307.511.397 Tunezz: Guilty Pleasure

2009-09-07T20:32:00.000-07:00

The vast expanse of the musical world is often overwhelming to me. There are hundreds of thousands of bands in America all with names so hip that you might not even be cool enough to listen to their music.

Those that do seem to have a grasp, or even a clue, on how to navigate this musical expanse would likely be the same to judge me for what I hope to be a series of posts overtime.

Tunez: Guilty Pleasure are songs that I know I shouldn't like because of their cheese factor, pop associations, general lack of artistry, etc. Unfortunately, they're catchy for one reason or another and therefore I will jam them obsessively.

With that said, please enjoy Avril Lavigne- Don't Tell Me. If there were ever a song that I would want my teenage daughter jamming, this is it. You go girl!

As a matter of fact, thinking of my daughter ever needing to feel empowered by this song brings to mind another that best describes my reaction.

Language NSFW

Opinionzz: A Gentle Rebuttal

2009-08-16T10:25:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Paul's most recent blog post Inglorious Basterds, or Why I Don't Care About Quentin Tarantino. After briefly discussing it over cheese steaks and beer at Texadelphia, and after having read it in its entirety I must say that I politely disagree.

It must first be said that my disagreement is not a defense of Tarantino or the genre. My disagreement is with the issue upon which a boycott of Tarantino's films, or a "pornography of violence," is made.

It is fair to say that Tarantino's films indulge in violence. For whatever reason the movie may give us for the purpose of it or how artistically or stylized it may be, Tarantino is notorious for his displays of violence.

It is unfair, however, to boycott films like these because it entertains a "lust for violence." First, lust is a strong word to use in this context. My wanting to see a Tarantino film is not because I have passionate or overmastering desire to see violence. If that is true for some, then they should rightly avoid seeing it but if the boycott is based on the principal and not a personal conviction then it seems faulty. Secondly, everyone desires something and a lot of people even lust for it whether it be violence, sex, money, love, acceptance, romance, power etc.

Therefore, if the idea is to boycott Tarantino films because of the principle that they fulfill a desire or lust for violence then we should also boycott Nicholas Spark books because of desire or lust for romance. Boycott underdog stories because of a desire or lust for overcoming the impossible. Boycott hero stories because of a desire or lust for justice. Boycott war stories because of a desire or lust for victory. Boycott comedy because of a desire or lust for humor.

While violence is its own animal and, therefore, hard to compare to romance, justice, or victory the issue, then, is partaking in a film or not because of a desire or lust you have. If it is lust, then don't indulge yourself at all. If it is a desire, don't indulge but tread very carefully.

To elevate gratuitous violence as something to avoid because of a desire or lust while condemning the same action for films with sex or nudity is contradictory. In order for it not to be contradictory, one would need to assign varying tolerable amounts of either violence or sex that tip a film to lust-gratifying or not. Or, maybe more dangerously, justify the partaking in the violence or sex by the film itself meaning that gratuitous violence in No Country for Old Men is okay because it is "one of the main characters" but unacceptable elsewhere. Or the gritty, urban violence in The Departed is okay because it is a directorial trademark of Martin Scorsese films. Or simply asking ourselves, "what purpose does this serve?"

This issue quickly becomes one of framing and personal conviction. Framing because I can justify anything that I see in films as acceptable for any number of reasons. Humans are great at lying to themselves, especially Christians.

Personal conviction because, as Christians, the Bible doesn't give a black and white answer in regards to the acceptance or denial of violence and sex in most of our modern culture. Unfortunately, Paul (of Tarsus, that is) doesn't clarify what he means when he says a "hint" of sexual immorality. Maybe the problem is that we need clarification in the first place. Remember, Christians are great at lying to themselves.

Ultimately, all films seek to gratify human desires, that's how they make money. Whether that be through the promise of romance, the hope for revenge, rubber-necking ultra-violence, or the opportunity to escape reality.

Speaking of escaping reality, let me expound and clarify the John Piper excerpt included in the blog post. Before that, though, it must be said that to categorize John Piper, the lead pastor of a church and one of the fundamental spiritual leaders of a church planting network responsible for planting thousands of churches across the world, as Christian subculture is an insult. Christian subculture is art, music, clothes, trends, etc. John Piper, on the other hand, is a leader of Christian culture for many Biblical reasons to weighty to expound upon now.

With that said, ideally, in a film the viewer would "suspend disbelief" and accept all that they see as reality but the true reality is that it isn't true. This is best exemplified in horror films. We desire to feel scared or that we are in danger but are able to withstand these movies because we know that, in reality, we're only watching a film and not in any danger.

In regards to violence, when watching a film we know that no one is truly being harmed. As gruesome or seemingly real as the violence in films may be, most people can withstand it knowing that no one is truly being harmed. No families are losing a father or a daughter. No wives are losing their husbands. There is nothing real about it.

Real violence, however, is much harder, even impossible, to watch for most, myself included. A film consisting of real murders, real torture, real beatings, real rape etc. would not nearly be as successful as a Tarantino film.

Nudity, however, is real both in film and true reality. There is no distinction between a nude man or woman in a film and one in real life. That is both Piper's issue with nudity in films and my own. Furthermore, the next paragraph after the included excerpt gives further, and more important, reasoning for Piper's "zero tolerance" for nudity in films.

"I’ll put it bluntly. The only nude female body a guy should ever lay his eyes on is his wife’s. The few exceptions include doctors, morticians, and fathers changing diapers. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). What the eyes see really matters. “Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Better to gouge your eye than go to hell (verse 29).

Brothers, that is serious. Really serious. Jesus is violent about this. What we do with our eyes can damn us. One reason is that it is virtually impossible to transition from being entertained by nudity to an act of “beholding the glory of the Lord.” But this means the entire Christian life is threatened by the deadening effects of sexual titillation."

Any man that is honest with himself knows that one of the hurtful and burdening effects of sexual sin is that we store the sexual imagery we've seen throughout our entire lives. For most men, this imagery has burned itself in our memories no matter how badly we don't want it there. As Shaunti Feldhahn puts it, most men have a visual rolodex of the junk they've exposed themselves to.

So why continue to stock that rolodex? Even if the images don't cause you to lust or desire after what you're seeing (remember, though, that Christians are great at lying to themselves), why expose yourself to such things if the only nude woman we are called to see is our wife? Furthermore, if Jesus calls us to figurative violence in response to desiring another woman, I can't imagine that he would take it much easier on someone who believes that they could see nudity and sex in films without it causing a desire or lust within them.

What unifies violence, pervasive language, and nudity in films is that God sees all sin the same and, ultimately, all sin is against God only. The distinction, though, is that different sins have different effects and impacts.

More men and marriages are impacted by sexual sin than violence or language. Therefore, the stigma surrounding sex/nudity in films is warranted simply based on our over-sexed culture and the accessibility of sex, which is reason enough to be overly cautious.

The cautionary approach or abstinence from nudity in films is moreso due to an effort towards purity, holiness, and respect for ones current or future wife more than it is an inability to "(see) boobs without dropping to the ground in a lustful, sobbing, drooling pile." As men, we should take "grave offense" to the degradation of women in our society and be disgusted with the impossible cultural standards set forth for our sisters.

Lastly, two things must be urgently addressed. First, the following quote needs attention.

"the most major point of contention being the premise that men...can't do anything but read the Bible to gain understanding or insight on life, which might be the reason (Piper) lacks understanding and insight in so many aspects. (BURN, Piper!)"

What are you basing your accusation that Piper lacks understanding and insight on? That statement is entirely without reason and absurdly irrelevant. Furthermore, the statement itself is borderline agnostic. When compared to the inspired word of God, what else would you argue insight and understanding is gained from? As a believer, any answer to that question other than "nothing" is dangerous.

Secondly, I want to clarify a line from Piper's excerpt. In reference to nudity in films Piper says, "But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father."

The wrong response is to disregard the sentence or laugh. I don't believe you have to be a father, husband, or a believer to rightly understand the point being made. How about a pop-culture analogy to clarify the point?

In an episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Hilary is asked by Playboy to pose nude for a spread on weather girls across America. Uncle Phil vehemently disagrees as a protective, loving father not wanting his daughter to be exposed to the world.

A good father would be brokenhearted about his daughter choosing to further perpetuate stereotypes, disregard her innocence, and tarnish an image of modesty.

With all of that said, rabbit trails and all, ultimately my hope is that we would agree that we are anxiously awaiting Jesus' return to restore a new heaven and earth and fix the brokenness of the sex and violence our culture experiences.

Until that day, though, people will debate and disagree about culture. As believers we must remember that we are called to be in the world but not of it and wrestle with how that plays out for us everyday.

Paul, I love you. I mean it.

Eatzz: Blue Cheese Burger, Black Walnut Cafe

2009-08-07T14:39:00.000-07:00

The other night Amanda, The Todd, and I braved the the hustling and bustling Village to eat at the Black Walnut Cafe. I've been enough times to know that the food is good but had to yet find a favorite dish. That all changed on my last visit.

Being the obsessed burger fan that I am, I set my sites on the new Blue Cheese Burger. What intrigued me most was the combination of pickled jalapenos, peppered bacon, caramelized onions, spinach, and blue cheese. I wondered how well these ingredients would meld together and was more than pleasantly surprised.

The peppered bacon and caramelized onions added great texture to the moist patty while the subtle heat from the jalapenos in combination with sweetness of the onions gave the burger great depth.

I was concerned about how the spinach would work with the other strong flavors featured on this burger but it served its supporting role perfectly by helping to balance the other strong flavors, including the bitterness of the blue cheese.

My other concern was that the burger would be dry given the fact that it featured no condiment but between the slightly melted blue cheese and perfectly cooked onions and patty, the burger was a testament to the philosophy that burgers don't have to be drenched in goop to be great.

Burger:
Flavor for days. It earned its $9.50 paycheck because I already want another. Go on and treat yourself.

Fries:
Somewhat flavorful but soggy. Nothing special.

Plus:
Shiner Bock on tap, lots of bottled beers, and lots of wines if you're into that.

Minus:
Pricey but you mostly get what you pay for. Very fresh ingredients and gelato for dessert.

Newzz: Obama and Beer

2009-07-30T14:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, President Barack Obama had a "beer summit" with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and James Crowley. Not familiar with Gates and Crowley? Read about the incident, and the police report, here.

President Obama initially responded to the incident by saying that Cambridge police acted "stupidly" for arresting Gates and, subsequently, took a great deal of criticism for it. Obama later apologized (sort of) by saying, "I could've calibrated those words differently."

Finally, the President decided to resolve the issue by sitting down with Gates, Crowley, and Vice President Joe Biden over a few brewskis in the backyard of the White House. Read the details here.

With that said, this post is not a rant for or against Obama, not a discussion of race relations in America, but, rather, it is over the most important issue brought to light by this entire ordeal; President Barack Obama's choice of beer.

If you didn't catch it in the article linked above, the beer President Obama chose to drink during this historic sit-down was Bud Light.

Bud...Light.

The President of the most powerful country in the world has a choice of beer and he picks Bud Light.

Right or left, red or blue we can all be united on the issue that Obama choosing to drink Bud Light during such an occasion was an absolute piss-poor decision.

Now, it must be said that Obama's choice could have been worse. Much worse. Because, after all, Bud Light is as American as apple pie, right? Wrong. Budweiser was recently bought by InBev, a beverage conglomerate based out of Germany. GERMANY! You know who else was German? Hitler...'nuff said.

Maybe it's just my generation, but Budweiser is generic and it lacks any personality or identity. It doesn't represent culture, history, craftsmanship, or pride. It represents good marketing and sponsorships.

President Obama choosing Bud Light is like choosing Toby Kieth, Nickelback, and Soulja Boy over Johnny Cash, CCR, and The Cool Kids. It's like saying, "Why would I want a fat, juicy steak with fried shrimp, and some tatters when I can just have McDonalds!?"

Furthermore, Obama could have used this as a political opportunity to win over a few red states, namely the great state of Texas. Can you imagine the favor he might gain had we seen him sitting on the back lawn in Washington knocking back a few Shiner Blacks? Of course, Texans are more intelligent than to cast their votes based on a candidates beer preference, but it couldn't hurt.

Oh well. I don't think his beer choice will nic his image more than him speaking out on an incident he didn't have all the facts on. But when I cast my vote in a few years, what am I really going to remember about his first tenure in office?

On the Jobzz: A New Hire

2009-07-28T12:44:00.000-07:00

Recently at Starbies I began seeing the name "Ladybugg" written on the weekly schedule and Daily Coverage Report. Out of both confusion and curiousity, I investigated and discovered that Ladybugg was a new hire at our store and she requested that she be called as such. In my investigation, I also learned that according to the goverment, and our store, her real name is Whitney.

One afternoon, our shifts overlapped and I introduced myself. I followed up by asking, "You're name is Whitney, right?" She gently corrected me, telling me her handle, Ladybugg.

No biggie, right? Well, personally, I'm just not down with nicknames. There are only two people I can immediatly think of that I have nicknames for. One is Paul Holroyd, who I affectionatly refer to at times as P Hol. As a fellow Barista, though, I never refer to him as such at work. The other is my wife who has a list of aliases I use to communicate my affection. That's it.

My hang up on this issue is simple and has been said before. Rather than trying to recommunicate it, I'll let Cedric the Entertainer from Kings of Comedy explain.

Language NSFW

Tunezz: Guilty Pleasure

2009-07-28T12:19:00.000-07:00

The vast expanse of the musical world is often overwhelming to me. There are hundreds of thousands of bands in America all with names so hip that you might not even be cool enough to listen to their music.

Those that do seem to have a grasp, or even a clue, on how to navigate this musical expanse would likely be the same to judge me for what I hope to be a series of posts overtime.

Tunez: Guilty Pleasure are songs that I know I shouldn't like because of their cheese factor, pop associations, general lack of artistry, etc. Unfortunately, they're catchy for one reason or another and therefore I will jam them obsessively.

With that said, I present to you, Nickelback- Far Away. (And, to make matters worse, I've embedded a YouTube video of the song over clips from The Notebook.) Enjoy!

(Amanda will be out of town for a few days so I plan to listen to this song on repeat while sobbing uncontrollably all over Vincent and Darla. You think I'm joking...)

Moviezz: Food Inc.

2009-07-26T19:21:00.000-07:00

A week or so ago Amanda and I saw Food Inc., a documentary about the food industry in America.

Here's the preview...

Food Inc. covers just about every facet of the industry imaginable in a way that is concise, decisive, entertaining, and, seemingly, as bipartisan as possible. The film speaks to the necessity for change in the industry from a journalistic lens while rightly lacking any Moorian satire and attempted wit.

Food Inc. is not a pro-vegetarian/vegan, Mickey D's bashing, hemp wearing, free-love advocating, anti-war/Bush burning hippie fest. It's an honest look at a part of American culture that affects everyone minus the Hell House scare tactics like gruesome slaughterhouse footage.

In short, the message of Food Inc. is that if you're not eating only farmers market organic vegetables and meats, you are not only contributing to a social and economical epidemic in America, but you are only eating in a Matrixian like state where nothing is what you think it is.

Food Inc. is worth the time and money to see. You don't have to change the way you eat or shop. You don't have to publicy disgrace a fast-food chain or throw paint on someone wearing fur but we should all have the same curiosity of Michael Pollan and wonder where our food really is coming from.

Televisionzz: Pawn Stars

2009-07-24T16:41:00.000-07:00

When I put a show on series record on our DVR, I feel like it's worth sharing. With that said, I just started watching Pawn Stars on the History Channel.

"PAWN STARS takes you inside the colorful world of the pawn business. At the Gold & Silver Pawn Shop on the outskirts of Las Vegas, three generations of the Harrison Family--grandfather Richard, son Rick, and grandson Corey--jointly run the family business, and there's clashing and camaraderie every step of the way." -History Channel

In short, the show is American Chopper (-the family feuds) + King of Cars (-the redundancy of selling cars) + Miami Ink (-Miami, tatts, and bravado) + Antiques Roadshow (-the boredom).

What makes this show series-record worthy is that these guys deal in anything and everything. From jewelery to cars, boats, and historic weaponry, they buy and sell it all while cut-away interviews fill the viewer in about how the pawn business works.

Beyond that, one of the best parts of the show is what you learn about all of the items being pawned. In one episode you can learn what makes a Civil War cannon worth $40,000 or $20,000, if a guitar signed by Chuck Berry is worth anything, how you know if a saber was a military issued sidearm from 1867 instead of a replica, and how much a 3,000 lbs table saw can be pawned for. It's history Twitterfied.

Enjoy!