Nice writers

Posted on by
Reply

Somewhere in my business career I came across a quote that goes something like, “Writers don’t like to write. Writers like to have written.” I can’t remember who said it or where I saw it, or even if I’ve got the wording absolutely correct, but I certainly understand the sentiment. Sometimes I’ve gotten more of a charge from clicking the “Finish” button and posting something here than I did when I got the idea for that post in the first place. The reason wasn’t because the post was especially profound, but just because I was “done”.

One of the reasons I started blogging, however, was to reinvigorate my writing chops. While I certainly wanted to voice my opinions on politics, faith and other matters there was fundamentally a desire to get back to the fun of stringing words together in a way that was at least stimulating to me; to recall the feeling of having a line or paragraph well up from the keys under my fingers so that I asked myself, “Where did that come from?”

I also love it when I experience that same sensation while reading someone else’s writing in the blogosphere. I like to stay current on events but as much as I love a good snark or appreciate a well-crafted, sharp-edged political commentary or a vigorous fisking of some inanity, my “aha!” moments usually come when I read someone who’s just letting the words flow simply because he or she can.

That’s what’s happened with a couple of recent visitors and commenters who have caught my attention, and I’d like to direct your attention their way as well: Plain Simple English and Plein Air Sketches. You’ll find a comely assortment of witty observations and piquant insight but most of all I think you’ll find, as I did, simply a joy and delight in applying the craft. Do check them out.

What do they think I am?

Posted on by
5

OK, call me Ned Flanders and I can appreciate the spirit in which it was intended. Others can call me EVIL INCARNATE and it won’t make me question my existence. But some things are starting to make me wonder what some people think about me.

For example, I get about 8 “Paypal” messages a day with this photo alerting me to possible security problems and giving me a handy link where I can easily reveal all my personal information with just a couple of clicks and watch my credit score fall right before my very eyes.

If I didn’t fall for this scam the first 1,843 times it hit my email, why do they think that mailings 1,844-1,850 are going to do the trick? Do they think I’m like some big, old bass under the lily pads thinking, “You know, that rubber worm is starting to look really good.” Did I somehow get my name added to some national sucker registry?

Then last week I rented a car at the St. Louis airport where the young lady offered me the option of simply leaving it to them to refill the gas tank when I brought the car back — at only $4.10 a gallon. Next I caught the agency’s shuttle to the car lot where I was greeted as soon as I stepped down onto the pavement by my own personal service associate. He helpfully had all my paperwork in hand, and informed me that for just a few dollars more a day he could easily get me into an SUV. I declined. He then walked me around the car for a pre-rental damage inspection and showed me where to sign on the form if I wanted the additional insurance.

I declined that too.

He pointed to another line where I could sign if I wanted the special insurance that would cover my own auto insurance deductible if anything happened to the car.

I again declined.

Then he asked if I was sure that I didn’t want the extra special insurance coverage that would let me simply walk away without a thought no matter what condition the car was in when I brought it back.

This time I looked around to make sure it was a shuttle van and not a turnip truck that I had just dismounted from, then checked my reflection in the car window to make sure that I somehow hadn’t morphed into Bo Duke. I declined again and this time he finally let me drive away. At the intersection there was a guy selling Rolexes from a cardboard box.

You know, that was a pretty good deal.

All movies not created sequel

Posted on by
3

Last weekend the animated sequel Ice Age 2 earned some $67 million more than another sequel that also debuted, Basic Instinct 2. Instinct director Paul Verhoeven claims that the lack of interest in the Sharon Stone vehicle is due to the puritanical, Christian attitude of the U.S. as exemplified by the current presidential administration.

Of course the paltry gross may just be because it’s a bad movie, but Verhoeven could be on to something. Consider that the much-acclaimed gay sheepherder movie “Brokeback Mountain” has grossed about $80 million in the 17 weeks its been out – roughly $10 million more than Ice Age 2 did in just its first weekend, and some $200 million behind what “The Chronicles of Narnia” has taken in during those same 17 weeks (source: Box Office Mojo). Is it merely a case of good vs. evil or silly triumphing over slutty, or is it something more? I haven’t seen either one of the movies, but let’s, er, go to the film and break it down to see which might get my $8:

  • Ice Age 2 features cute prehistoric animals that make you care about what happens to them; Basic Instinct 2 features a Tyranosaurus Sex.

  • In Ice Age 2, moviegoers wanted another chance to see Ray Romano as a woolly mammoth; In Basic Instinct 2 apparently few people want another chance to see Sharon Stone’s woolly.
    (See, Marty, I’m trying to be evil.)

  • If you go to an Ice Age 2 kid’s matinee you leave feeling dirty because of what you just sat in, as opposed to feeling dirty because of what you just sat through.

  • Ice Age 2 has animals that act almost human; Basic Instinct 2 has humans that act like animals.

  • The actors in Ice Age 2 are cuter and more animated.

Sorry, Mr. Verhoeven, my money’s on the cartoon but good luck with your film. Perhaps you’ll sell more tickets in those Islamic countries.

There goes my street cred

Posted on by
7

“I don’t care if Ned Flanders is the nicest guy in the world. He’s a jerk — end of story.”

— Homer Simpson

Marty Andrade has been offering one paragraph “Who are these people?” descriptions of the blogs on his blogroll (actually, Marty calls this feature something else, but I try not to use that kind of language here). Yesterday the spotlight turned to me:

I think John is the least evil man ever. A family man, a right honorable person who just isn’t evil. He does a good blog, he’s almost the Ned Flanders of the blogosphere. That’s all I could think of. It’s weird, whenever I read his blog (which again, is excellent) all I can think about is how completely not evil the man is. I don’t know if that’s an endorsement or not…

Hey, I can be evil! I can! Just this morning I left some stray beard hairs in the bathroom sink. Bwa-ha-ha! My wife told me to clean them up, and you know what I said? Huh? Well, I didn’t really say anything. I just went in there and cleaned them up — but I didn’t say I was sorry, either! Ha! Also, I mock our cat mercilessly. Mercilessly, I tell you, until I make him cry! And Jeff Kouba at Peace Like a River is always saying I’m evil! I’ve even waved bloody knives at the Mall Diva’s prospective suitors! And next week I’m … oops, mustn’t say too much … the world will just have to wait and see!

The Marshall Planet

Posted on by
1

I saw the excerpt below in today’s The Writer’s Almanac and it raised some questions in my mind that I thought I’d throw out for comments. But first:

It was on this day in 1948 that President Harry Truman signed the European Recovery Program (known as the Marshall Plan) into law, which allocated more than $5 billion in aid to help revitalize the economy of European countries after World War II. That amount eventually grew to more than $18 billion, which is the equivalent of about $100 billion in today’s dollars.

At the time, Europe was on the verge of economic collapse. Whole cities had been destroyed. Factories had shut down. The winter of 1947 was one of the coldest on record and many Europeans were unemployed and homeless, freezing to death.

Though the plan to help Europe became known as the Marshall Plan, it was not George Marshall who came up with it. In fact, it was a small group of lesser-known American strategists and diplomats who realized that the situation in Europe could result in communist takeover of the entire continent. So they turned to Secretary of State George Marshall, who as a well-known war hero and public figure at the time, hoping he could sell the plan to the public.

Marshall immediately bought into the idea and became its spokesperson. He announced the plan at the commencement ceremony at Harvard on June 5, 1947. He then went on a countrywide tour, promoting the plan to ordinary Americans. He later said it felt like he was running for president.

It was a hard sell. Most Americans were tired of all the sacrificing they’d done during the war, and they weren’t too excited about continuing to sacrifice for the benefit of Europeans. The Marshall Plan might never have been enacted if a communist government hadn’t taken control of Czechoslovakia in the winter of 1948.

During the quarter century after the Marshall Plan was introduced, Europe experienced its highest economic growth ever. Western Europe’s gross national product increased by 32 percent. It was one of the most generous and one of the most successful acts of American foreign policy.

What occurred to me was to picture what today’s world would be like if there had been no Marshall Plan and Europe had indeed become Communist in the late 1940s. I’m not trying to make any point with these thoughts, but just trying to imagine how different the world might be today.

  • Would the continent have had enough critical mass to have survived, ala China, despite the inefficiencies of the Communist model, or would the sytem have collapsed even more rapidly than what happened in the Soviet Union?
  • Without NATO would a nuclear war have been more likely in the past 50 years? Without an arms race, would the Soviet Union (and/or Communist Europe) still be around?
  • Would Communist Europe have been under Soviet hegemony, or would each country have maintained it’s own government and a prickly peace with the USSR?
  • Having already ceded Europe to Communism, would the U.S. have fought for Viet Nam (and what would a Communist France have meant in Indochina in the 50s and early 60s?)
  • Let’s assume Communist Europe would have failed economically in the last 50 years; would these countries be better off today as a result of failure, followed by reform, or with the slower death by socialism that appears to be the present course?
  • What would have happened to the U.S. post-war morale and economy if the countries we had fought to free had become communist and if we didn’t have access to these markets?

Again, I don’t think I’m going anywhere with this; I’m just trying to imagine a different world than the one I grew up in. What do you think?

Challenging Word of the Week: gargantuan

Posted on by
7

Gargantuan
(gar GAN choo un) adjective

Anyone or anything described as gargantuan is huge, gigantic, vast, or of enormous proportions. The adjective, often capitalized, is derived from Gargantua, the amiable giant king whose exploits are recorded in the novel of that name, one of the two great satirical works by Francois Rabelais (1494-1553). His books, full of coarse, broad, boisterous wit and humor, are characterized by the type of licentious language associated with the adjective Rabelaisian. Gargantua was noted for his incredibly voracious appetite (garganta is Spanish for “gullet”; cf. French gargoille, throat, and English derivatives gargle and gargoyle), so great that on one occasion the insatiable guzzler swallowed whole five pilgrims – with their staves! – mixed in a salad. In Shakespeare’s As You Like It (Act III, Scene 2), Rosalind asks Celia a torrent of questions about Orlando and winds up: “Answer me in one word.” Celia replies: “You must borrow me* Gargantua’s mouth first: ‘tis a word too great for any mouth of this age’s size…” One can speak of the gargantuan appetite of a trencherman, the gargantuan length of one of those endless historical novels, or the gargantuan task of cleaning up after a hurricane.

* (Note: Shakespearean scholars have apparently overlooked this indication of the bard’s Minnesota upbringing. NW)

My example: As with Gargantua, the gargantuan federal budget could stand to mix in a salad.

From the book, “1000 Most Challenging Words” by Norman W. Schur, ©1987 by the Ballantine Reference Library, Random House. I post a weekly “Challenging Words” definition to call more attention to this delightful book and to promote interesting word usage in the blogosphere. I challenge other bloggers to work the current word into a post sometime in the coming week. If you manage to do so, please leave a comment or a link to where I can find it. Previous words in this series can be found under the appropriate Category heading in the right-hand sidebar.

Random Language of the Week

Posted on by
1

Hee-hee, Dad’s out of town, so here’s something educational my friend Kerry sent me for you seekers of knowledge out there:

Learn Chinese in 5 Minutes — (READ OUT LOUD FOR FULL EFFECT)

1) That’s not right………………………..Sum Ting Wong

2) Are you harboring a fugitive……………..Hu Yu Hai Ding

3) See me ASAP…………………………….Kum Hia

4) Stupid man……………………………..Dum Gai

5) Small horse…………………………….Tai Ni Po Ni

6) Did you go to the beach………………….Wai Yu So Tan

7) I bumped the coffee table………………..Ai Bang Mai Ni

8) I think you need a face lift……………..Chin Tu Fat

9) It’s very dark in here…………………..Wao So Dim

10) I thought you were on a diet……………..Wai Yu Mun Ching

11) This is a tow away zone………………….No Pah King

12) Our meeting was rescheduled………………Wai Yu Kum Nao

13) Staying out of sight…………………….Lei Ying Lo

14) He’s cleaning his automobile……………..Wa Shing Ka

15) Your body odor is offensive………………Yu Stin Ki Pu

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Luther

Posted on by
3

This week’s movie might be controversial for some since it looks at the events leading up to the Protestant Reformation by dramatizing the life of Martin Luther. Though I’m not Lutheran or Catholic the interpretation I got from Luther is that it was about a man trying to save his faith, not start a new one. Even without the spiritual context, however, this is a compelling story of a basically timid and politically naive man trying to stand up for what he thought was right against incredible pressure and then trying to come to grips with the consequences of his actions.

It is also a very well made movie featuring an all-star cast that includes Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov in his final movie, Alfred Molina and Bruno Ganz (who I loved in “Wings of Desire”, the German movie that was the basis for the Nicholas Cage/Meg Ryan “City of Angels” movie.) The movie is briskly paced (sometimes too briskly as you might miss the significance of some statments and political explanations) with evocative scenery and settings that really communicate the era.

As the movie was about Martin Luther you can expect that Pope Leo and the cardinals don’t fare well or have much chance to present their positions sympathetically, but the movie appears to take pains to present Luther’s conflict as being with the leadership of the church and not with the faith itself. Indeed, just as the early Jews who followed Christ still considered themselves Jews, not Christians, it occurred to me that Luther and his followers would still have thought of themselves as Catholic (or at least catholic). From my experience and observation, the faithful of every religion and denomination have to constantly be on guard against elevating the traditions (and “wisdom”) of man over the word of God, and the compelling part of this story for me wasn’t Luther resisting the Catholic hierarchy but resisting his own inner fears and self-doubts so that he could later rise against his physical fears and doubts.

Luther is an inspiring and thought-provoking movie that will stay in your mind for days after you see it.

Questions to answer:

  1. What was the stumbling block for Luther in his understanding of God at the beginning of the movie? How and when did this begin to change?

  2. Fr. Johann von Staupltz was Luther’s “spiritual father”. What do you think his purpose was in sending Luther first to Rome and then to Wittenberg?

  3. What was Luther’s original intent when he reported the practice of selling indulgences to the Pope? What led him to believe the practice was wrong?

  4. What is the disturbing realization that Prince Frederick the Wise experiences when Rome sends him a gilded rose? What does it change, and why?

  5. Dr. Carlstadt claimed he was a supporter of Luther, yet his objectives were ultimately something different. Describe.

  6. Who said, “Before I let anyone take from me the word of God and ask me to deny my belief I will kneel and let him strike off my head,” and what was the significance of that statement at that time?

Points to ponder:
Consider the turmoil and violence in Germany after Luther left Worms. What, if any, similar schisms do you see in today’s world? Are the differences spiritual or political at their core? Why do you think so?

Great Quotes:

  • “Those who see God as angry do not see him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud has been drawn across his face. If we truly believe Christ is our Savior, then we have a God of love and to see God in faith is to look upon his friendly heart. So when the devil throws your sin in your face and says you deserve death say, ‘I admit I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know one who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, son of God. Where He is, there I shall be also.'”
  • “I am Yours. Save me.”

Road Trip!

Posted on by
1

I’m baaaack….

Did you miss me? Or did you even realize that I was gone?
Never mind, don’t answer that.

Anyway, last Saturday two of my cousins and I took a road trip to Galena, IL. We took our time driving and stopped in Dubuque, Iowa for the first night where we had fun trying to find somewhere to eat. Lindsay was driving and we somehow managed to end up in a little maze of backroads that were mostly one-ways. Oh, it was also really dark. We finally ended up at a Ground Round. Yay, us!

When we got to Galena the next day the first thing we saw was a Walmart. That just seemed wrong to me somehow.

Anyway, we drove down a cute little windy road, checked in to a cute little B&B, and went to check out Main Street. Which was cute.

There were so many shops, even I was almost overwhelmed, but not quite.
Main St. had three chocolate shops, and one candy shop which also carried chocolate. We visited all of these at least 3 times. I bought some truffles for myself and my parents, and I got Tiger Lilly some Oreo Bark. She was happy. Souvenir shopping was pretty hard when it came to guys, though. Galena is very girly.

We ate lunch one day at Vinny’s Italian Bistro, and it was really cute. The food was good, too, and there was quite a lot of it. We didn’t eat dinner that night.

We took some time just to drive around the cute little neighborhood, and we saw one house that had the top of a church steeple sticking up out of their back yard. It looked kinda weird and I took some pictures of it, so if they turn out I’ll post them.

So, in conclusion, Galena is a very cute town, and I ate too much chocolate and spent too much money. Yay, me!