Ten People I

Ten Most Fascinating People

ABC recently aired Barbara Walters' annual Ten Most Fascinating People program. I didn't find most of the people featured very fascinating. However, these ten people are fascinating to me, so if it was up to me, I would have featured them.

Greg Boyd
Barack Obama
Feisal Abdul Rauf
David Brooks
the Dali Lama
Leonardo DiCaprio
Rob Bell
The cast of Parenthood
Noam Chomsky
Kevin Spacey

NFL Predictions!!!

It's only a few days away from the 2010 NFL kickoff (two, to be exact), and it's time I make some predictions, division by divisions. Here goes:

AFC East:
1. Jets
2. Patriots
3. Dolphins
4. Bills

AFC North
1. Ravens
2. Bengals
3. Steelers
4. Browns

AFC South
1. Colts
2. Texans
3. Titans
4. Jaguars

AFC West
1. Chargers
2. Raiders
3. Chiefs
4. Broncos

NFC East
1. Cowboys
2. Giants
3. Eagles
4. Redskins

NFC North
1. Packers
2. Vikings
3. Lions
4. Bears

NFC South
1. Saints
2. Falcons
3. Panthers
4. Bucs

NFC West:
1. 49ers
2. Cardinals
3. Seahawks
4. Rams


I would be very surprised if the Saints can repeat as Super Bowl Champions. They had the magic last year, but I don't think they have the personnel (especially in the backfield) to repeat. The Packers are a popular pick to win the Super Bowl, or at least be the NFC representative (which is great to hear as a Packers fan, as I am) but I have to go with the Cowboys representing the NFC, especially with the game in Dallas this year. The Packers swould be my second choice. I'm picking the Jets in the AFC. Their talent has been overhyped, especially with them being on Hard Knocks, but I do think they have the most talent and are the best and most balanced team overall. My sleeper teams are the Patriots (when was the last time they could be a potential sleeper team?), the Dolphins, Lions and Panthers. Those teams have talent, the big question is whether they'll be able to put it all together to be decent teams. The two teams that have been good the last few years, but could (potentially) have drastic dropoffs are the Chargers and Bears. I expect the Chargers to be good, but they are high-risk, high-reward, especially with both Vincent Jackson and Marcus McNeil holding out, and the rookie Ryan Matthews taking over at running back. If Mike Martz' new offensive scheme fails in the Windy City, they could be as mess, especially with their underwhelming receiving corps, Jay Cutler's inclination to turn the ball over, and their injury concerns, especially among their linebacking unit and defensive backfield. The toughest division to predict is the AFC North. Any of the three teams (the Ravens, Bengals, or Steelers) could, in my estimation, be playing in the Super Bowl come February. However, any of the three teams could also finish third and be a sub five-hundred teams.

Whatever happens, it should be an interesting season!

Best Picture

I'm obviously (and sadly) not a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Therefore I couldn't vote for best picture this year. After attending AMC Best Picture Show (what a cool name), I do have opinions on this year's Best Picture nominees. It's nice for ten films to be nominated instead of the usual five films because it's probably a career and self-esteem boost for many people involved. It must be a great thrill to be involved with a film that's nominated, so its nice more people have the opportunity to experience that thrill. However, I didn't think several of the films deserved to be nominated. Here's how I would rank the films:

1. An Education
2. Up in the Air
3. Inglorious Basterds
4. District Nine
5. Precious
6. Up
7. A Serious Man
8. The Blind Side
9. Avatar
10. The Hurt Locker

The films this year were, overall, too depressing. Almost all of them had depressing plots, and all of them had depressing elements. An Education, I thought, was a creative movie with an interesting plot, and put into the context of 1960 London, was a compelling movie, complete with great acting. Up in the Air was very good, with a good balance of humor and a meaningful plot, though the ending left a little bit to be desired. Alternative history films are always interesting, as Inglorious Basterds was. The violence was over the top, which isn't surprising since its a Tarintino film. Without the excessive, and somewhat meaningless violence, it would have been the best picture in my book, hands down. The plot of District Nine was very creative and compelling, and its documentary style made the film even better. Precious was good, and hopefully gave some viewers a good picture of the challenges some face growing up in the inner city. Up was good, though the plot was obviously somewhat hard to imagine, but heartwarming. A Serious Man was interesting, yet boring at the same time. After watching the beginning of the movie I thought it showed lots of promise. But I kept waiting for the drama and the climax to happen, and it never seemed to develop. It was a very well-made movie (I wouldn't expect anything less from the Coen brothers), with a pretty good soundtrack (though it seemed excessively dramatic for the plot). But the action wasn't there. Michael Stuhlbarg deserved Best Actor for his performance. The Blind Side was somewhat of a disappointment. It's a very uplifting movie, no doubt, one that I'm sure I won't mind watching again. However, it was so good to the point of being cheesy (as best displayed by the little brother). The story, and the family, was too perfect. And I know that it wasn't entirely true to the true story. I wasn't especially impressed with Sandra Bullock's acting, which puts me in the minority. Avatar would be a slightly above average film without the special effects and 3-D. The plot was really nothing special, and the subtle political statements cheapened the movie. James Cameron and his team certainly deserve a great deal of credit for the cinematography of the film.

The Hurt Locker, I didn't think, was an especially exceptional film. The filmmakers did a great job of making the viewers feel like they were in combat through the entire film, which is obviously the intent in such a movie. (To the detriment of moviegoers like me, who saw the movie in the theatre and find such violence and tension hard to deal with.) However, I didn't think the film really had too much of a plot that was developed. For a Best Picture winner, I would have expected a better plot. Quite a bit of the action seemed unlikely and unrealistic in real combat and, in fact, many veterans have ardently complained that parts of the movie are very inaccurate. I thought Brothers, which focuses on the psychological effects on soldiers after they returned home, and had roughly the same message as The Hurt Locker, had a much better, and much more developed plot.

More Love to Go Around (Not)

Thanks to Glenn Beck, independent conservatives now have someone to hate. Democrats have Republicans to hate. Republicans have Democrats to hate. Marxists have Capitalists to hate. It's only fair that independents who are conservative have somebody to hate. Now, Glenn Beck has given them "Progressives".

I've defended Glenn Beck several times on this blog before. I can no longer do so. His obsession with the social justice movement and its association with liberation theology, and his constant insistence that the Obama administration and "Progressives" (who, according to him are actually most of the politicians in office in the U.S. and around the world today) want to create a new world order is very unfortunate given the fact that we need more honest dialogue debate, not more stereotyping or playing the blame game.

Recently Glenn Beck has turned his attacks, and unfortunately his vitriol, toward religious leaders. It seems every day that Glenn Beck adds more and more people to the list of those who are part of a grand conspiracy. Most recently he has spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Jim Wallis, whom I've had the honor of hearing speak before. Glenn Beck, unfortunately, uses guilt by association often, and cherry picks comments and sound bites to impugn the character and beliefs of those who he disagrees with, often distorting what they really believe.

Glenn Beck is a Christian. I cannot and I will not question his faith. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. However, I do question his constant lampooning of those he disagrees with, his questioning of the faith of others, and his characterization of Progressivism as a "cancer". This is a strange way of demonstrating and expressing the love of Jesus. Sadly, instead of being a proponent of more a unbiased, responsible, and civil dialectic, he simply has bought into blaming a segment of the population who he disagrees with for our problems. How lame.

Tiger Woods

Mercy for Tiger Woods came from a seemingly unlikely source this week, coming from the mouth of Rosie O'Donnell. Too often O'Donnell has seemed angry, biter, and unforgiving- especially towards conservatives and Christians. But this time she displayed tremendous forgiveness and grace, saying she feels sorry for Tiger, and that "we all have our inner demons to battle". She also noted that she was one of the few peoples she knows that feels bad for him.

Mel Gibson has also come out and said he feels bad for Tiger. He, much like Rosie, said that "we all have our flaws", and felt sorry that the media is" beating the hell out of him". Whoopi Goldberg has also made similar statements.

Perhaps their sympathy is because they have all have felt the pressure that is put on them, created by the media and the public, and because they have both publicly struggled with their own inner demons and seen first-hand the nastiness of the media.

I saw a clip with Joy Behar and several of her hosts lambasting these statements O'Donell and Gibson made, with one guest even saying she wants to break [Mel Gibson's) heart, and followed it up by saying that he simply wants sympathy from the public for his flaws, and lampooned that they could "talk all night about [Mel's Gibson's] flaws". Meanwhile, Kirstie Alley got into a nasty Twitter fued with Behar, complaining that she (paraphrasing) "wanted to hurt Joy Bewhore". It's a shame in spite of this terrible situation it has to lead to more hate and anger. Instead of people looking at themselves and their own flaws, they use these time to feel better, at others' expense.

I can expect this self-righteous attitude from the media. The media has built up many of these celebrities as larger-than-life, as some sort of gods, setting them up for controversy and scandal, and then blowing the story up when they make a mistake. They love scandals like this. It means good ratings. The media and many people seem to forget that these celebrities, or anybody in the limelight, is NOT God, and has their issues, just like anyone and everyone else. Rosie O'Donnell, Mel Gibson, and Whoppi Goldberg were absolutely right on. It does no good for all the pundits to put on a facade and act like they're perfect. This is a classic case when it is important for Christians to remember Matthew 7:3-5, which says, " Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your own eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hyprocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. I very much applaud all three for the statements they made, especially in light of the heat they have taken for it.

For Christians, it is very important that we don't laugh at Tiger Woods to make ourselves feel better, at his expense. It is crucial that he is not the butt of a joke. We should be humble and realize that any of us call fall under the influence of our own temptations. Christians should the first to show mercy and forgiveness to him and others in his situation, not offering their laughs or judgement, but their prayers. For, as John 13:35 says, they will know us by our love.

State of the Union

I watched some of Barack Obama's State of the Union address this year. Right after the one year mark of his inauguration, it's fitting to discuss his first year in office. It should be remembered, however, that it is only THE END OF HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. Everything can totally change in just a few months span. As a (very) independent voter, it's only fair that I think about what both parties have done this year.

Obama had lots of great rhetoric and made lots of promises during his campaign and transition to the White House. Unfortunately, he has failed to fulfill most of his promises so far. Ending "Don't ask, don't tell", which I am very much in support of doing, was supposedly an important issue. Yet he has barely touched on the issue during the first year, and has made no substantive effort in that area. (The LGBT has been very upset with him the fist year for a variety of reasons.) Shutting down Guantanamo Bay was also supposedly a major issue, and one I thought was important. (I very much support closing it.) And while there were some steps taken in that direction, the issue has been on the backburner and has many lingering issues that the administration has failed to address this year.

However, ending "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture), like waterboarding, was also major campaign promise. He has ending the practices, which I applaud him for. This was an extremely important decision. I also applaud him for listening to Leon Panetta and the CIA in overturning his previous (and incredibly ridiculous and unwise) decision to publicly release the videos of the interrogations in which those techniques were employed.

There was a great deal of controversy at Attorney Journey Eric Holder and the Justice Department's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) in the civilian court system, and even more the decision to hold the trial in New York City. Though I don't feel as strongly as some on the issue, I think the decision is unwise. I think it would be safer and more wise to try him in under a military tribunal, but I certainly see the value, especially from a public relations standpoint, of trying him in the civilian court system. Even moreso, I don't agree with doing it in New York, where it brings up memories of the attack and most citizens polled disapprove of the idea. The trial will cost an estimated 100 million dollars to deal with major security concerns during the proceedings.

I admire some of Barack Obama's attempts in the education realm, and am happy he has shown some willingness to dialogue with more conservative educators (and not just teachers unions), especially on the issues of merit pay and vouchers.

Healthcare was a very important issue for Obama during the campaign. I give him credit for fulfilling his promises of trying to bring his idea of healthcare reform to reality. However, I disagreed very much, as did almost all Americans, with the way it was done. While Obama did show some willingness to talk to about their ideas for healthcare reform (especially tort reform and transferring all medical records to electronic systems), too often, on this issue and others, Republicans didn't have a seat at the table and weren't given a chance to be truly engaged on these issues. Some of the big government solutions, which would radically alter the healthcare infastructure and medical apparatus in the United States, were widely unpopular with the majority Americans, yet the Obama administration pushed hard for them, until many of them became untenable and their plans collapsed. Furthermore, there was widespread corruption and bribery throughout the process, with the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback", the buyoff by many of the Big Phrama companies that prevents the widespread importation of pharmaceutical drugs, and the lack of transparency throughout. This whole process, which the President and the Democrats made the central issue of the year and the central front of their agenda, turned most voters off and was a big part of the election of Bob McDonnell in Virginia, Chris Christie in New Jersey, and, of course, Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

I was disappointed by the president's advancements in the environmental realm. While I have mixed feelings about cap and trade, I would have liked to see more done in the research and development alternative, sustainable energy. While the issue certainly has gotten some attention, with oil prices now at under $74 a barrel and questions about the stability of the Middle East, efforts in the area should really been a top priority. I would like to see a more organized, collaborative effort in that area. I was happy to hear that the president finally mentioned an earnest desire to pursue nuclear energy.

I was disappointed in the president's approach to the economy. Unemployment increased to over 10.8%, despite the President's claims it would not rise above 8% if the stimulus bills was passed. I am very disappointed that the president and his aides keep invoking George Bush, blaming him, when he has had no real control of the economy for almost the last year and a half. (President Obama voted for the bailout, he can't complain Bush did that.) Moreover, even more tiresome is how he constantly blames the big baks and their "fat cats", despite his connections to the banking industry (particularly Goldman-Sachs) and the fact that the government has been the ones asleep at the wheel the last few years, deregulating the banking industry to allow the financial collapse. The administration's extreme spending, which hopefully will not cause hyperinflation, is extremely concerning. Raising the debt limit was somewhat symbolic of what's wrong with Washington.

Ending the war in Iraq was also a major campaign promise of Barack Obama. And, again, I do give him credit. He scaled down troop levels, and all combat troops will be out of the country by the end of August. While I think it is important that Obama not take his eye off the ball and neglect Iraq, he fulfilled his campaign promise. However, I am very concerned about his handling of the situation in Iraq. I do not think there should be troops in Afghanistan in the first place (because I'm generally antiwar), but even if I did agree with having troops there, I think the president failed to lead on the issue, and instead looked like a politician trying to compromise. First, he took too long to make the decision. He should have been prudent and taken a long look at the situation and all of the options, but three months, which he took, is rather absurd, and I think both sides would agree. Then he made a decision which had an embedded contradiction. He took agreed to send around 35,000 more troops, but said troops would start to be withdrawn by the July of 2011. If you add more troops, to win the conflict, then you're all in. You've played your cards. Then to also set a withdraw deadline at the same time, before you have even sent more troops in, and know the outcome of that maneuver, is silly. It makes no sense. Either you're there to win, or you shouldn't be there at all. Wartime is no time for a politician to waver; it is a time to show leadership. The decision showed the president was interested in being pragmatic, which is important, but taking so long and making such a confusing, contradictory decision appears like he is only trying to appease everyone. And because of that, the decision was pretty unpopular. It was also very important to me that the administration engage in a new kind of foreign relations that is more creating than building up the military and responds to threats not with "Cowboy Diplomacy", but with honest discussions, pushing pertinent, meaningful sanctions, and talking to any and all leaders, without preconditions. (Which of course, most Republicans objected to fervently.) He did this somewhat, but I don't think his vision for foreign relations has shown much clarity. Many Republicans also believed he should have responded more harshly to election protests and civil unrest in Iran. While I do think the president could have been more harsh, it's an extremely sticky situation, and one that I think he handled about as best he could. I do, however, think he should have certainly had more strong rhetoric in light of North Korea's missile tests.

Most importantly, I am disappointed in the politics that the president used. More than anything, Obama the candidate said he would set a new tone in Washington, working to promote bipartisanship, end corruption, earmarks, pork-barrel spending, kicking lobbyists out of town, and engage tough issues with new dignity. However, the president did a very poor job of this. In fact, he made the situation worse, often showing that he was more of a consequentialist. In attempting to pass the stimulus and healthcare bills, more earmarks than ever were tacked on to the bills. His supporting cast is filled with lobbyists and those who have ties to lobbyists. There was rampant corruption. And he certainly didn't change the tone. The administration's attack campaign Fox News certainly did great damage to his supposed attempts at to promote civility and bipartisanship. I would have respected him if he took on Fox News and called out MSNBC, which is more biased and vitriolic than Fox News. (But of course they support his politics, so he doesn't mention them.) He blamed Bush and the Republicans every chance he got. During the campaign he claimed there would be a new era of transparency, with complete CSPAN access and coverage of the healthcare proceedings and a vow to post all bills online for the public to read before they were voted on. Of course, neither of these things happened. Not surprising, considering during the campaign he promised a fair, open election when he would promised to take only public financing for the campaign, then broke his campaign and failed to do so. And showing great arrogance, and the height of hubris, he graded himself with an A- this year. It is incredibly inappropriate to grade himself, and shows incredible naivete and political imprudence to give himself such a high grade with so many Americans out of work and so many of his policies unpopular. The President has given LOTS of great speeches this year, but that's not good enough. Barack Obama has lots of great rhetoric, but it's time he live up to it. For his first year in office, I would give him a C-.


The Republicans, of course, have some blame and culpability as well. Too often they lacked vision, failing to offer or articulate alternative plans to the Democrats' big government proposals. Of course, sometimes they had hardly any choice, when they the Democrats had a supermajority and could have shoved legislation down their- and the American people's- throats, and they had such philosophical arguments that they just needed to stop Democratic proposals. (See healthcare.) However, they were often part of the problem, being just as corrupt as anyone and selling out, failing to live up to their responsibility as a watchdog. And while I think President Obama took too long to make a determination on Afghanistan, the Republicans very inappropriately put a tremendous amount of pressure on him to send additional troops, trying to rush him and giving him hardly anytime to think about the decision, which is the most important part of a Commander-In-Chief's job. Likewise, during the Iranian protests and North Korea missiles test some Republicans inappropriately made statements about his handling of the situation. For Obama's first year in office, I give the Republicans a C+.

Unfortunately this was a year of partisanship, in which the tone didn't change in Washington. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats were swept in office because of Republican corruption, extreme spending, and dense ideology. When the Democrats took control of Washington, they've done exactly the same thing. The record congressional approval ratings, the President's steep slid in approval, and the Tea Party movement show how upset people are. The The election of Republicans in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts is about big government, partisanship, and the status quo, and both parties better realize that soon.