Scott or Scottie?

Where I Go

February 18, 2009 in Around the Web | Leave a comment

I have quite a prodigious reading list that I scan through every day. I don’t read it all, but I at least scan the headlines and news for 105 blogs throughout the day.

Wow, that’s a lot. I don’t think I realized that I had that many feeds. What I would like to do is a series of posts highlighting and sharing some of my favorites for your benefit and pleasure.

I’ll start with what is one of the oldest feeds in my RSS reader, a site that I have been visiting fairly regularly for about 8 or 9 years. Ars Technica is a technology news site par excellance. They cover a broad spectrum of technology and science news, and from time to time throw in an in-depth review or how-to feature. I think that what brought me to their site was the review of OS X when it first came out. One of their writers, John Siracusa, has turned out to be one of the most thoughtful and thorough critics of Apple’s OS efforts. Whenever a new version of OS X hits, he’s there within a few weeks with a review that really gets into the guts and explains how the OS works the way it does, and often makes some suggestions of where it can improve.

One thing I really enjoy about their regular updates is their political coverage. They are constantly posting stories concerned with the convergence of technology and law or politics. For example, they recently posted a really interesting story about how Harvard Law students have taken on the RIAA as a sort of class project. Apparently a Harvard Law professor has taken up a case for the defendant in a music industry lawsuit against file sharers, and his students are doing a lot of the legwork for him.

Nationalization Spurs Competition?

February 11, 2009 in Life, Thoughts | Leave a comment

In May of last year, Evo announced that the government was nationalizing the nation’s biggest cellular carrier, Entel. There were claims of unpaid taxes and a failure on their part to live up to their end of the privatization deal that put the network in the hands of Telecom Italia back in 1995. Who knows whether or not they were true.

What is interesting to me is that as soon as the government took it over, Entel dropped its prices drastically. Everyone thought it would be the end of the other two major cell carriers here in La Paz, Viva and Tigo. There was just no way they could take that kind of price drop.

Well, that much was true, but these two carriers have apparently decided to take different approaches to competing. When I got to Bolivia 2 years ago, Tigo was a joke. Their coverage was terrible, even in the middle of the city. They now offer 3G data service and are selling Blackberrys. They also offer service all over the country. Viva has taken the approach of emphasizing on image and branding. Over the last year or so they have sponsored several trendy bars and clubs and sponsored just about every big pop music event in La Paz.

So, thanks to Entel’s nationalization and subsequent price cuts we now have 3G data service available in La Paz and get the occasional cool concert. Who would have thought?

Good Conversation

October 30, 2008 in Thoughts | 2 comments

I have a theological question

johnswaney
8:25 | Oct 29
k

Scott Cunningham
8:27 | Oct 29
if a person is punished for somebody elses’ wrongdoing, and accepts this punishment, is justice served? stated another way, “is acquiescing to an undeserved punishment favoring justice, or injustice?”
8:28 | Oct 29
or is a person obligated to resist a punishment they don’t deserve

johnswaney
8:28 | Oct 29
this seems like a philosophical question posed last year as well from a book or movie you showed

Scott Cunningham
8:28 | Oct 29
really?

johnswaney
8:28 | Oct 29
yep

Scott Cunningham
8:28 | Oct 29
I don’t remember
8:28 | Oct 29
but it does relate to a book I’m reading

johnswaney
8:29 | Oct 29
don’t think it was posed by you though
8:29 | Oct 29
perhaps a student
8:29 | Oct 29
give me a few minutes to take in the question lol

Scott Cunningham
8:29 | Oct 29
I’ve been running through it for the last day or so, so take your time

johnswaney
8:41 | Oct 29
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2024096, last paragraph – he suggests that to be justice the offender must take the punishment

Scott Cunningham
8:43 | Oct 29
but that’s not necessarily the Biblical model. Like when God talked about the sins of the father being visited upon the third and fourth generation

johnswaney
8:43 | Oct 29
true – i’m still searching about that, but a cursory search brought me to that article

Scott Cunningham
8:43 | Oct 29
yeah
8:46 | Oct 29
I feel like the model put forth even in the New Testemant is a resignation to punishment even when it is undeserved. Like Stephen. When the people gathered around to stone him, he didn’t protest his innocence
8:49 | Oct 29
I guess there’s the sense that justice will ultimately be served
8:49 | Oct 29
but that’s no excuse for not opposing justice when it is apparent…., is it?

johnswaney
8:49 | Oct 29
honestly this isn’t a topic i’ve researched or have even had teaching on

Scott Cunningham
8:49 | Oct 29
yeah, ok
8:49 | Oct 29
me neither

johnswaney
8:50 | Oct 29
however, i came across the best form of sarcasm in a long time …

Scott Cunningham
8:50 | Oct 29
I just asked because you have a pretty good sense of the Bible as a whole
8:50 | Oct 29
what was that?

johnswaney
8:51 | Oct 29
Poster 1 Sep, 12 2006 at 11:11 AM
No the Bible is not “IN FACT” true. You are to naive…
Poster 2 Oct, 10 2006 at 12:18 AM
I need “to” point out, that you shouldv’e used “two” O’s instead of one. Like, oh Mr.Mclister, you’re “too” silly..The kind of “to” you used, is used like, Oh, Mr.Mclister, go “to” hell..

Scott Cunningham
8:51 | Oct 29
ha

johnswaney
8:52 | Oct 29
thanks for recognizing my knowledge of the Bible as a whole – unfortunately that doesn’t translate well to knowing the inner details – something i admittedly lack way too often

Scott Cunningham
8:56 | Oct 29
how does this sound to you: Personal justice, that is, not being punished for what you did not do and having wrongs done to you remedied is a value that one may or may not hold at their discretion, but until it is relinquished by the holder, the rest of us are obligated to see it done

johnswaney
8:57 | Oct 29
I’m thrown off by the “not being punished for what you did not do”

Scott Cunningham
8:58 | Oct 29
well it would clearly be unjust if I was put in prison for a crime I did not commit
8:58 | Oct 29
that’s all that means

johnswaney
8:58 | Oct 29
true

Scott Cunningham
8:59 | Oct 29
a just authority aught not to punish someone for an infraction they did not commit

johnswaney
9:00 | Oct 29
i’m reading this at the moment http://www.cs.unm.edu/~aaron/creative/justice.htm

Scott Cunningham
9:00 | Oct 29
the problem is whether justice is a right that can be waived, or an obligation that must be fulfilled
9:02 | Oct 29
but I think its both

johnswaney
9:02 | Oct 29
Personal justice, then, is the mother of legal
: justice.
9:03 | Oct 29
quote
9:03 | Oct 29
“The connection between personal justice and legal justice could be boiled down to a
: simple observation made by the Legal Realist movement c. 1900-1940 [6]. This
: movement observed that judges, like the rest of us, put their pants on one leg at a
: time, meaning that they are subjective participants in the legal system, thus allowing
: their concept of personal justice to affect the future definition of legal justice.”

Scott Cunningham
9:06 | Oct 29
I think this author is using the term differently than I was. he seems to be talking about personal justice as a person taking responsibility for their own justice. I was using it more to talk about justice as it applies directly to a person
9:06 | Oct 29
though the article still could be useful
9:06 | Oct 29
I’m reading it now

johnswaney
9:06 | Oct 29
page 2 is better i think

Scott Cunningham
9:11 | Oct 29
what I’m trying to come up with here is a framework to think about this issue outside of the law. for example, in the US, attempted murder is a criminal offense, and charges will be pressed regardless of whether the wronged party wants it or not. but in another country, this might not be the case and the “criminal” might need someone to accuse him if there is a wronged party
9:12 | Oct 29
so “legal justice” could look very different in those two situations

johnswaney
9:12 | Oct 29
and you’re questioning the “rightness” of the US system?

Scott Cunningham
9:14 | Oct 29
maybe…, though not as such. that’s not my goal, but that might be an implication
9:16 | Oct 29
I think Paul’s appeal to Ceasar is a great example

johnswaney
9:16 | Oct 29
God’s standard however exacts judgment without a human accuser. our ultimate condemnation is before him, regardless what others think of the situation – Jesus on the other hand made a retribution for that vicariously.

Scott Cunningham
9:17 | Oct 29
Agrippa said, “He could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar”
9:17 | Oct 29
which would have been the “just” result
9:17 | Oct 29
but Paul chose to reliquish his right to justice for a greater good
9:18 | Oct 29
God is our accuser. that’s why Jesus is pictured as our defender

johnswaney
9:19 | Oct 29
indeed

Scott Cunningham
9:20 | Oct 29
but the question remains, must we always act in according with the pursuit of our own justice, as God does, or can we give that us, as Paul did?
9:21 | Oct 29
is it only God that is obligated to pursue his own justice?

johnswaney
9:21 | Oct 29
i think that leads to a greater theological debate of sovereignty over free will

Scott Cunningham
9:21 | Oct 29
why?

johnswaney
9:23 | Oct 29
are we fully directed by the holy spirit and therefore pursue as God does, or do we have free will to put that aside – to the hyper extent of both sides – one cannot act on their own, while on the other God has not say but left to the will of man to decide

Scott Cunningham
9:26 | Oct 29
well, if one cannot act on their own, then there is no need for a basis in making one’s decisions. I think that to go there is the end of all necessity for moral reasoning

johnswaney
9:26 | Oct 29
i don’t disagree, but it nevertheless is a position held by some

Scott Cunningham
9:27 | Oct 29
maybe so, but it’s a position that I’m going to ignore, because I want to try to make the right decisions

johnswaney
9:28 | Oct 29
also is it possible that Paul’s choice was selective and not universal?

Scott Cunningham
9:28 | Oct 29
you mean that morality is not absolute?

johnswaney
9:29 | Oct 29
you gave an either/or – pursue as God does or give it up for the greater good
9:29 | Oct 29
God trumps Paul – so for Paul was that a selective decision or a demonstration of a universal action

Scott Cunningham
9:31 | Oct 29
I think that the answer to that problem might lie somewhere in the essential nature of God. We clearly can’t just do as God does at all times and call it right. If so, we could justify all sorts of things. Annhilating entire nations for example
9:32 | Oct 29
but, God could do nothing other than wipe out the Canaanites

johnswaney
9:33 | Oct 29
actually he had the israelites do it – and they failed

Scott Cunningham
9:33 | Oct 29
but if a human power decided to do that, we would say that it was appalling
9:33 | Oct 29
right
9:33 | Oct 29
ok, how about kill the firstborn child of an entire nation
9:34 | Oct 29
Him being God makes it right. that doesn’t mean we aught to imitate the action

johnswaney
9:35 | Oct 29
you’re right – people would see that as appalling – however, we have limited vision, focus, and faith – God is not limited by those things. True faith would require us to not waiver from God even through those decisions he made

Scott Cunningham
9:35 | Oct 29
so God’s relentless pursuit of his own justice might likewise be an action that we ought not to blindly immitate
9:36 | Oct 29
or at least not necessarily imitate…

johnswaney
9:36 | Oct 29
Revenge is mine, thus says the Lord

Scott Cunningham
9:37 | Oct 29
right, though there is also ample condemnation for those who do not take up the cause of the fatherless and the widow
9:38 | Oct 29
which is why I’m trying to create categories to see why one is acceptable injustice and the other is not

johnswaney
9:38 | Oct 29
i see
9:39 | Oct 29
however perhaps there are limits to the extent that we are to “take up the cause” – that is, our role is to go so far, to which, God then takes care of the rest

Scott Cunningham
9:41 | Oct 29
yeah, but there is a sense, I think, that if we are wronged and that wrong is not redressed, we aught not to worry, because God will take care of it, while if the helpless are harmed, we ought to be, at the very very least, upset about it
9:42 | Oct 29
thanks for talking about this by the way. it’s been quite a help in figuring it out. gonna be one heck of a Biblical integration lesson tomorrow

johnswaney
9:42 | Oct 29
indeed, however, what is the extent of our role in coming to the aid of the fatherless and widows? do we go so far as to exact revenge on the offender? or do we provide resources to aid them – leaving the actual revenge of the person to God?

Scott Cunningham
9:44 | Oct 29
Here is what Psalms says: “God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
9:44 | Oct 29
“give justice to the weak”
9:47 | Oct 29
though I see that this is somewhat rhetorical now that I look at the netbible notes
9:47 | Oct 29
Isaiah 1:17 is more clear… “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow”

johnswaney
9:48 | Oct 29
i’m exploring…
9:49 | Oct 29
Matthew Henry says this refers to magistrates from a court of law stand point, not common man

Scott Cunningham
9:50 | Oct 29
that doesn’t look at all like the context…
9:51 | Oct 29
the whole passage is all about common man

johnswaney
9:51 | Oct 29
“This psalm is calculated for the meridian of princes’ courts and courts of justice, not in Israel only, but in other nations; yet it was probably penned primarily for the use of the magistrates of Israel, the great Sanhedrim, and their other elders who were in places of power, and perhaps by David’s direction. This psalm is designed to make kings wise, and “to instruct the judges of the earth’’

Scott Cunningham
9:51 | Oct 29
“Though your sins have stained you like the color red,
you can become 46 white like snow;
though they are as easy to see as the color scarlet,
you can become 47 white like wool. 48
1:19 If you have a willing attitude and obey, 49
then you will again eat the good crops of the land.
9:51 | Oct 29
right
9:51 | Oct 29
yeah
9:51 | Oct 29
I got that for the psalms verse
9:51 | Oct 29
so I moved onto Isaiah 1:17
9:52 | Oct 29
which seems to be pretty clearly directed to the common man

johnswaney
9:53 | Oct 29
The sermon which is contained in this chapter has in it, I. A high charge exhibited, in God’s name, against the Jewish church and nation, 1. For their ingratitude (v. 2, 3). 2. For their incorrigibleness (v. 5). 3. For the universal corruption and degeneracy of the people (v. 4, 6, 21, 22). 4. For the perversion of justice by their rulers (v. 23). II. A sad complaint of the judgments of God, which they had brought upon themselves by their sins, and by which they were brought almost to utter ruin (v. 7-9). III. A just rejection of those shows and shadows of religion which they kept up among them, notwithstanding this general defection and apostasy (v. 10–15). IV. An earnest call to repentance and reformation, setting before them life and death, life if they compiled with the call and death if they did not (v. 16–20). V. A threatening of ruin to those that would not be reformed (v. 24, 28–31). VI. A promise of a happy reformation at last, and a return to their primitive purity and prosperity (v. 25–27). And all this is to be applied by us, not only to the communities we are members of, in their public interests, but to the state of our own souls.
9:54 | Oct 29
Henry comments:
9:55 | Oct 29
Seek opportunities of doing good: Relieve the oppressed, those whom you yourselves have oppressed; ease them of their burdens, ch. 58:6. You, that have power in your hands, use it for the relief of those whom others do oppress, for that is your business. Avenge those that suffer wrong, in a special manner concerning yourselves for the fatherless and the widow, whom, because they are weak and helpless, proud men trample upon and abuse; do you appear for them at the bar, on the bench, as there is occasion. Speak for those that know not how to speak for themselves and that have not wherewithal to gratify you for your kindness.’’ Note, We are truly honouring God when we are doing good in the world; and acts of justice and charity are more pleasing to him than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices.

Scott Cunningham
9:55 | Oct 29
exactly
9:55 | Oct 29
but when our own justice is at sake, we can be satisfied with letting God take care of it

johnswaney
9:56 | Oct 29
yes
9:56 | Oct 29
and with that, my brain hurts, and thus, I’m going to bed

Scott Cunningham
9:56 | Oct 29
me too
9:56 | Oct 29
thanks again

johnswaney
9:56 | Oct 29
Not a problem
9:56 | Oct 29
Makes me glad I’m teaching on the miracles of Jesus tomorrow

More on Chapter 1 of Velvet Elvis

September 29, 2008 in Music, Film, Books (i.e. The Media), Thoughts | Leave a comment

I discussed this first chapter with some friends over the weekend, and another statement that Bell made struck me during this conversation. He says, “Doctrine is a wonderful servant, but a harsh master.” I think that this brings his statements into some level of perspective and lets me appreciate them more. I think that what this boils down to is the question of, “Do the things I believe make me more able to love and follow Jesus, or less?”

I think that what he’s saying is that a doctrine that we aren’t willing to “play with,” ask questions about, test, hypothesize about, is something that is ultimately dead. All we are going to with it is defend it, at the expense maybe of our relationships with others (the second commandment: love your neighbor as yourself). But when we are willing to test and revise doctrines, then we become more interested in if they stand up under critique than in protecting them from critique. If someone critiques something that we are dedicated to defending, I think that our response is to attack back. But if we have these doctrines in perspective then we are more willing to say, “That’s an interesting idea. Does it stand up?”

I don’t think he’s saying that the Trinity isn’t true, but that the early Church worshiped God for hundreds of years without having a very systematic understanding of it. Therefore, if someone tries to revise it further, we needn’t feel threatened by this. A more appropriate response is to see if it actually does stretch in the direction that the theorist proposes. The same would be true if the “discoveries” Bell hypotheticalizes about birth were correct. Notice that his hypothetical situation does not in any way compromise the inerrancy of scripture: it just suggests that what we thought scripture to mean is different than its actual meaning. I don’t see any more reason for one’s faith to collapse under that circumstance than it would need to if one decided (as I did) that the Genesis account of creation was not referencing a literal 6 day creation.

Velvet Elvis: Chapter 1

September 24, 2008 in Music, Film, Books (i.e. The Media), Thoughts | Leave a comment

So I finished Chapter 1 of Velvet Elvis yesterday, and I think I can begin to see already where some of its merits and weaknesses lie. There are two specific points I want to make and then I’ll take a broader view of where I see Bell going with this. Note that “quotes” are actually paraphrases, because I don’t have the book in front of me as I’m writing this. I think most of them are pretty close though.

• Early in the chapter, Bell makes the point that the reason we have such a hard time wrapping our minds around God is that He and only He is absolute and eternal. So far so good, but he continues to claim that God has no intention of “sharing His absoluteness with us.” While this is definitely true as far as we will never be able to fully grasp God until we are made perfect with Him, it is not true that God hasn’t shared this with us. He has, in two ways, both of which can be summed up as “The Word.” Both the Bible and the Incarnation are acts of God where He does share His absoluteness with us. Bell may respond that we misinterpret the Bible and crucified His son, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t communicate who He is to us; it just means we are sinful, fallen, and rebellious, and prone to reject His Word. If I offer my little brother a toy that belongs to me and he’s been crying for for the last five minutes, and he slaps it out of my hand and continues to cry, it would be insane to say that I haven’t shared with him.

• Bell advises his readers to hold their beliefs loosely. He posits a scenario where there was a discovery of DNA evidence to prove that Jesus was the biological off-spring of Joseph, that the idea of the virgin birth was invented to appeal to ancient Dionysus cults and that the expression, “Born of a virgin” had an accepted meaning of, “Conceived during the first sexual intercourse of a virgin.” He’s not claiming any of this to be true of course, but he wonders what would people would say if it were true. If a spiritual belief that we hold is found to disagree with objective evidence, where does that leave us?

In some respects, I completely understand where Bell is coming from. I read a book a long time ago called A Skeleton in God’s Closet, which was a terrible book that asked a very intriguing question. It created a scenario where the body of Jesus Christ had been found in a grave in Palestine and explored how it affected the faith of the Christian characters of the book. As it turned out in the book, it was just a hoax (I’m sure that no Christian publisher would have touched it otherwise). I do think that the question is intriguing though: How ought one to respond when something you believe is challenged by the observable evidence.

This question has effected my own life in the case of Creation. I always believed growing up that Creation meant the ex nihilio creation of the universe in six 24-hour days, but as I studied more science in high school and university I was led to question this. I did some Bible research and learned about the poetic qualities of the book of Genesis and eventually came to the conclusion that the creation account can be read figuratively while still remaining true to itself and its fundamental readings. Perhaps enough evidence could convince me of the same for the virgin birth.

But where Bell fails I think, in this point, is that he doesn’t give any indication of whether there are any limits to this loose-fisted grasp on one’s beliefs. What about the Skeleton in God’s Closet scenario? As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, “For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.” Is this a line that cannot be crossed, or would Bell say that belief in the resurrection is no more necessary to Christianity than belief in a 6 day creation period? He gives no indication. Which leads me to my next point:

• Bell, in this first chapter, has placed a strong emphasis on right living over right belief. He introduces this perspective by observing that belief in God’s Triune nature is a phenomenon that was not formally expressed until the 4th Century. His point is that it is very likely that Christians before then, and Jews before that, may not have had much conception of God as “three in one” as today’s orthodox Christianity conceives Him. So did that mean they couldn’t really follow Him? Clearly not. The way Bell phrases this question is quite telling also I think, “Could someone who does not believe in the Trinity still live as Jesus taught us to live?” “Living like Christ taught us,” seems to be Bell’s shorthand definition of Christianity, but my question to that is, can ANYONE live as Christ taught us to?

Again, I can see where Bell is coming from. I’ve seen in my own life where I’ve felt that because I believed the “right things” all was right in my world and I was on the King’s Highway, when if anyone were to look at my life they could easily come to a different conclusion. The word Christian, if I remember correctly, was originally meant to communicate the idea of, “little Christ.” If we are Christ’s disciples, we are to walk in His ways. But who can do such a thing? We can try, but when we fail, what is left to us? Our BELIEF that Christ’s blood is sufficient to cover our sins. We are called to right living, but when we fail to live rightly, it is our beliefs that give us hope. One is absolutely meaningless without the other, but Bell seems too willing to toss out right belief.

Closely Reading Velvet Elvis

September 23, 2008 in Life, Music, Film, Books (i.e. The Media), Thoughts | Leave a comment

One of the best books I’ve read this year was Why We Aren’t Emergent: by Two Guys Who Should Be, by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung. As the title suggests, it was a criticism of the emergent church movement. However, I’m not going to write much about it here, except to say that one of the writers/thinkers/leaders of the movement that came under the harshest criticisms was Rob Bell. I’ve had only a limited exposure to Bell, but both of my encounters with him (the Nooma videos and the Everything is Spiritual presentation) have been very satisfying and stimulating, and so I was a bit surprised to see him take such heavy criticism in this book.

Coincidentally, my church young adults group has decided to meet weekly, and the subject of our meetings is going to be Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis. I’m pretty excited about this group, not only for the opportunity to fellowship with some of the other young people of my church, but because I’m really interested to read this book for myself and decide whether or not DeYoung and Kluck’s criticisms are as fair and accurate as they sounded in their book. I’ve decided to write a series of responses to the book as I read it and post those here for anyone who cares to read them.

Just a heads up.

Paradise

September 11, 2008 in Thoughts | Leave a comment

I looked over my shoulder at the rising sun. The long night of walking was almost over, and the golden, thigh-high grass glistened with dew. The morning was not warm, but after the icy winds of the night before, the sun’s ray’s felt like a hot shower. The ground sloped up in front of me and seagulls wheeled in the sky above. The air had a gentle bite of sea salt, and as I approached the end of my walk the ground fell sharply away. Below me, the ocean pounded the stony cliff and in front of me, it stretched out, a blue mirror, into eternity.

One Week Done

August 15, 2008 in Life | Leave a comment

Well, it’s been a long week, but it’s over. I always have trouble with the first week of school after the summer, because, having been out of the classroom for two months before, I can never think about what I need to accomplish in planning for that week. It, comes back to me the first or second day of class, but I always end up just a day or two ahead of the kids. This weekend, though, I should be able to put together some good plans for next week.

This year, this was a bit compounded by the move to block schedule. I haven’t ever taught for 90 minutes straight, so planning that was a challenge too. In all, I think the move to block schedule is going to be good for our kids, and having a week of that under my belt should help me as I plan out the next week or so this weekend.

The Dark Knight

August 2, 2008 in Music, Film, Books (i.e. The Media), Thoughts | Leave a comment

Something I was really looking forward to as I left Bolivia for my summer in the states was the movies that would be coming out over the summer. Three in particular had really excited me. While both Wall-E and Hellboy 2 were delightful, beautiful, and provocative, they were both outshone, as it were, by the brilliance of The Dark Knight, which may have found its way into my top echelon of beloved movies after only one viewing.

The film has plenty for me to specifically praise, both in its meanings and technique, but I want to consider just one aspect of it here, and that is the moral struggles it presents with regard to combating evil. As I saw it, the ultimate questions it poses in this area are all orbiting around the problem of combating evil without becoming that which you are fighting. What moral compromise is necessary or acceptable in pursuit of justice and rightness? This is a question that I love to see explored and many of my favorite works feature it, notably my favorite novel, All the King’s Men, and one of my favorite films, Sin City. These two works definitely come at it from different angles, as AtKM depicts a governor who compromises his ideals in pursuit of what is right and tragically becomes a monster, and Sin City depicts monsters who dedicate themselves to their ideals with abandon.

Batman depicts a man who chooses to become a monster, knowingly sacrificing his goodness and righteousness in pursuit of justice. He is fully aware that his methods are wrong but is also convinced that these are the only ways that he personally is able to act in opposition to the injustice that permeates Gotham. He is also absolutely dissatisfied with his solution, both on a personal and institutional level, fully aware of the harm it does to him and to the city, and is waiting and hoping for a White Knight to appear who is strong enough to save Gotham without the compromised methods that Batman must resort to.

When I walked out the theater with my Dad, he immediately commented that the movie was about terrorism and the War on Terror, and I do think that this may be the most immediately applicable area to put these questions to the test. The question of what degree Americans are willing to sacrifice their ideals in order to combat terrorism is one that has been in the forefront of the public consciousness, especially as more information about the lengths American intelligence agents go to extract information becomes more an more public. Do we endorse these methods? Is torture acceptable? Trial-less incarceration? Are we going to accept these methods as necessary evils as we wait for a better solution to show up, like Batman, embrace them as morally neutral, as Willy does in All the King’s Men (and then discovers the horror of his actions on his deathbed), or are they going to be our natural, moral, and correct response, as Sin City depicts?

Or do we resist them altogether? And at what cost? What price must one pay for righteousness? A strong economy? 100 lives? The life of a family member? What is worth more?

Home…ish

August 2, 2008 in Life | Leave a comment

Well, after a relaxing, productive, and refreshing summer back in the states, I’m back in Bolivia. I made it in without too much trouble on the 31st of July, am getting set up in my apartment, and am getting ready for school to start up. I’m up at the school right now, as I don’t yet have internet in my apartment, and it’s looking really good. The soccer field is green (it’s never green in August) and the cafeteria has been completely remodeled and looks amazing. I can’t get started on my classroom yet, as there is still painting to be done, but hopefully next week I’ll be able to get in there and get it set up so I’ll be ready to receive students when classes start on the 11th.

It’s great to see everyone back here and to welcome the new teachers to La Paz. One couple had a bit of a fright as they arrived with a newborn baby (about 7 weeks old). She wasn’t able to adapt quickly to the lack of air, and actually stopped breathing for a period as she was being rushed to the hospital, but she is much better now and should be able to leave the hospital this morning. What a terrifying experience though for James and Julie (our science/math teacher and his wife), but we praise and thank God for his protection over their daughter, Maya.