contain half of the genetic code (23 chromosomes) and are parts of larger organisms (the parents), the one-celled zygote “is a new, although tiny, individual with a human genetic code with its own genomic sequence (with 46 chromosomes), which is neither her mother's nor her father's. From this point until death no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human being.” Beckwith responds to common objections, noting that high rates of natural embryo loss no more disprove the humanity of embryos than high rates of infant mortality do that of infants; that early-embryo twinning does no more to undermine the unity of the embryo prior to twinning than cutting a flatworm in half (forming two flatworms) does to its unity prior to separation; and that while a human embryo doesn’t look like an adult, it “does look exactly like a human ought to look at this stage of her development.”
If embryos and fetuses are human beings (which the science compels reasonable people to acknowledge), do they have a right to life? Some, like David Boonin of the University of Colorado, think not. . . Advocates of this view typically point to self-awareness or other immediately exercisable mental capacities as features that make a human being valuable.
Beckwith rejects these arguments because they rest on a faulty understanding of the human person, undermine human equality, and produce morally repugnant conclusions. . . .
“The human being is a particular type of substance — a rational moral agent — that remains identical to itself as long as it exists, even if it is not . . . currently able to immediately exercise these activities.” We are valuable in virtue of the sort of thing (the substance) we are — human beings, with basic root capacities for personal acts. Since a substance cannot come in degrees, we are all equally human beings and thus equally valuable.
(HT: Between Two Worlds)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page No Comments »
Audio book, that is. This month's free selection at Christianaudio.com is The Life of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards. I love biographies, and this one promises to be very interesting:
Though he was orphaned at age fourteen, repeatedly struck with debilitating illnesses, and unfairly expelled from college, Brainerd allowed nothing to deter him from serving God wholeheartedly. He traveled thousands of miles by horseback across treacherous terrain to preach the gospel to remote Indians. His calling required a rugged man–he even slept outside in the cold without cover–yet he constantly displayed a gentle and meek love for people entirely different from himself. Their benefit ultimately brought about his early death at the age of twenty-nine. Like an invigorating shower, the listener will be rejuvenated by Brainerd's life-giving devotional insights, refreshing clarity of purpose, and heartwarming preaching. This book offers not only a captivating story, but an uplifting buoy for those who are weary, distant, or discouraged.
For a preview of the life you'll hear about in this book, you can listen to (or read) John Piper's biographical lecture on Brainerd. (And if you haven't listened to the rest of Piper's biographies, what the heck are you waiting for?!)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Religion (General) 2 Comments »
September 29, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
(this and other cool prints
available here)
With the Sox win and Yankees loss tonight, the Boston Red Sox have earned the American League Eastern Division title for the first time since 1995. There's just something nice about not settling for another Wild Card. It's been an interesting season: Since April 18th they've held the lead in the Eastern Division, and they held the best record in Baseball for much of that time. On April 22nd, the Sox tied the Major League record with four consecutive home runs (against the Evil Empire of all teams!). Curt Schilling gave the best outing of his career against the A's- almost a no-hitter, but giving up one hit in the ninth isn't so bad either. Rookie Clay Buchholz bested Schilling by throwing the no-hitter, and became only the third pitcher ever to throw it within his first two starts. Josh Beckett ended the season with 20 wins, something no pitcher did last year. David Ortiz has already broken the Red Sox record for doubles by a designated hitter (he's hit 52 so far, but one was as a first-baseman) and still has a couple more games to add to the total.
All in all a great season, but none of that matters now. October is here- it's a clean slate and a new race. The 8 best teams are equal once again and all that matters is what they've got now. This is the real test, the time when legends are made. Bring out the bloody socks and ridiculous haircuts. Whatever it takes to garner some of that post-season magic. October is the prize every team seeks and it can either break their hearts or grant them immortality in the world of sports. The pressure is on, but no one wants it to end until they've got rings on their fingers. For baseball fans, October is the greatest time of the year.
Here's to more of Manny being Manny, of Big Papi's clutch hits, of Pedroia and Ellsbury showing us that age doesn't matter, and of
Papelbon shutting down the opposition. Let's go Red Sox!
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 1 Comment »
This is pathetic. From Daily Kos: Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon… Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that's not all…
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding….
This is very interesting. Whatever reasons or explanations President Bush gives for his actions the left dismisses as false, as they look for the true, deeper motives. Yet here, the rhetoric is all-important and accepted as genuine. Never mind that Ahmadinejad actually kills gay people, listen to what he says. But President Bush? Everything he says is merely propaganda.
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than President Bush….
And now, all of a sudden, you have no ability to see past appearances?
Perhaps the Bush Administration's campaign against Ahmadinejad — just like its campaign against Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and others — isn't as much about whether he's a danger to the world…. I'm not saying he's a good guy at all. I'm only saying it's hard to know the full story when the Bush Administration seems so invested in smearing Ahmadinejad….
People can be so invested in smearing their foe that we can't trust what they see and say? I can't imagine how that could happen. Pot, meet kettle. And while you're at it, meet Ahmadinejad.
In the quotes she gives from her beloved Ahmadinejad, I particularly like how he says he'll be judged positively compared to Bush by the following criterion:
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised [sic] the specter of intimidation and threats?
This she finds compelling coming from the man who has repeatedly insisted Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Unbelievable.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics 6 Comments »
September 19, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
On one glorious day a yeer, we resign all forms of proper speech fer
that of the pirate. It be International Talk Like a Pirate Day! Mateys,
if ye not lookin' to spend eternity in Davy Jones' locker, ye best
brush up on yer pirate talk!
Here be the official
site: TalkLikeaPirate.com
A
better treasure: The British
Site
Fer those who be lackin in pirate
talkin skills, watch this here
video:
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
September 15, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
In the comments to a previous post, Aaron Snell referenced
the classical notion of freedom meaning “freedom to.” Ironically, I’ve been
reading Biblical Christian Ethics
by David Clyde Jones and he discussed this as
well. Jones notes the shift from freedom being the ability to do what’s right,
to the current idea in our society that freedom is the ability to do what you
want…
“One of the most perceptive analyses of the American
character in the 1980s was the best-seller Habits of the Heart, by Robert
Bellah and four associates. The authors, backed up by their extensive
sociological research, observe that “Americans tend to think of the ultimate
goals of a good life as matters of personal choice.” Americans accordingly rank
freedom has practically become definitive of the good in the American mind. But
as Americans typically describe it, freedom is a summum bonum without positive content.
“Freedom turns out to mean being left alone by others, not
having other people’s values, ideas, or styles of life forced upon one, being
fee of arbitrary authority in work, family, and political life. What it is that
one might do with that freedom is much more difficult for Americans to define.”
(Bellah)
Freedom in the biblical tradition means freedom to do the
will of God; in the republican tradition, to participate in working for the
common good of society. But in modern American individualism, freedom means “freedom
of choice” without reference to objective moral criteria. “What does the Bill
of Rights mean to you?” a reporter asked a schoolchild viewing the original
manuscript on display. “Being free to do whatever you want,” was not the
expected reply. This is how the posterity of the founders of the American
republic typically construe the “blessings of liberty” it as the purpose of the
Constitution to secure for them/ “Choice is what this country’s all about” is a
proposition of bumper-sticker depth, yet it appears as the trump card in all sorts
of public policy issues… Freedom of choice functions in American culture as a
self-justifying moral absolute.” (pages 34-35).
In other
words, our culture’s view of morality, which went from generally objective to
subjective, has also affected our view of freedom. The postmodern culture puts
Self as the standard: Self is the standard for what is right, and it must be
unrestricted. In some sense, we are consuming ourselves. Our god is out
stomachs.
Posted in Culture, Main Page, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
September 11, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
It's easy to acknowledge this day and say “we remember,” without really reflecting on the events that transpired six years ago that ended the lives of almost 3,000 people. “There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the
four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.”(Wikipedia)
What's not easy is taking the time to stop and remember. To look back at the images, the stories, and relive the emotions of that awful day. But if we do not remember, we will likely lack the resolve to keep it from happening again. We are proud to be Americans, and we will not forget. Remember with us… see the time lines and images here, view videos here.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments