Showing posts with label dad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dad. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2008

Frag


skineart.com - art from Moleskine notebooks

To read: Ben Gibbard (Death Cab for Cutie/The Postal Service) on "The Meaning of Life" in Paste Magazine - thanks, Marty. "Liking interesting things doesn’t make you interesting."

I have to make a website for my Dad's book, does anyone know how to make a website? (here's the one he has already - Douglass and Associates), and yes, I'm an associate, thanks.

word of the day: sinecure - an office which involves minimal duties at full pay

Friday, January 25, 2008

Who Knew?: Kitty Genovese


I learn a lot from road trips with my parents. This is a new one from my Dad. The famous 'Bystander Effect' from the Kitty Genovese murder in 1964 is actually kind of not true. Actually, the first time I heard about Kitty Genovese was from Boondock Saints, the movie. The story goes like this: Kitty Genovese, a 28 year old, was stabbed to death in Queens in 1964, supposedly while 38 people looked on and no one called the police. This case has been in Psychology and Sociology textbooks as the 'Bystander Effect,' and everyone wondered why no one would call the police when they just witnessed a murder. Thanks to my Dad and Wikipedia, here's the full story:

While Genovese's neighbors were vilified by the article, "Thirty-Eight onlookers who did nothing" is a misleading conception. The article begins:
"For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens."
The lead is dramatic but factually inaccurate. None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and attempted rape in an exterior hallway which resulted in Genovese's death.[1]
Nevertheless, media attention to the Genovese murder led to reform of the NYPD's telephone reporting system; the system in place at the time of the assault was often inefficient and directed individuals to the incorrect department. The melodramatic press coverage also led to serious investigation of the bystander effect by academic psychologists. In addition, some communities organized Neighborhood Watch programs and the equivalent for apartment buildings to aid people in distress.
In September 2007, the American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Kitty Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded the story is parable more than fact, largely owing to inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident.[12] "The since-challenged story of the circumstances surrounding Genovese's death 'continues to inhabit introductory social psychology textbooks (and thus the minds of future social psychologists),' the trio of British university professors write in the September issue of American Psychologist. The result is a lack of research into similar cases, their article maintains".[13]

Sunday, November 4, 2007

treasures in heaven


I was at the Veritas leadership meeting today and we were reading in Luke 6 about something or other and there was about half a verse about us being rewarded in the afterlife for things we do here. It struck me how very odd this idea is, both from the perspective of our current culture and (from what little I know of the) Buddhist perspective.

I generally tend towards the (wrong view) of us not having any right to protest against any wrongs done to us in this life because we have done so much wrong and therefore deserve what ever is coming to us. I am in the (very long and drawn out) process of Christ changing my mind to want justice in the world. As in, wrongs done to us are still wrong (and should be punished) even though we are guilty as well.

Okay, to get to the point. The idea that we are rewarded is possibly absurd. God promises us a reward for our striving. We don't just do things because they are right and the very rightness is self-rewarding. But God pours even more blessing on top. Maybe. This sounds right, but I have just started thinking about this and honestly have no idea.

But one other thing that goes along with this idea: I was talking to Andy Patton on Wednesday and he has been reading By Demonstration: God by Wade Bradshaw (you can read about his thoughts here at his blog). Wade Bradshaw used to be a worker at English L'Abri - where I was for a semester this time last year, and the book was born out of his experiences there. I tried to read the book while I was at L'Abri but got distracted.

But anyway, Andy said that one thing that he's gotten out of the book is the idea that our current culture looks at Christianity and Biblical values as somewhat beneath their own. Like it would almost be a downgrade morally to adhere to Christian values. Traditional Christian moral standpoints such as being pro-life, womens roles in the church and home, and views of other religions seem almost archaic.

This all relates back to treasures in Heaven, I promise. The idea of us getting rewarded for our strivings and faith by some kind of reward almost seems archaic. Morality should be done for morality's sake, right? To be rewarded for faith-acts seems absurd and greedy.

But God knows us, He made us. He engages with our desires and works with us. It's not just Him in the clouds making demands. He lets us see the fruit of our labors. He gives us hope. He's a good God.

p.s. - my Dad has that picture somewhere up in his office at home. i like it.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Ode to Bureaucracy

I have a love-hate relationship with Mizzou's bureaucracy. Graduating from this institution is notoriously tricky and so I am taking the utmost care in seeing all the right people and covering every base so I don't get the dreaded "Oh, yeah, that class is a requirement for your major, I can't believe your adviser freshman year didn't tell you that. Yeah, I guess you'll have to take it in summer school or stay another semester" No effing way. I've already been screwed twice, having taken two classes that I had AP credit for in high school.

So I discovered that I somewhat meet the requirements for a minor in Leadership and Public Service (whatever that means - my Dad said it sounds good and he's a professor at a grad school) and while I was checking all of that out they told me that my adviser has been changed (third time in my college career). And I had met with her two days earlier. Had she told me this? No. I felt betrayed.

One cool thing about Mizzou's bureaucracy is that if you talk to the right person all doors are opened for you. Example: when I was trying to swing getting my capstone (final Senior project thing) internship to be with my youth pastor for Krew (in St. Louis) for the summer I just talked to the secretary for my head guy for my major and she said "sure, whatever" and signed a piece of paper and I was home free. Glorious.

Most people are pretty helpful, especially in the Humanities. Because if they really cared about their jobs and going by the rules they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. It would be too frustrating.

Sorry if this post is disjointed and makes no sense. I accidentally drank a Mocha and a Latte on an empty stomach.

Baaaad Movie Accents



On that obnoxious window that pops up with the MSN Messenger there are usually articles with highly entertaining and interest-grabbing titles for articles that hardly ever live up to them.

Today there is a link to "Accent-uate the Negative: With a nod to Russell Crowe, the 10 all-time worst movie accents" Wonderful. However, they missed my all-time favorite. My dad and I enjoy action flicks on our twin Lazy-boy recliners down in the basement and one time we picked out Triple X: Judgement Day or something with Vin Diesel in it and I actually thought maybe the female lead's bad accent going in and out was part of the plot or something, like maybe she was a traitor. Oh, no no.

Here's MSN's list:
1. Dick Van Dyke as Bert in "Mary Poppins" (1964)
2. Brad Pitt in "The Devil's Own" (1997)
3. Angelina Jolie in "Alexander" (2004)
4. Gary Oldman in "State of Grace" (1990)
5. Uma Thurman in "Henry & June" (1990)
6. Tim Robbins in "Mystic River" (2003)
7. Winona Ryder in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)
8. Forest Whitaker in "The Crying Game" (1992)
9. Liam Neeson in "Schindler's List" (1993)
10. Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" (1991), "JFK" (1991), "A Perfect World" (1993), and "Thirteen Days" (2000)

Friday, October 12, 2007

Kudos to Radiohead



Radiohead is releasing a new record on December 3 and so far no record labels (and therefore no record stores) are getting to sell the album. Way to go Radiohead. Although I'm a passive fan (and that's stretching it), I respect this "stick it to the man" move.
It seems like this might be the way things are going, with Web 2.0 and all. It seems like the music movement that Napster started years ago might actually finally change the record industry.
Ever since my dad forced me to stop using free illegal music downloads a couple years ago, I haven't known where to go next. I downloaded from Walmart (88 cents) for awhile but their licenses always ran out or my computer died with all of them on there. Too much hassle, when I buy a song I want to buy the song. Now I just buy the CD off of Half.com (I love them) which kind of hits two birds with one stone - I have the song and it's cheap. But still, the artists don't get my money.

The way things are going and how fast the music and technology industries change, I'm sure this will be all ironed out in the next decade. It's just irritating now.

Oh and did I mention that Radiohead is letting its fans decide the price they want to pay for the album? That's right.