Clash of the Titans XLVIII: Public Broadcasting

09/7/2007, 12:30 pm -- by Bweinh | 9 Comments

In this corner, opposing PBS, is David!

And in this corner, supporting it, is Tom!

Public broadcasting is part of an evil plot to subvert our country’s youth by filling their minds with liberal politics, designed to turn them all into leftist car-burning radicals.

That being said though, it isn’t really the main reason I am so opposed to public broadcasting. The main reason is that we tossed all these topics into a hat a while back and I drew this side of the argument.

However, the best reason for opposing PBS or NPR (the nefarious radio arm of the cabal) is the obvious safety concern, highlighted in a study fabricated by the University of Wisconsin during the late 1990’s. Test subjects drove across the country while listening to the soothing sounds of either R&B music or hard rock, in an effort to gauge the effect of the two formats on driver alertness. As you probably have guessed, NPR was used as the placebo. After 33 deaths from NPR listeners falling asleep at the wheel, the study was cancelled. The university is still in litigation over the psychological damage suffered by the test subjects who were not fortunate enough to perish.

The second reason to hate public broadcasting is their TV presence. The problem is actually twofold. One is their programming. Who hasn’t grown tired of watching frumpy people with British accents make their way through intricate plots based on books written 200 years ago? “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” they used to be fond of saying. I guess all that daylight adversely affected the mental composition of the British author, and somehow the British managed to win a rigged bid process, requiring us to watch their endless prattle for the next 3 centuries.

The second, more dangerous, aspect of their TV presence is the dreaded pledge drive. During the pledge drive, whatever “good” movies they have in their back room are dusted off and advertised heavily. Casual TV patrons are drawn in by this ploy, so after they have enjoyed the first half of the classic movie they have been dying to watch for years, the movie is brought to a screeching halt, so a pleasant little fellow in an easy chair can lay on the guilt trip.

“Have you been enjoying this wonderful trip down memory lane? Did you know that the only way we can stay on the air is thanks to contributors like you? Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah — and if you ever want to see the end of this movie, you freakin’ freeloader, get off your lazy butt, open that wallet, and PAY US!!!”

This, by itself, has led to many nervous breakdowns among the viewing public.

Commercial broadcasting is part of an evil plot to subvert our country’s youth by filling their minds with consumerist politics, designed to turn them all into mindless SUV-buying mouth-breathers.

That being said though, it isn’t really the main reason I am so in favor of public broadcasting. The main reason is that we tossed all these topics into a hat a while back and I drew this side of the argument.

Public television has long been a part of my life. Although I’m an outspoken critic of most television, very little of the programming I’ve come across on WPBS (my local affiliate) offended my admittedly delicate sensibilities. Big Bird and the rest of his crew on Sesame Street taught me colors, letters, numbers, and how to take a punch. Mr. Rogers taught me how crayons are made, and the all-encompassing importance of coordinating sweater and sneakers. Even up through college, my roommates would return from their classes on days my schedule lightened to find me transfixed, my entire being a beam of concentration leveled intensely at Simply Ming.

Whether I was appearing on Whiz Quiz with local celebrity Glen Gough, or relentlessly mocking Rod and Reel, public television was always there for me. Would lack of exposure to the brilliance that is Rowan Atkinson in Mr. Bean have made me less of a person? Would having to put up solely with the depravity, inanity, and banality that is a commercial television station have harmed me irrevocably? At this point it’s impossible to tell, but I’d err on the side of caution and give PBS its due in the amalgamation that is Tom.

However, public radio is the medium of the people that lies closest to my cold little heart. Our local National Public Radio affiliate has kept alive the tradition of real radio programming that laid the foundation for all of our media sources today. The landscape of commercial radio today is a barren wasteland of Top-40 nonsense, jaded partisan babblings, and the warbly, self-pitying strains of country stations just aching to get that truck back. NPR fires back with news featuring in-depth reporting, quiz-shows that simply assume their audience is smarter than a fifth-grader, and entertainment programs in which people read (gasp) actual short stories. Oh, the humanity!

Finally, to defend the lowly pledge drive. Without the sale of commercials, public broadcasting is able to keep itself pure, an ivory tower of news, entertainment and information unsullied by the dirtying effects of the almighty dollar. If the price I have to pay for my cooking shows is watching a pledge drive once a quarter, is that too much? I humbly submit that it is not.

{democracy:126}

My Shakespearean Evening (A Tragedy in 3 Parts)

09/7/2007, 10:15 am -- by David | 6 Comments

Act 1
Ian, the son-in-law, emerges from the basement hovel he and his wife Rachel call home. David, the cruel father-in-law, is engrossed in online euchre while the matron Debbie watches Sci-Fi on TV.

Ian: “Father-in-law, if a moment can be spared, methinks perhaps thou shouldst descend with me the carpeted stair, and read in mine eyes the gathering despair.”

David: “Forsooth! Say not despair my son!” (Aside to audience) “Unless thou speakest of the disruption of my card game with some trinket of trouble, such as thou art always quick to bring!” (To Ian) “What aileth thee, boy?”

Ian: “Water once again, through yonder wall of pine, doth break with vehemence upon our humble goods.”

David: “What new mischief is this? Have we not patched the very foundations of the house? Have we not vanquished the rats and mice that chewed through the water lines on the dishwasher and refrigerator? Hath not Roto Rooter valiantly unstopped the drains for the accursed washing machine that plagued us sorely?” (Aside to audience) “Perhaps it is but a tale told by an idiot!”

Act 2
The two descend into the basement to move furniture and soaked boxes of household goods, finally uncovering the trouble spot. David knowingly explains that although the water is on the opposite side of the room from all the previous trouble, it is most likely because the floor is not level, and the water has come through the foundation again at the same spot, but has run down to the other corner.

Ian: “Good father, thou knowest all, and loathe am I to question such a venerable gray head as thine, but what meaneth then the tepid quality of this dastardly deluge?”

David: (stooping to feel the water) “Indeed it is of a higher temperature than shouldst be met in such circumstances. Almost hot it is! What vile perplexion hath now bedeviled me in what should be the twilight of my evening?”

Act 3
David and Ian make their way through a junk-filled dirt floor basement abutting the finished plot that has fallen to Ian and Rachel as their humble abode. Flashlights cut through the darkness and clouds of dust kicked up by their traversal of the dread domain. Presently a hot water heater is seen, spewing steam and liquid from its top, to run down the wall and soak the young lover’s lair.

Ian: “Father, trustest thou the judgment of a true son?”

David: “Aye.”

Ian: “It seemeth to me that yon heater hath burst its bounds and liketh the confines of its course no more than a river doth her banks in April. If thou wilt receive instruction from an idiot…” (Aside to audience) “The quality of thine own reasoning is the only thing strained in these parts, cur!” (To David) “:thou wilt not now abide long ere the sun rise before visiting Lowe’s and parting thyself from loads of cash.”

David: “Aye, good son.”

Quote of the Day, 9/7/07

09/7/2007, 7:00 am -- by Steve | No Comments

“Football incorporates the two worst elements of American society: violence punctuated by committee meetings.” — G. Will

Opening Night

09/6/2007, 8:11 pm -- by Steve | 10 Comments

I just tuned in to NBC to watch the first NFL game of the season. Why was I presented with a screechy Kelly Clarkson, aimlessly wandering around a flashy stage, in a top unkind to her belly and pants that made her look hooved?

Beyond that, why, oh why, are Faith Hill and John Mellencamp coming up? Do they want to drive me back to the impossibly exciting shootout between Louisville and Middle Tennessee State (49 points and 504 yards in the first quarter)? I don’t particularly like Ludacris, but at least he fits the football demographic. I know Lawrence Welk is dead and all, but what, was Tiny Tim busy? Didn’t Yanni return anyone’s phone calls?

At least one line fit perfectly — “Bet it sucks, to see my face everywhere.”

He Wore Skins

09/6/2007, 3:45 pm -- by Job Tate | No Comments

Best of Job, March 2006.

“He wore skins.”

The above sentence was written, then summarily dissected by James Michener in The Source, a breathless 800-something page book I’ve read 2 1/2 times. The book studies a fictional Israeli settlement from primordial times to a modern city. “He” was a man who lived in the area and apparently wore skins.

In his most exhausting chapter, Michener traipsed along, slowly talking about this sentence, assigning deep significance to each word, then the significance of putting them together. When I first read the book, this chapter literally put me to sleep, but when I read it again — the summer after my freshman year in college — I became captivated by such dedication to task and respect for the power of the meaning of words. I even sought to employ this technique from time to time, but being fully aware of its tiring properties, I have rarely used it unless I thought it served a rhetorical purpose.

I have been distressed of late by the impression I’ve given other believers about how I feel about our Faith, and subsequently, about other faiths. I regret this immensely. My hypocrisy is not lost on me, as I bleed pints from my heart about abortion, then turn into pure poison when it comes to talk of Islam.

I regret this. Tact has always lived two towns over from me.

My clumsiness thus admitted, allow me to bust out my Michener real swift-like…

I believe in Jesus.

I am Job Tate, a human male doomed from “go.” I have a deep-seated problem working with groups, am hopelessly adrift and aloof, am the youngest in my family, and have a hard time concentrating on things that do not interest me.

“Believe” is a rugged notion in today’s world. My dad calls the world a “marketplace of ideas,” and as consumers, humans have more choices today than history collected in an eon or two. I am not a trusting person and I don’t splurge or spree. I believe in black and white, just as I believe oxygen cannot be substituted with carbon dioxide.

In is a vehicle. For all of the complexities of biology and anatomy, thought is annoyingly effortless. For me to run to the store is an absolute operation, but to think about what I want to get is instantaneous. Imagine if thinking required exercise, planning and pacing.

Wait. It does.

Jesus was a real live man, yet also the Son of God, who lived until 33 in the greater Israel area. This is the key part for people seeking truth, coming to grips with the fact of His being here. For over 2000 years, His words have resonated and they demand speculation. Be brutal and overly cautious with your questioning, sure. The larger the microscope, the more the benefit. As C.S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

If Jesus existed, and I believe He was who he said He was, and take to heart what He said, then everything else doesn’t compute.

My anger isn’t so much with Muslims, but with Christians who somehow feel obliged to enable a lie when they have the benefit of the truth.

Call me immovable and you’ve complemented me enormously.

I believe in Jesus.

It’s Another Chick Tract Excerpt!

09/6/2007, 2:30 pm -- by Steve | 1 Comment

{democracy:125}

Why Romney?

09/6/2007, 12:00 pm -- by Steve | 14 Comments

You probably didn’t watch the Republican debate from New Hampshire last night. I didn’t either, not live — I had better things to do, like watch the Yankee game and talk to my lovely girlfriend. But I did fire up the old DVR to give it a cursory glance before watching the Federer/Roddick match and going to bed.

For your information, I supported Alan Keyes, possibly the only black Republican presidential candidate ever, in both 1996 and 2000. I was actually on the ballot for Dr. Keyes during the 2000 Republican primary, where I received a whopping 1,041 votes as an alternate delegate. I agreed (and agree) with him on almost every issue, and though I knew he stood little chance of being elected, his brilliant oration and commitment to principle improved the political environment and held his fellow candidates accountable.

I did not like George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. I hated his accent, I suspected he wasn’t well-informed, I disliked his focus on fundraising, and I couldn’t stand the seemingly overconfident bravado he oozed. Yet he was — I believe — the best candidate in November, and so I voted for him.

Well, this Republican cycle, unless you are an anti-war libertarian, there is no Keyesian candidate to support. With the exception of Giuliani’s social liberalism, McCain’s push for amnesty, and perhaps Huckabee’s odd charge toward an intrusive federal government that bans smoking in public and ‘declares war’ on obesity, almost all the Republican candidates agree — on almost everything.

There is no real front-runner, and given the monotonous group and how difficult it will be to win in ’08, I think the principal concern for Republicans should be selecting a winner, an electable personality, rather than some set of ideas unique to that person. The Supreme Court and the battle against terror are too important to fall on an ideological or religious sword, to cede control of our nation to Hillary Clinton.

Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul cannot win; they frequently seem dangerously unbalanced.
Duncan Hunter cannot win; he is a gravely serious man who should be protecting our border, not running our country.
Sam Brownback cannot win; I can barely type his name without yawning.
Mike Huckabee cannot win; a nice story, but unqualified to run the nation — and way too eager to let government run our lives.
And John McCain cannot win; he’s Bob Dole all over again, and though he’s right on Iraq, after eight years of Bush obstinance, it’s simply not a winning issue.

This leaves Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

Just like W. in 2004, based on Giuliani’s personality, past, and positions on the issues, I won’t vote for him unless I have to in November. As for Thompson, remember that everyone’s been able to project onto him their own image of the perfect candidate. He’s popular like the backup quarterback on a losing football team, as much for who he isn’t as for what he is.

But look at Romney’s strength in the earliest primary states. He’s first in Iowa, by a lot. He’s first in New Hampshire, by a lot. He’s ahead in Michigan. Giuliani leads in a few other early states, so unless Thompson can jumpstart his campaign almost immediately and nose ahead of Romney among all conservatives, it’s going to come down to a two-man race that won’t include Fred.

Romney is eminently electable.

Yet several of my fellow Bweinh!tributors refuse to even consider him, simply because of his religion. This makes sense if you believe that faith in the Mormon religion is so ridiculous, illogical or dangerous that its adherents should automatically be disqualified from elective office; that it would be preferable to elect a president ethically opposed to some tenets of your religion, as long as he or she pays lip service to one of its more liberal denominations; that God would remove His hand of guidance and protection if our executive didn’t possess the ironclad theology of the adulterous Kennedy (Roman Catholic), expletive-spewing Nixon (Quaker), or astrology-embracing Reagan (Presbyterian).

Guess what? I could — and would — vote for a Buddhist candidate if he was the best candidate for the office. I could, and would, vote for the right Muslim. I could, and would, vote for an atheist, assuming we agreed on enough of the issues. A Jew. A Hindu.

I can certainly vote for a Mormon, for although I believe their theology is incorrect and their holiest books are founded on fraud, that has almost nothing to do with one’s fitness for public office. It’s not Christianity and it never will be, but neither is it Scientology, based on brainwashing for profit, requiring for its belief total detachment from reality. We can oppose its teaching as false and misguided without insulting its faithful by assuming they’d have to be insane.

It’s fine to support Thompson now. It makes sense. But if it comes down to a choice between Romney and Giuliani, you’d better think hard about whether that decision will be based on logic, or the triumph of religious dogma over political pragma.

Ask Bweinh! Poll — Emotions

09/6/2007, 11:00 am -- by Steve | No Comments

Today’s Ask Bweinh! poll is brought to you by Oprah.com! Do you want to know how to “feed your body what it craves”? Perhaps you would like to know the five best things to do for your relationship! Or maybe you just need a panty intervention!! Whatever you’re craving, you can scratch that itch — at Oprah.com!

Our favorite emotions:

Rank	Emotion	Points
1.	Love	21
2.	Joy	16
3-4 (tie)	Camaraderie; Anticipation	8
5.	Satisfaction	7
6.	Peace	6
7-10 (tie)	Relief; Hubris; Fatigue; Nostalgia	5
Other	Excitement; “:-P”; Ennui; Angst; Amusement; Trepidation; Inconsequential Confusion; Righteous Indignation; Assurance; Smarmitude; Ambivalence; A Crush; Indigestion; Comfort; Sorrow; Marmaduke	1-4

(The Last?) Answer to a Chick Tract Excerpt

09/6/2007, 9:15 am -- by Steve | No Comments

Will the judge protect Jimmy??

If you picked “No — he will sentence him to death,” you’re a winner!!

Clashers, Take Note!

09/6/2007, 9:07 am -- by MC-B | No Comments

Today is Cookie Monster Day here on Bweinh! (not really, but I was going to post this even before I saw what I was posting with today), so in honor of everyone’s favorite blue cookie-loving monster, I’ve decided to expose him as the true intellectual that he is. The following article has been culled from the internet (dot com!), specifically from Wikipedia’s Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense page.

C is for Cookie

C is for Cookie can be regarded as a case study in persuasive oratory, emphasizing the emotional aspect of public speaking. Cookie Monster builds excitement by answering his opening rhetorical question, “Now what starts with the letter C?” with the obvious reply, “Cookie starts with C!” He then challenges the audience, “Let’s think of other things that starts with C,” before quickly replying, “Oh, who cares about the other things?” casually dismissing a whole range of other possibilities as irrelevant. Thus, having ostensibly come for the purpose of covering the letter C in its entirety, Cookie Monster has already focused his agenda exclusively on cookies, employing the classic bait and switch tactic.

Several times in his presentation, Cookie Monster emphasizes what appears to be the central thesis of his remarks: “C is for cookie, that’s good enough for me!” The appealing rhythm of this slogan appears designed to entrance listeners, swaying their emotions and making them instinctively want to chant along with him. After rousing the crowd, Cookie Monster systematically lays out the logical underpinnings of his pro-cookie ideology, comparing cookies to round donuts with one bite out of them and to the moon during its crescent phase, in essence using a straw man argument that implies his opponents would advocate the superiority of these competitors over cookies. In this sense, Cookie Monster may be proposing a false dichotomy representing cookies as the only viable choice to a group of obviously inferior alternatives.

Before the audience has a chance to catch on, Cookie Monster launches into another round of repetitive chanting, “C is for cookie, that’s good enough for me, yeah!” as young children sing along. Here, Cookie Monster uses a propaganda technique strikingly similar to that employed in George Orwell’s Animal Farm by the pig Napoleon, who trained the farm’s sheep to bleat, “Four legs good, two legs bad” on his cue. Cookie Monster then adds visual stimulation to his discourse by chomping into a large cookie, concluding his remarks with “Umm-umm-umm-umm-umm” and other chewing sounds.

Cookie Monster, we hardly knew ye.

Me Want Cookie!

09/6/2007, 8:00 am -- by Job Tate | 1 Comment

Best of Job, March 2006.

Remember Cookie Monster?

He’d never actually ingest any piece of the cookie, but his frenetic, crazed eating of it gave the impression of a fantastic cookie-eating experience…

Loud.

Crumbs flying every which way.

Black plastic pupils swimming violently against a stark white backdrop, punctuated by labored breaths.

This is the Church today — all sizzle, no steak.

Look me in the eye.

Look. Me. In. The. Eye…

Did you really eat that cookie, yesterday?

Joke of the Day, 9/6/07

09/6/2007, 7:00 am -- by Steve | No Comments

A police officer in a small town stopped a motorist, clocked going 65 MPH down Main Street.

“Officer, I can explain!,” the man began.

“Just be quiet,” snapped the officer. “You were going too fast, and I’m going to let you wait in jail until the chief gets back!”

“But officer, I…”

“I said keep quiet! You’re going to jail!”

A few hours later, the officer checked on the man. “Lucky for you the chief is at his daughter’s wedding. He’ll be in a good mood when he gets back.”

“Don’t count on it,” answered the fellow in the cell. “I’m the groom.”

Bweinh.com Goes Global

09/5/2007, 2:30 pm -- by Chloe | 1 Comment

At the beginning of the summer, I declared that if you didn’t want to go to New Mexico, you would change your mind by the time you read my articles. Well, it’s September, and even I don’t want to be in New Mexico. Despite the fact that the days are shortening and fall is descending, the mercury still boasts still between 98 and 102 degrees. I’m ready for something new.

Here’s the plan, then: I’m out of here. I’m jumping the pond, and I’m taking Bweinh! with me. Until mid-December, my articles will serve as a travel log, unless there’s something more important to write about. All the things you’d naturally hear about (the Tower of London, the Thames, the Tube) may or may not be mentioned, but the things you never hear about (the great food, English gentility, the homeless) most certainly will. So sit back, relax, and enjoy, while our favourite website finally crosses an ocean.

Battle of the Bands XXV

09/5/2007, 1:00 pm -- by Steve | No Comments

Moving on is Without Excuse; here’s the next group from Romans!

{democracy:122}

Bible Discussion — Romans 2

09/5/2007, 12:00 pm -- by Bweinh | No Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next chapter in the book of Romans, Romans 2.

Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26
27-29 | 30-32 | 33-36 | 37-39 | 40-43 | 44-46 | 47-50

Exodus: 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-18
19-22 | 23-26 | 27-30 | 31-34 | 35-40

And the book of Romans: Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION:
Mike:
Paul turns the tables on his “righteous” readers. In ch. 1, we can almost hear them “Amen”-ing Paul’s devastating critique of ungodly Gentiles. But in ch. 2, he argues that the religious folks are equally unrighteous.

David:
In Chapter 1, Paul introduced the Gospel and proved the whole world guilty before God. In chapter 2, he deals specifically with the Jews, who condemned and despised the Gentiles, but did not acknowledge any guilt among themselves.

Connie:
This chapter is Paul’s “prophetic” realistic view of hardened religious hearts and his warnings that God is not fooled by outward appearances and actions.

SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Steve:
Verse 5 says that rather than repenting, “in accordance with [their] hardness and [their] impenitent heart,” the Romans were “treasuring up wrath,” to be cashed in on the day of judgment. I never noticed this particular turn of phrase before, and its connotation of gradual accumulation of punishment is chilling, like a Direct Deposit of damnation.

Connie:
I guess I never realized that this problem could be so widespread. Keith Green sang about it. Recently Mother Teresa’s private letters even alluded to it. Do we all suffer from it at some point, but believe we’re the only one?

Djere:
I guess I never really noticed how judgment-heavy Romans was… the first couple chapters are so thick they’re a blur.

Mike:
How very focused on works Paul is here: at least in this passage, it is our wicked works that lead to God’s judgment — vv. 3, 6, 8, 9, 12. It’s too easy to break down Paul’s thoughts into faith vs. works. Rather, there seems to be an inward change that is vital to salvation, and works testify to that inward change.

BEST BAND NAME FROM THE PASSAGE:
David: Babes
Josh: Mere Man; Glory, Honor and Immortality
Chloe: Perish Apart
Djere: Inward Jew
Connie: Inexcusable Man
Steve: Impartial
Mike: Instinctively Obedient Gentiles

Continued here!

« Previous Page — Next Page »