Our Cry

Our generation is not like yours.
In our generation,
children experience adulthood when
adulthood should only exist in the children's minds.
Children are coming and going, to and fro,
pushing and pulling, there and here-
and then they put their clothes back on
and go to school.
Children are being pressed down and suffocated
by the opportunities of their future.
Children are inhaling and ingesting and shooting up
the only antidotes they know for their
disillusionment and unhappiness,
attempting to enter a brief moment of existence
where their is no pain, where there is no fear.

And yet, you scold us.
You patronize us.
You tell us that we must act according to
a morality that suited your time,
but does not fit in ours.

Can you not see that we only want to live?
Truly live?
We want to love, and be loved.
We want to feel capable, to feel trusted,
to feel empowered and able and respected and honored.
Can you not see that we want to find life,
our life?
We want to own it, to draw dignity from it,
to create an existence that is worth claiming.

One day, our time will come
when we have no choice but to discover our way.
However, today, we long for that day,
the day when we find the path that is only real when we find it ourselves,
when we step through the thicket and bushes,
that scrape away the remains from our childish adventures down
other lying and false trails,
when we emerge onto the path of recognition and maturity
from which we will start our journey that leads
to the place where the sun sleeps,
just over that hill.
Only then will we breathe-
right now, we're slowly fading into darkness.

Too Funny

Hilarious.

See more funny videos and Entertainment at Todays Big Thing.

Being Good? Pass.

I have wondered this for a while. What does it mean to be a good kid? I understand that my parents believe that it means not doing anything bad. However, I think it is different than that. I think being good is at the heart, that I care for others, protect my friends and family, and treat everyone with human decency. I don't think being good is just the absence of bad, or that someone who does "bad" things isn't good.

Is it even right to aspire to be good? Should I just be who I am, see who that is, determine if that is good or bad, and go on with life? You see, I don't worry about being good. I worry about taking care of my friends, even if that means I suffer somehow.

What stage of life are you in when you realize that your definition of what is right, what is friendship, what is good, is different from what you were taught?

2010 Movies

After extended searching of the internet's lists and much strain on my brain to remember what came out this year, here are my Top 10 Films of 2010. They are not ranked, but I will tell which one is my favorite at the end of the post.


Never Let Me Go

My desire to see this film came after reading the novel of the same name. I found it on some "Best Of" list and decided to give it a go. The novel is heartbreaking, poignant, incisive, and frightening. And the film is the same way--I will contend that this is the best adaptation I have seen to date. The picture itself is beautiful, with its muted tones of brown and dark green. The story is intimate, almost as if you know the characters. My favorite aspect of the novel was that the author captured the little nuances of relationships, (how one looks at another, the tone of one's voice filled with implicit meaning, etc.), and the film does it almost as well. I will always remember when Kathy confronts Ruth about how she rubs Tommy's shoulders like the older teens that Ruth idealizes. The film is a tender, emotional walk with characters that you feel you know personally.


Exit Through The Gift Shop

This film is the "Waking Life" of documentaries in that it reinvents how one a movie can be made. Is it real? What does it say about art regardless? The film shows a (whether real person or character) happy-go-lucky goofball whose love of graffiti art leads him on adventures with the most dangerous artists of our time. And the mystique of Banksy grows and grows...

Toy Story 3

This summer was my last summer at home; I was leaving for college in several weeks, and Toy Story 3 was like seeing my situation on screen. I'm sure mothers across the world were feeling the same way. I will never forget the scene where Andy plays with his toys for the last time before handing them over to another youngster. Although the super-hype over this film left me feeling annoyed, the film itself made me feel wonderful.

Inception

I am always kicking myself because I haven't been able to experience cultural phenomenons (Seinfeld, MASH, Lost, etc.)--I can now say that I have my phenom. For weeks, people everywhere were talking about it, whether the totem fell or not. It almost became a joke itself how much people talked about it. It spurned deep discussions and in depth analysis. And, for the first time for me, I experienced a real movie moment: at the end of the film when the totem is spinning, wobbling, spinning, and then BOOM, the credits roll, the entire audience groaned. Like, audibly groaned. It was incredible. The film is mind blowing with its special effects, its acting, its tone, and its imagination. This was by far the most creative and entertaining film of the year.

The Social Network

I hate hype. It prevents me from viewing a movie without expectations and bias. People were saying that The Social Network was a perfect film. Now I'm not sure I can judge if it is or not, but it is very, very good. It just feels like an expertly made film from the very first scene (if I could ever write a scene like that, I would be a millionare). Jesse Eisenberg is great, contrary to popular hearsay. A great film.

Somewhere

I love this film. I think the absent story arch, the style, the message are in a different category than most films. While most films are concerned with telling a story in traditionally strict perimeters, Somewhere ambles and meanders, just short of too much. I think that style is daring and avent-garde. The film shows how empty a life of celebrity is, even when you can have everything. It shows that having everything does not result in happiness. Stephen Dorff is spot on as a bored star, and Elle Fanning is adorable. This is a film ahead of its time.

Black Swan

This film has the darkest tone I've ever seen in a movie. It deals with obsession, perfection, corruption, and ballet. Natalie Portman is amazing (like everyone says) and Mila Kunis is hot. Using a handheld camera to allow the audience to dance with the dancers was a great choice.

Blue Valentine

This is the scariest movie I've ever seen. It's scary because it is real, real people who once loved each other now have nothing left. It's terrifying for someone like me who values the love of others above most everything else. How do I know I won't fall out of love with someone? How do I know someone won't get tired of me? Michelle Williams is terrific, but Ryan Gosling is outstanding. His distinct portrayal of a person at two different points in his life is the best I've ever seen.

127 Hours

I love this film because it feels the way Born To Run (the book) feels--going out there in the wild, running, feeling free and alive, at least for the first few minutes. It is exciting and entertaining, emotionally taxing and triumphant. And if this film doesn't win Best Cinematography, I will lose faith in the Academy Awards.

The Kids Are All Right

A fun, raunchy, hilarious look at an atypical family. Julianne Moore is great as a hippie mom, and Annette Benning is good as her wife. Mark Ruffalo is funny and charming, and the kids are all right. Ba-dump CH.

My favorite film of the year: tie--Inception and Somewhere.

Great Episode

Tina Fey,
I want to congratulate you on the Anna Howard Shaw Day episode of 30 Rock. That episode was by far one of the best episodes you have created to date. The end result after watching it was a feeling of happiness, for I felt that the character Liz Lemon was taken care of and had someone who loved her. That someone is Jack Donaghy, and while it may only be a platonic, friend love, it is true and genuine. Also, Jack met his feminine match, a highly entertaining plot line. Jenna's obsession with her stalker was a terrific sub-plot line, hilarious and touching when Kenneth pretends to stalk her (without seeing the show, I realize this sounds strange). Overall, I want to say well done Fey--the Anna Howard Shaw Day episode is one to remember.

30 Rock

I don't think anyone besides my sister knows this, so I'll get it in the open--I am addicted to "30 Rock". I love Liz Lemon, even though she is nerdy and was a bully in high school and uses her humor to combat others who get to intimate. I love Jack Donaghy, even though he is capitalism incarnate and selfish and rude. I love Tracy Jordan and Kenneth and Jenna Maroni and Topher and Frank and every other character.

That being said, I also realize that I am putting myself through emotional torture. The show's content is directly dependent on what will get the highest ratings. Every show is. So although I hope that Jack and Elana will get married and have a happy, uneventful life together, I doubt they could make seasons out of that plot line. I also want Liz to find someone awesome and caring who doesn't mind that she's nerdy and a wreck; however, that is the core dilemma of the show, so I doubt it will come to fruition.

I am purposefully hurting myself, over and over, every time I watch this show. At least I know it, right?

Lemon out.

Landslide and others

The reason "Landslide" is such a good song is because it creates such a unique and rare tone. The tone is one of nostalgia, of longing, of happiness, all at once. Few songs feel like "Landslide" does. Some come close, and these are the few that I have found. Some are closer than others.

So Close Now--Eli Young Band
Everything Is You-- Eli Young Band
October-- FM Static
Iris-- Goo Goo Dolls
Streetlights-- Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit
In Your Atmosphere-- John Mayer
Free Fallin' (cover)--John Mayer
Matt Nathason's whole At The Point live album, especially "I Saw" and "Bent"
Losing Innocence--Nevertheless
Motorcycle Drive-By --Third Eye Blind
Interstate-- Randy Rogers Band
Samson-- Regina Spektor
Shadow Proves The Sunshine-- Switchfoot
The Temper Trap's whole Conditions album.
Catapult, I'm Not Sleeping, Recovering The Satellites-- Counting Crows

This is as far as I got, but I'm sure there are more.

Genesis and Dragonball Z

I am sitting in Jake's living room along with Jake, Cameron, and Ben. We just got back from taking Cari lunch. Right now, Cameron is playing a Dragonball Z game, and Jake and Ben are playing Pokemon on their laptops. I didn't feel in the mood to just sit and watch someone else play a video game. I remembered that Jake's dad's iPad was charging on the kitchen counter, unused and waiting. So I decided to pick it up and mess with it. After some imdb action, I decided to turn my pondering to a more significant matter. I found a literary analysis or Genesis by some guy named Dennis Bratcher, who I think teaches at Point Loma Nazarene University, whatever that is. I am currently at the end of the essay, but I wanted to write down my thoughts on it before I forget.

Initially, Bratcher urges readers to (as best as one can) approach genesis without theological hopes, without using other books to understand Genesis, and to read the story completely instead of lifting verses or paragraphs, a method that i think is appropriate. It is foolish to try to solve our problems from today with textual evidence from Genesis. Now, I'm not saying that i don't believe in the Bible's legitimacy. I'm saying that the themes and ideas and concepts from the stories in the Bible are the real truth. Jesus drank wine and walked around without a home. I don't think we should live like Jesus just because He lived that way. We should try to understand why He was doing those things, everything He did, then we can see the nature of God, the things that we should care about. I don't think I explained that very well.

Bratcher talks about the two separate creation stories in Genesis and the meaning for the first story. The Isrealites had lived in a society where the common belief was that Ba'al created the world. Here, however, the author chooses the directly challenge that assertion with a story of God creating the world. I was grateful for this cultural context.

He also talk about how the greatest part of all of God's work is 'the creation of a community in which the man can exist in interaction with others'. I thought this was an interesting assertion.

The most interesting part of the article came when Bratcher discusses the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. Originally, God said that the penalty for eating the fruit was death, even on the very day. However, if you remember, Adam and Eve don't die. They are cursed, along with the serpent and the ground, and then cast out of the garden forever. Bratcher says that 'the simple fact of the story is that God does less than His own law allowed. He lets the couple live and gives them the gift of life a second time, on the other side of the boundary! Here is a profound affirmation of the nature of God. God responds to disobedience, not with the full weight of justice, but with mercy and grace!'

This was mind blowing to me.

Bible Reading Notes

I tried to read the Bible. I think it went well. Grand Funk Railroad's "Grand Funk" album was playing in the background. I like it.

I started out in Matthew, trying to find out about Jesus. I started reading, but soon found myself reading and interpreting the Bible through my "churched" eyes, a mindset that skips over phrases because I've heard them so many times (the Messiah, the Son of Abraham, etc). So I asked God, even though I don't know how that works, to let me read the Bible through an unfiltered lens (or at least not a "churched" lens). I think I might have gotten my wish, but we'll have to check back later to see.

So in 1:23 when it explains that the meaning of Emmanuel is "God with us," I had to think-if I've never read the Bible before, if this is my first time to pick up the book, I wouldn't know who God is. So I flipped to Genesis, because I know it started with a list of the things that God has done. I wonder if that's a valid way of defining an entity. Is a person defined by what they do?

Anyway, in the first chapter of Genesis, it tells that God created the heavens and the earth. Which, if you think about it, is pretty impressive. It's almost hard to believe. I mean, shit. Way to go, God. You made a lot of shit, in a good way. There are trees and dirt and whales and flowers and smells. Quite an accomplishment.

After it says the part about making Earth, the Bible tells how "...God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. What I'm concerned with is that God made something and then saw that it was good. This implies that He had to wait to see the finished project to determine if it was satisfactory or not. It's almost as if God did a trial and error type thing, kinda like when bands try to change their sound. If it works, we'll keep it--if not, we're going back to the old stuff.

My question is, what does this mean? Am I getting hung up over semantics? Am I just supposed to dwell on the fact that light itself is good?

Also, verse 6 of Chapter 2, God creates the dome over the waters so that will "separate the waters from the waters." What are the second waters God speaks of? Is it that heaven is has water like earth has water? Are heaven and earth similar?

By the way, this creation story sounds a lot like a story you hear Native Americans tell their grandchildren in movies on TV. Very mystical, very alluring, very Lion King-esque.

When God does the creating, it describes Him as speaking it into being, essentially talking to Himself, because there's no one else there. Maybe it's inherent for humans to talk to themselves. But in seriousness, why did He speak creation into existence? Is that just the only way we can understand what He was doing? If it said "and God thought it, and it was," we wouldn't know what that would be like. We would have no reference point. But most everyone speaks. Some speak with authority, such as employers. I wonder what the significance of him speaking is.

In verse 13, it says that God created trees and made land and sea, and then "there was evening and there was morning." However, in verse 14, God creates the sun and moon. He already made Day and Night in verse 5, but how can he make Day and Night, have evening and morning, but have no sun? Where was the light coming from, and also, what was its purpose?

In verse 29, God tells the humans that "I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food." And in the next verse, God includes that "to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." It doesn't say God gave humans the plant yielding seed, tree with seed in its fruit, and animals for food. Interesting.

It's almost as if 2:7 is correcting the beginning of the Bible. In chapter 1, it says that the vegetation and stuff was created, then God made man. But it says in chapter 2 that "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up...then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." A contradiction, this early in the ballgame.

I wonder what the tree of life does. The story tells the side effects of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but it never says anything about the tree of life.

Again with the trial and error stuff: 2:18, God decides that man shouldn't be alone and that he needs a partner. So he creates all the animals and birds and has Adam name them, but to no avail--"for the man there was not found a helper as his partner." Did God think man could be fulfilled by animal companions alone, a thought that he later found false? The reason he couldn't find a suitable companion for man is because man desired a being that is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," essentially, someone like him.

It seems that whoever wrote Genesis was taking an existing story (the one that sounds like Native American folklore) and adding commentary where needed (chapter 2). Chapter 3 seems like it continues the story from the end of chapter 1.

I'm confused. In 3:8-21, the story is heartbreaking. It sounds like God is this optimistic father wanting to hang out with his kids, who is then shocked and unable to believe what Adam and Eve had done. Then He gets really mad at everyone (out of love, it seems) and curses everything (sidenote, everything is cursed because of Adam and Eve, not just humans--snakes and the ground too).

But then, in verse 22, God consults with himself. He's basically like "oh no! The humans know good from evil. If they eat the fruit of the tree of life, they will be just like us! We must stop this." So he sends them away and guards the garden. The story is no longer of a loving parent but of a god who is trying to hold onto his authority at any cost. Is the only thing different between us and God the ability to live forever? That's what this story makes it seem like. That is why I think this story isn't real, but fable, myth, illustration.

6:13 Man may be violent by nature, but the earth was not intended to have violence in it.

Again with the trial and error--6:5-6. God was actually sorry that he mad humanity. Yikes.

This doesn't sound like God knows everything. In 8:21, God says "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..." It seems like God is learning something about humanity for the first time, something that he didn't know before. It's as if he learned how to deal with humans, whereas before He just flew off the handle. Also, what does it mean for human hearts to be evil from youth? Does that mean we are inherently evil? If so, why would we be that way? Was it something that God got wrong, that he mixed too much bone marrow with soul and accidentally got the side effect of evil? Even if that question goes unsolved, we can still ask what it means to be evil from youth. What does that mean? Does it have an effect on how we live? Probably. And how is there such a being that was created in the image of God, yet is inherently evil? Or am I reading this wrong? Is "human hearts have been evil from youth" saying something different than "humans are inherently evil?" Does it mean that humans have just been acting with evil in them for a long time? Does that mean that God has evil inherently in Him as well?

So far, what have I taken from this? I've taken that it seems like God does a trial and error thing (light, humans living in a garden with the trees there too, humanity itself). And it seems like each human who has interacted with God has done a good thing, then done something stupid. Good, then bad. Hmm. A lot of questions and no answers.