"Tell Spike Lee to sit down and shut up"

I've been waiting for 10 years to hear Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme's commentary on Sports Night. A couple weeks ago the tenth anniversary edition DVDs came out and I finally got my wish.

Sports Night is, by far, my favorite television show ever. If you know me, you know that saying something is my favorite anything is a rarity. My favorite food, or movie, or band, or song, or book...if you ask me about any of these things I'm more likely to give you a top ten list...or top twenty. I love television and always have so I could probably give you a top fifty list of my favorite television shows. I could tell you what my favorite currently airing shows are (Chuck and How I Met Your Mother). I could tell you what, in order, what my favorite shows were every year of my childhood. First came Sesame Street which was my favorite for several years (more than most, in fact Sesame Street was my first and only guilty pleasure, the first and last time I ever cared enough to hide what I liked from people for fear of what they'd think). After Sesame Street came the Nick at Night years (Gilligan's Island and Get Smart were among my favorites then), then I got really into reruns of Taxi and Three's Company because my local station had them on every night, then came Family Ties, then Growing Pains, then for several years The Wonder Years (in fact, until Sports Night came along The Wonder Years was my all time favorite show), after that was Sea Quest DSV, then Dawson's Creek, then Sports Night...I've had other seasonal favorites since then (Veronica Mars actually gave Sports Night a run for its money). But ask me what my favorite show of all time is and the answer, without hesitation, is Sports Night.

I loved A Few Good Men, and The American President, and if, at the time, I were the type of person to notice the writing credits on movies and shows I liked I could have guessed I'd like Sports Night, but I don't think I could ever have guessed how much I would like it.

Wordy wouldn't be an inaccurate label for Aaron Sorkin's writing and, as such, my appreciation for his work is predictable. He's not just wordy though, he doesn't just use a lot of words, he uses better than anyone else and he manages to make each word drip with subtext so that, if possible, the things his characters don't say, say as much or more than the things they do say.

So, I've been waiting, for ten years, to hear him his commentary and it's finally here. I'm really hoping he explains his bizarre fascination with Zamfir (master of the Pan flute).

I'm done

I am generally pretty interested in politics. I've written about it a few times. Right now though, I just can't watch it any more (or read about it, or listen to it).

I could say I'm disappointed in the level of discussion, and that's true, but really even if the level of discussion were great I think I'd still be sick of it. Although, the level of discussion is really pretty low.

I think my disillusionment hit a high last week when I heard someone saying that all Barack Obama has to be is adequate to win this election. It's not that I disagree with the idea that any democrat has a distinct advantage this election season. I've said that myself many times. People are really disappointed with the way things have gone for eight years and they put a lot of the blame for it on the republican party which makes it kind of hard for the democrats to lose this one. My problem was that the person said it in such a way that made it sound like Barack Obama is only adequate, as though he hasn't inspired millions of people, as though he doesn't have the ideas for how to get the country back on the right track.

That's just one example of the fluff reporting, but even the non-fluff, even the legitimate issues are starting to sound like empty noise. Luckily, I have already voted so I can kind of tune it out, but I can't escape it entirely. I can't wait for the whole thing to be over.

The Sun Also Rises

This is the house where Ernest Hemingway was born (in Oak Park, IL). I've become quite a Hemingway fan lately so on my recent trip to Chicago I took a little westerly detour and visited the Hemingway house (and museum).

My love of Hemingway is somewhat new found. I, like most people, was first exposed to the writing of Ernest Hemingway in high school. I was required to read a couple of his short stories and, at the time, I hated them.

I make no apologies for the fact that I like happy endings and I didn't see them in Hemingway's stories. Not that I dislike all stories without happy endings, but Hemingway's stories often don't seem to have endings at all. When I was younger I hated open endings. I liked my stories tied up in nice tidy bows for me (preferably, happy bows).

My aversion to open ended stories started to diminish over time and was finally abandoned completely because of some really great short stories written by the very same person who inspired me to (among other things) change the title of this blog. He writes really great open endings, I think they're better than any I've read.

There is a real art to open endings. You have to give enough information that the reader feels satisfied, the story does still have to have some resolution, but also leave enough loose ends to that the reader is left thinking about it, wondering. I still don't think Hemingway gets it exactly right a lot of the time, at least not in his short stories.

The other problem I had with Hemingway was what I perceived as pessimism that seemed prevalent in his stories. It turns out there's quite a history of sever depression in the Hemingway family (a lot of suicides). Hemingway himself suffered from depression for much of his life so it stands to reason that his writing might be somewhat dark, but now I'm not so sure I'd call it pessimism.

I started reading his novels at recommendation of my friend who's writing I love so much. First I read Old Man and the Sea, then I re-read some of the short stories, then I read his memoir (A Moveable Feast), then I read The Sun Also Rises...and the more I read, the more I started to think that the pessimism is actually optimism in disguise. There's a sense, especially in The Sun Also Rises, that the current circumstances are unbearable (for the characters) but that they are, that everything is, temporary.

You might think that it is my own optimism that's changed my mind about Hemingway. I can't help thinking that things are just on the verge of getting better for these characters but maybe a pessimist would feel that things were only going to get worse. I don't think though that it's just my personal optimism, I think the optimism is inherent in the stories. The desperation is palpable in almost all Hemingway stories but the characters don't give up. It's especially clear in The Old Man and The Sea. After everything that character goes through in the story, he still gets up the next day and goes on. Right now, my favorite is The Sun Also Rises, it does this same thing but the suffering and desperation are dealt with a little more indirectly and are also more emotional. Even the title of, The Sun Also Rises, seems like it just teetered off the edge of the line between optimism and pessimism firmly onto the optimistic side. It's definitely become one of my favorite books.

Faith vs...Religion

Bill Maher made a documentary about religion called Religulous (as in religion + ridiculous). The film attacks religion not faith (according to Maher in his press tour...I haven't actually seen the film), but the problem, on both sides of this argument, is that too many people confuse the two.

Do I believe in God...I don't know. That's what Bill Maher says too. The truly logical mind can't rule out the possibility because just as there is no empirical evidence of the existence of God there isn't any evidence to the contrary either. Okay, there are some who would say you don't need to prove the absence of something, that it's assumed a thing doesn't exist until there's proof that it does...like "innocent until proven guilty". I can't endorse that theory. If I have no proof that something doesn't exist than I can't be sure. Aliens, elves, vampires...I don't know...they could be out there somewhere. I don't want to equate God with aliens and vampires, except in that I don't know if either exist. Bill Maher sort of does (equate God with aliens), and I won't argue with it either, I just won't make that analogy myself because I think it's sort of sensationalistic

I make no secret of the fact that I don't believe there is any one true religion. One day, for the sake of argument, I said, maybe it isn't that they (religions) are all wrong, but that they're all, in a way, right. The first time I made this argument, it was something I said sort of off hand and I've come to call it the napkin holder analogy because, at the time, a napkin holder was the first thing I saw. I was sitting at a table with a friend and I couldn't think what to compare it to, but my point was that it's a matter of perception. If I look at that napkin holder and you ask me to describe it maybe I say that it's rectangular and that it holds and dispenses paper napkins, ask another person and they might say that it's red and made of aluminum. It's the same napkin holder but people describe it in different ways. Now take something without any tangible properties that can easily be described and ask a few people to try describe it anyway. You'll probably get an even greater number of different answers. "God" is such an intangible entity. The Judeo-Christian tradition is to anthropomorphize "God", many pagan traditions cast the divine as an animal (or several different animals), the Greeks went the anthropomorphizing way as well but for them it was many gods, another common image is of energy. What if those are all just attempts by people to describe the same thing? It's something that they can't see (or smell, or taste, or touch, or hear), so doesn't it stand to reason that they'd come up with different descriptions? And it also makes sense that they'd all insist that their description is the right one because otherwise they'd have to admit that they don't understand it fully and it's human nature to fear what you don't understand (which would be in direct oposition to faith).

My mother asked me a few months ago if I'd ever considered ministry (as a career choice), and she's not the first person to ask me that. I seem to have a quality that makes people think I have answers to any questions they have. I get asked for directions and for direction a lot.

My adamant refusal to endorse the idea that there's only on right religion means that, even if I had considered it, Christian ministry is not something I could ever do. I did, however, seriously consider going to rabbinical school a couple years ago. I don't know Hebrew, but I could learn it I think. However...I really like bacon and apparently the dietary rules for rabbinical students are even more strict than the regular Kosher rules.

I know several people who've been ordained as ministers of the Universal Life Church. Most of the time people get ordained (which is free and takes about 30 seconds) in order to officiate the wedding of a friend (or family member), but I thought "Universal" might be an indication of agreement with my theory about all religions being right...although "Catholic" also technically means universal and they definitely don't think anyone else is anything close to right so that's not necessarily an accurate indicator. In this case though, it turns out to be fairly accurate. So, I got myself ordained.

I'm no more qualified than I was before to offer advise on matters of faith, but since I am fairly vocal about faith, and since people have always and will always ask me for advice, I figured I might at least get credentialed.