I'm going to make 9 hasty predictions about what is going to happen on LOST.
(some bold, some obvious)
1 - Jack's Dad (Christian) isn't dead.
2 - John Locke will never leave the Island.
3 - Michael and Walt never left the Island.
4 - Kate picks someone we haven't even met yet
5 - Rousseau will die in the ensuing showdown of rescue
6 - Michael will be murdered by one of the survivors
7 - Juliette will kill a bad guy
8 - Jin will die before the end of the premiere
9 - Desmond will predict the future. Jack will chose against it
Here's how I feel: I have a man-crush on Locke. I want justice enforced regarding Michael. I want the island to really be alive. I really want to like Ben aka Henry Gale, but I can't. I hope they really build the mythology of the story. And I want this to be the best season yet.
31 January 2008
LOST Predictions
28 January 2008
Perspective
I've started reading a book, A Shorty History of Progress, by Ronald Wright. And I've got a variety of thoughts/reactions/questions. For now, I'll connect it to a recent train of thought I had.
We find ourselves in a unique time in human history. And by "we" I naturally mean Americans. I could further narrow the scope of what "we" means, but I want to leave it broad on purpose. Here in the last, oh, 200 years have found ourselves in varying states of being able to decide the course of our living. Terms like "social mobility" and "self-made man" have become certain realities, to an extent. For thousands of years, "what I want to be when I grow up" was a question not pondered. Where should I live, what should I eat...these were not choices but facts, largely unalterable details of lives shaped by technological, financial, even religious limitations.
So, in light of this, I find it logical that so many of "us" struggle with what our role in this world is. "How, now, shall we live?" Call it post-modern if you like, the fact is that (again, to an extent) the growing tolerance, flexibility, and sense of entitlement places us in a situation of firsts. We have decision to make that our ancestors perhaps could not even imagine.
But, as I read this book, I come to realize that, perhaps, the themes are the same, just with different scenery and names. The book posits that as a race, humans continue on a path of ever-increasing progress. With each step of progress, another set of challenges open up. With each new step of progress, the rate of change and progress increases. And at certain points, our technological progress surpasses our moral progress, leaving us in a "progress trap." For example:
Go back thousands of years: when the hunter-gatherers improved their ability to make stone weapons, as well as improved their hunting capabilities, their populations grew because of increased, more consistent food, but their prey shrank - their technology altered their reality. They were forced to either A) keep hunting at the current rate and then starve and die or C) develop farming. They chose C. (that's incredibly simplified, too much in fact, but hopefully you get the point).
All this to say, we are over-consuming. Our technological advantages over nature (both bodily and earthly) give us "ease," but our moral understanding of life has not adapted or effected our decision making. Sure, its great to have eat tomatoes or peaches year-round. But at what cost? Taking a Caribbean cruise is undoubtedly relaxing and beautiful. But at what cost? Shop where prices are gracefully low, and where they promise to help us live "better lives," but you have to ask: At what cost?
If you've made it this far, I'm impressed. Thanks for reading my ramblings. All I'm saying is that I'm putting more thought into so much more of my life. I suspect that it is far more valuable to grow my moral stance and world view, and in result living according to those conscious choices rather than blind assumptions and cultural predispositions.
I'm not even sure what I just said. If anything.
21 January 2008
Smattering of This-and-That
We're going to be reading/discussing the book "Simply Christian" by N.T. Wright.
I've never read one of his books, but have heard good things. And in doing a little research into who he is and all, I came across some things that I'd forgotten about. Here (along with links) are a few of those things:
The Jesus Seminar - The basic idea is that 200 "leading scholars" get together and debate every sentence and sentiment in the Bible related to Jesus and decide its authenticity. Here's there voting system:
The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.
- Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
- Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
- Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
- Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)
Church and State - I forget that the separation in the U.S. is not the way it always is and was. It turns out that N.T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham, one of the highest ranking bishoprics in the Church of England. What I failed to realize was that this means he is a member of the House of Lords, the British Parliament. How bazaar it is, to think what our country would look like if certain religious appointments came with a political office (I will admit that I don't wholly understand British politics and so therefore have no idea what effect his being in the House is in reality). Imagine just for a second Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, even Rob Bell or Joel Osteen being in Congress (I have an entire post on Osteen, just waiting in the wings). An interesting exercise in "What if."
Finally, the mysterious possibility of document Q.
Not all that interesting to most people, but in short it is "a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke." It reminded me that when I went to college, it was for "educational ministries." I took classes in New Testament, Discipleship, epistemology, eschatology, and others. We used to have 2 a.m. conversations in our boxers about these sorts of things. And at times, I miss it.
Maybe tonight can help with that.
p.s. Don't judge me for linking to Wikipedia. I'll defend if I have to.
19 January 2008
Cards, anyone?
(CNN) – You know you're in Vegas when victory at a caucus precinct comes in the form of a card draw.
On Saturday, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the caucus at Mojave High School in North Las Vegas when one of her supporters pulled out the queen of hearts — besting the 10 of spades for Obama.
Tom Komenda, a Clinton supporter, told CNN there was an even number of supporters for the two candidates — 48 each. But the caucus had five delegates, so they couldn't be split evenly.
How to break the tie? A good old fashioned card draw. Carrie Giddins — a Democratic organizer — confirmed to CNN that indeed, that's how the race at Mojave High was ultimately decided. "That's the rule," she said.
Komenda — who sent CNN the story via I-Report — said a sealed deck was unwrapped. But as the shuffling started, he was concerned that the shuffler might have been shuffling in a way that exposed the faces of the cards to some of the nervous onlookers.
"I said, 'Wait wait wait — if we have to do this idiotic thing with cards, we're going to shuffle them the way they're supposed to be shuffled,'" he told CNN, laughing. "Then they said, 'If you want to shuffle, come down here and shuffle. So I went down and shuffled!"
Komenda says an Obama supporter drew first, and up came the ten of spades. Next, a Clinton supporter drew, and a queen of hearts decided the tie-breaker in favor of Clinton. So the final delegate count was two delegates for Obama, and three for Clinton.
It all ended, he said, in "cheers from one side of the room, groans and boos from the other."
Those cheering ended up rewarding Komenda — he was chosen to be one of the delegates for Clinton.
–CNN's Josh Levs