Top 25 movies of the decade

I’m a sucker for top-whatever lists and the end of a decade always gives us a chance to think back and uselessly rate all kinds of things. Ryan Byrd has some cool lists going on, including his top movies of the 2000s.  He inspired me to actually make one of my own.

There were so many incredible movies this decade I had a hard time narrowing it down to 25. Some are movies that I watch over and over, some are movies I’ll never watch again. Here we go…

My Eikon altView

Over the last few weeks, several friends of Eikon have posted some of their thoughts on our blog. Today was my turn…

Igrew up in a little church where everyone is called “brother” or “sister” and the Second Coming or the penalties of sin were preached about at least 6 times a month. Bro. Haney was a wise man in the church, covered with leather skin and grace, and he used his deep voice to sing bass in our choir and to gently tease or soothe those around him. He was universally loved and when he spoke people truly listened.

When I was around twelve we had a testimonial service, which is sorta like an open mic night at a bar. Anyone can stand up and share their story about the greatness of a god who saved a wretch like them. Unfortunately, like an open mic night, what you mostly get are uninspiring and quasi-forced renditions of stories that are amazingly similar in content.

When it’s illegal to help the homeless

I have been a fan of politics, legislative processes, and governmental systems since I was a little boy. I’m a junkie. However, I almost always have a tinge of regret when I see a political neophyte get his/her first look at bureaucracy and laws. That recently happened with my friend Libby.

Libby was leading an effort called Warm Spaces, which was designed to give the homeless of Little Rock a warm space to sleep all 90 nights of winter. And I was immensely happy that Eikon Church decided to put many of our very limited resources into this important project. You can read more about Warm Spaces, Libby and our church’s involvement here.

The deck was stacked against us from the beginning. We needed to raise awareness and money, identify community leaders and churches that would contribute, recruit volunteers, and, most importantly, find a space to house as many as possible.

Through the tireless effort of Libby and others, we damn near made it.

KTHV Channel 11 interviewed Libby on This Morning. Fashion designer Chris Hess helped create buzz by designing some rockin’ T-shirts. Several area churches gave both financial and volunteer commitments that would have covered all of our needs. We had a screening process. We had adequate security. We had use of 150 cots. We had insurance in place. Then, the most challenging part: the space itself.

We identified a warehouse space on 7th St. (away from homes). We informed the owner of our plans and he agreed to rent it to us for three months at a rate we could afford. Unfortunately, the City of Little Rock informed us that we couldn’t use it because it wasn’t zoned for overnight occupants. Disappointing, but in steps First United Methodist Church. They graciously offered to let us lease a building connected to their church. Problem solved, right? Nope. The City of Little Rock informed us that the zoning of that building prohibited overnight occupants as well.

So, just to reiterate, city zoning laws prohibit a church from allowing some of the most vulnerable people in our city to stay there overnight, even on the nights when inclement weather will lead to death for some. That sounds harsh, but it is inarguably the logical conclusion. And it’s very sad and frustrating.

I understand the need for zoning laws. They protect property investments, segregate uses, ensure aesthetics, etc. They are designed based on the needs and desires of citizens. However, like many laws & statutes, they can have major ill effects when common sense isn’t employed in their enforcement.

We can apply for a special use permit that would take 180 days to complete (if there is no opposition). We will do that next year, and I will be expecting a lot of opposition from a number of different groups. Just who will certainly be telling.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I haven’t researched how those laws came to be and the people who designed them. I’m probably better off if I don’t. I fully understand when someone’s hands are tied by the law, even an immoral one. So, we will take the only steps that I know to fix it: we will work to change the law.

The imaginary war on Christmas

The 2009 opening salvo has been fired in the ongoing War on Christmas (WoC). Like all wars, there is a morally good side and a morally evil side. In this epic conflict, the general for the good side is the American Family Association. We know they’re the good side because they’re also valiantly fighting something even more menacing than the WoC: the homosexual agenda.

Last week the AFA issued this press release encouraging a boycott of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic (all owned by Gap, Inc.) because they don’t have the word “Christmas” on their signs, commercials, etc. Instead the Gap chooses to recognize “that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone.” The nerve. (Oh, and also, it’s not accurate as this commercial does indeed mention Christmas.)

I stopped dwelling on the irony of Christians defending Christmas (and Easter) traditions with Pagan origins a long time ago. Likewise, I have all but given up on the idea of rampant consumerism wrapped up in the name of Jesus someday ending. But what I can’t seem to let go of is this ridiculous idea that Christian purity is being attacked when a courthouse doesn’t display a nativity, or symbols of other religious traditions are included in displays, or things like Gap commercials.

I generally like this time of year. I love watching a child’s reaction to receiving a gift. I also enjoy seeing the over-the-top decorations at my mom’s house. It’s my one chance a year to see my sister and her family, so that’s pretty stellar too. However, beyond the trivial recognition that it’s supposed to represent Jesus Christ’s birthday, it has never had profound meaning to my faith life. And my guess is that once most people get beyond the visceral reaction to that statement, it hasn’t had a profound and prolonged impact on theirs either.

To me, this whole “War on Christmas” that some religious groups have concocted falls into the God Couldn’t Care Less category. If the AFA and others want to start teaching their followers about the exploitative labor practices used to make our toys and clothes, I’ll start listening. If they would spend their money and time leading Christmas boycotts of stores that get their goods in that manner, I will contribute financially. If they will lead their followers in year-round sacrificial service to others in the name of Christ instead of just an annual trek to the local soup kitchen, I will stand on Pinnacle Mountain and shout their praises.

Something tells me my money and voice are safe.

What religion should you be?

Passed along to me via email. It’s from the folks at Holy Taco. As much as I didn’t want to, I landed on just a boring Christian. Couldn’t get around that f*cking loving bacon thing.

Mega-churches and Luckenbach, TX

So First Baptist Church Dallas (FBCD) just announced they are building a new church building for $130 million. It’s going to be built with green construction technologies and will be all around state-of-the-art.

My initial reaction was harsh. I referred to it as grotesque, a phallic symbol, and a monument contructed to show the world how great they are. I regret the last two because as my friend Josh Mesker pointed out, I don’t know them personally or their precise motivations. He also pointed out to me that they many of their resources go to important things like prison, gang, English as a Second Language, and literacy ministries. Those are points well taken and I thank him for them.

However, I continue to have a hard time with this one because of the sheer cost and size of this project. The church is saying they want the building to “boldly assert its place in the Dallas skyline.” Why? Likewise, I have a real problem with this one because, as Ryan Byrd pointed on on his Twitter feed, FBCD used some major proof-texting to justify the project on Biblical grounds. Check out their very well produced video that, in effect, asserts the building is an example of Biblical notions of transformation. Those two things are why I can’t let the “grotesque” part go.

I have no doubts that FBCD has done and continues to do lots of things that impact people’s lives for the better. I commend them on spending resources to fund and promote the ministries that Josh mentioned. However, for better or worse, I cannot help but think they could build something that suited their needs and then used the other $100+ million to make those outreach projects even more effective and widespread.

Ultimately it’s none of my business and really just personal time wasted though. I don’t go there and I don’t give them a cent of my money. Because I strongly believe there should be a complete paradigm shift in church resource management, I tend to get a little irritated and amused (somehow at the same time) when I hear things like this.

What does this have to do with Luckenbach, TX? One Facebook friend posited that FBCD was trying to keep up with the Joneses and the new Cowboys Stadium, which naturally led to the great Waylon Jennings song and made me think that we need to get back to the basics of love. And church resources.

(It’s more prolonged fun to figure out the positive things that I can do to change the world, but occasionally I have to indulge the negative and vent for a bit. My blood pressure is back down now though and the two hours I have spent with it on my mind are likely the last two.)

Much ado about (almost) nothing

I have not followed the NY23 election between Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens as closely as most other fellow political geeks. There are a few reasons why not, but the biggest is that I don’t see it as having any kind of major political implications. This race has pundits, 24 hour cable news channels, tweeters and bloggers falling all over themselves trying to shoehorn it into a movement election akin to 1932.

I don’t think it provides an ounce of commentary on Democrats as a whole or on President Obama. For the last several days, I have looked for any kind of reason to believe otherwise because I have heard that posited ad nauseum from teabaggers and other uber-conservatives. Yes, Obama carried the district in 2008. However, Republicans have controlled that congressional seat since 1871; to say it’s a Republican controlled seat would be a gross understatement. Forgive me if I don’t find it groundbreaking when a Republican wins a Republican seat.

What may be worth discussing is how Hoffman came to be the (de facto) Republican candidate. We know that the moderateliberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava was pushed out by teabaggers, Club for Growthers and other ubercons. Purely from a political theater aspect, I think that’s pretty cool.

However, it’s a mistake to believe this is any indication of a broad national movement. As much as they believe otherwise, ubercons constitute no more than 15-20% of the American electorate. On raw numbers, however, that’s a lot of people. Their power will be obviously be amplified when they’re able to pour all of their time, energy and resources into one single race—which they can do this year with this race. Let’s see what happens when that fairly small group of Americans has to stretch itself out and run hundreds of races in a cycle.

I know this take isn’t exactly rare or original, and I also know that many of the ubercons think anyone who believes this is spinning. But, all I can do is acknowledge by left-of-center political leanings and say that I’m trying to be as objective as possible. In fact, ubercons have gone through such great links to paint it as a national movement election that they are probably the ones spinning a lot more than the other side. Either that or they’re all (sincere) heart like my buddy Wade who thinks that if Romo has one 350 yd, 4 TD game he’s the greatest QB of all time.

For the record, I’m happy that Hoffman is having this success. I’m happy that he was able to push Scozzafava out. And it’s perfectly fine with me that he will beat Owens too. In the final analysis, I think the purification of the Republican Party by ubercons, should it ultimately be completed, is a ticket to perpetual irrelevance. Of course, I could be coming back a year from now and eating crow about all of this. We will see.

Side note: I know both sides have their carpetbaggers, but what I really need to be convinced of is that it’s truly representative democracy for a person to receive 95% of his funds from outside the district, consider district-specific issues parochial, and not even reside in the district. Just doesn’t seem like what was intended those 230 years ago.

The ongoing filesharing conversation

I have been particularly involved in the conversation lately with my friend Ryan; you can read his point of view about it here. (I’m the one who left the comment pointing out the fallacy of the Doug Pagitt quote.)

I have not had the benefit of watching the documentary Good Copy Bad Copy that Ryan reviewed, but he undoubtedly did a fair and accurate job of summarizing. A couple of arguments that he mentioned seem to be gaining steam. Part of the documentary focuses on the property thief artist Girl Talk, who basically takes other people’s creations, chops them up, and passes it on as something new. Here’s a quote from Ryan’s blog:

he (Girl Talk)begins the film by setting the stage as an advocate for artists like himself to have the freedom to use copyrighted music in whatever way they see fit. his argument is primarily based on the idea that he and others… wouldn’t be able to produce this art form with the current copyright structures because the licensing of all 322 songs would cost literally millions of dollars.

He and others go on to argue that the music industry, original artists and the culture as a whole would be enriched by doing away with many of the copyright laws in existence. That concept is further discussed in a recent Relevant Magazine article.

You know what? Maybe they are right. I don’t know. And maybe Ryan (and scores of others) are right when they argue that illegal filesharing increases exposure to new artists, which will in turn lead to future financial support (buying albums, attending concerts, etc.). However, that is not relevant because it’s just not their decision to make. The decision rests solely with the parties who have ownership of the property (usually some combination of artists and record companies). You can’t just take over someone’s business and make the argument to him that you’ll do a better job promoting it, whether you would or not.

I could almost see the reasoning behind that if a person listened to the illegal music once and immediately tossed it either because they didn’t like it or because they were going to purchase it. But, let’s be honest, most people don’t do that. I think that argument is particularly weak considering every artist has a sample of songs on their website or myspace page. It’s not as if you really have to illegally download songs to get an idea of what the artist is producing.

A couple of weeks ago I spent some time with a couple of friends in Austin, TX. These (married) folks are musicians who have enjoyed a successful songwriting career. Out of their own experiences, lives, emotions, thoughts, etc., they have written a handful of songs that have been performed and made pretty darn famous by popular singers/bands. They worked tirelessly on their craft with blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice and made it, but not to the point of being wealthy.

Unfortunately, when illegal filesharing became commonplace 10 or so years ago, their royalty checks got exponentially smaller and they had to do other things to supplement their income. One area that they are now going to have to pinch pennies in is health care. Due to the rising cost of it (another subject) and their lowered income as a result of people stealing music, they are now canceling their policy and hoping for the best.

Apart from the whole idea of chopping someone’s personal pains, joys, emotions and thoughts up and doing something artistically with it the creator doesn’t approve of, illegal filesharing does have real life consequences for people.

I’m not a filesharing Nazi and don’t preach about it, but because it has come up in conversations with several folks lately I thought I’d put my thoughts on the record. The bottom line for me is this: if the creators and owners don’t have a problem with it, then I don’t. If they do, it shouldn’t be done. It is stealing and there’s no legal (or even logical) way around it.

(/soapbox)

Matthew 25 awareness…

Here are a couple of things that friends have asked me to let folks know about.

First, a friend and fellow Eikon Church person has helped take the lead in SOAR Network, which is a “growing network of Agencies, congregations, businesses and individuals in the Central Arkansas Area that are coming together to share information, ideas, and resources to help the homeless in our area.”

Second, a great friend has started Prayers for Rob, a Facebook page dedicated to Robert Fredrickson. Mr. Fredrickson is currently incarcerated and awaiting trial in Conway, AR on a number of charges. Have a read and let me know if you have any questions you’d like for me to pass along.

Jason & Jesse’s Rule 37 hearing update

(This is copied verbatim from my friend Holly Ballard’s Facebook note. She is in the courtroom writing. It will be up on Arkansas Take Action’s site in a bit.)

I left the last round of hearings encouraged by the brilliance of the defense witnesses, sometimes darkly humored by their demonstration of the ridiculous legal proceedings masquerading as justice in this case. However, driving up last night, I began to dread the twisted grasping by the prosecution as it would try to resurrect an unfounded and unconscionable case. So far, it turns out those fears were unfounded. All the prosecution has managed to do is rehash the search that led to the bodies, making a feeble attempt to “prove” that no animals were present at the crime scene. Defense attorneys Blake Hendrix and Michael Burt fairly easily rebutted this testimony. I’d say this has actually been one of the most anticlimactic days in court so far, but it’ll be in the news again, which is almost as important as any bearing it will have on Burnett’s decision.

First witness: Mike Allen

Allen is currently the Asst. Chief of the West Memphis Police Department and was a sergeant in 1993. Testimony began by Allen describing aerial photographs of the area surrounding the “10-Mile Bayou,” the drainage ditch where the boys’ bodies were found. Allen testified that in the process of retrieving a tennis shoe that had been earlier spotted floating in the water, he fell in. He was knee- to thigh-deep in the water when he felt with his leg something in the water. When he lifted his leg, he discovered the first body (Michael Moore), which had not been visible and “kind of floated to the top.” He testified that the water was not totally stagnant but was not moving very fast, that the bottom felt “kind of mucky,” and that he did not see any animals in the woods nor any type of aquatic life in the ditch. When the body surfaced, he backed out of the water and stood on the bank until other investigators arrived on the scene. Detective Bryn Ridge then searched downstream and located the two other bodies. As far as security is concerned, Allen testified that the crime scene was roped off with tape and a log was kept of everyone who entered the crime scene. The bodies were removed from the water and placed on the bank. Detective Ridge found clothing pinned to the bottom of the ditch with sticks. The ditch was sandbagged and the water was pumped over the sandbags. Again, Holt asked Allen if he noticed any aquatic wildlife during the pumping process or that remained after the pumping was complete. Here’s where I chime in on this issue: ever seen a kid chasing tadpoles? I’d think any five-year-old could tell you that if you stir up water in a creek, wildlife scatter, which Hendrix later pointed out on redirect. Besides that, Allen testified that the floating shoe was the “furthest thing from his mind” after the bodies were found. True, they searched the ditch bed for 6 or 7 hours for evidence (weapons, etc.), but were they focused on looking for turtles, tadpoles, etc.? Would they have noticed if they’d been there? He also testified that the mosquitoes either were not present or he didn’t notice them. Any Arkansan will tell you it had to have been the latter. (Later, following Hendrix’s cross-examination noted below, Jessie’s attorney Michael Burt took and drove these points home. He asked Allen if he was aware that Ridge had been on the scene that morning, I think I heard on a three-wheeler, obviously scaring away animals. Allen testified that it did occur to him that poisonous snakes and other dangerous animals might be in the water, but that he didn’t notice these or any turtles, etc., on the surface of the water. Burt again pointed out that Allen wouldn’t have been able to see to the bottom of the water.)

Once Holt rested, Defense Attorney Blake Hendrix picked up to cross-examine, at which point Allen’s memory suddenly began to fail. I wish I had a dollar for every, “That I don’t recall.” Allen testified that three other people were there when he arrived, but he was the first person to actually get into the water and the only person to do so that day. (At least, that’s what I understood, but maybe I was mistaken because later he testified that it was Ridge who found the last two bodies.) Allen actually fell in the first time he attempted to reach the shoe and then crossed over the ditch and entered the water again. Hendrix pointed out the splash that falling in would have made, and the fact that if the water was murky enough not to be able to see a body, they wouldn’t have been able to see marine life either. Allen testified that he couldn’t say whether, by 1993, he’d had any training in child homicides, and said that he had not had any training regarding bodies found in water. Regarding Ridge’s methods, all Allen could say was that Ridge found the bodies by starting upstream and wading in the water. Hendrix eventually got Allen to concede that all this movement could plausibly have scared any marine life away. Hendrix then asked a pointed question: was Allen aware that animal hairs were found on the bodies? All Allen could say was a quiet, “No sir.” After Burt’s cross and Holt’s redirect, Allen stepped down.

So, although testimony was relatively tame, there were a few surprises. I was surprised, for example, to see Pam Hobbs in the courtroom today, since I hadn’t seen her here before (though she’s been openly supporting the WM3 for a while now). I spoke with her briefly during lunch recess, and she said she was here to request a chance to speak in court. She hopes to tell the court that this case was a rush to judgment, and to consider this new evidence rather than the scant circumstantial evidence presented in 1994. I expressed to her how impressed I am with her courage, and I think I speak for all of us in telling her that I hope for justice for her son as well as for the West Memphis 3. As I left the courtroom, she was speaking to Cecilea Pond-Mayo from Channel 4, and I believe 7 and 11 were filming as well.) I was also surprised not to see John Mark Byers, and more surprised still that I was able to win a staring contest with Judge Burnett (not so much because I won, but because he had his eyes open at all). Also, I just overheard that a suited gentleman I’ve been wondering about all morning is a representative from Attorney General’s office. (For those of you who don’t know, Dustin McDaniel is notoriously unsupportive of this case and is connected to those who helped convict the WM3 in the first place.)

Right before they kicked me out of the courtroom, I overheard Holt say that Bryn Ridge was bringing him something, so I’ll be interested to see what comes out after recess. I actually passed Ridge getting into the elevator, and I hear Peretti is waiting in the wings to testify. It’s so bizarre seeing these people face to face after all this time.

Recess has ended, and the prosecution is carrying in several blown up maps and photos. I’ll update again at the next recess or after the hearings end today.