The Little Picture: A Look at Grassroots Movements in West Hill

Urban Family founder Paul Patu speaks
at the Secondary Learning Center

As those of you who follow me on Twitter may know (@levi_sweeney), I was originally going to do a post on the Air Nomads and Religious Vegetarianism. However, I would instead like to write a somewhat belated post concerning a more pressing matter. It's about "the odd social issue" advertised in the blog description at the top of this page.

This last week, I received a flyer and a questionnaire in the mail from Skway Solutions, asking questions about possible solutions to problems in our community. I live in the West Hill area, a chunk of unincorporated King County stuck in between Seattle and Renton. The area has it's fair share of problems, such as poverty, crime, and truancy, among other things. Apart from one or two community meetings, I'd never thought to get involved much in helping to solve any of these problems. I helped my dad during the West Hill Annexation vote in 2012, but that's about it. But the aforementioned flyer was an invite to an open house at a local school, offering food, door prizes, and a community forum. Intrigued, and out of the dojang for a while due to a knee injury, I decided to go.

When I arrived at the school on Thursday, the first thing that struck me was that most of the assembly was made up of minorities. I, white as an onion, stood out like sore thumb, being one of only seven or eight white people out of fifty attendees, the majority of whom were either black, Hispanic, or of mixed ancestry, with a couple of Asians scattered here and there. I don't really know what I'm supposed to take away from this observation. At any rate, I made fine friends with some of the people there, and they all seemed good and friendly. A few were trying a bit hard to pull off that gangster, tough-guy look, but I doubt there was much bite to be found. I sat next to a guy named Corey who said that his grandfather was trained by Bruce Lee. He even had pictures on his cell phone! Man, that sounds so cool.

The other thing that was particularly noticeable was that most of the attendees were either children or teenagers. I was expecting this before I arrived, as the event was dubbed "Teen Talk," meant to engage youth of the community in the process of addressing West Hill's problems. There were several adults in the audience and adult speakers, but much of the discussion was coordinated by members of the Skyway Youth Neighborhood Council (SYNC), a cadre of young activists trying to help further change in the community for the better.

After a meal and acquainting period, SYNC invited audience members to answer into a microphone their own answers to questions projected onto a screen. Questions included, "What barriers do teens face in the community?" and "Why should teens be involved in their community?" Each answer was given a round of applause, including mine. I answered the first of these questions with a basic assessment of the obvious: joblessness led to crime, which is a problem. I elaborated that the citizenry should be informed and involved in the issues of today, as the Founders intended, lest a "political elite" take power and begin running the country however it wanted. (Oh, wait a second...)

After the open forum, representatives of SYNC, Alajawan's Hands, the Skyway West Hill Action Plan Committee (SWAP, an arm of Skyway Solutions) and Urban Family all gave speeches, highlighting their respective organizations' efforts to improve conditions in the community. SYNC is educating youth on various hazards related to gang violence and delinquency. Alajawan's Hands, also known as the Alajawan Brown Foundation, is offering tutoring, scholarships, and various charitable activities. SWAP representatives discussed the economic challenges facing the West Hill area, and ideas concerning how to mitigate them. Urban Family, who probably had the biggest presence at the event, spoke about what they've been doing to keep kids on the right path, deter gang violence, and generally improve conditions in the community. They showed a nice video featuring their accomplishments, and scenery around Skyway. It was almost surreal to watch, as I drive past these places all the time, and now I'm watching them on a video, probably recorded while in a moving car.

After the speeches, there were some cultural displays courtesy of a Somali immigrant organization from over in I think Rainier Beach, featuring a poetry reading and what I believe was a traditional Somali dance. Let me tell you, it makes any dancing I've seen look pretty sub-par. When the meeting was officially adjourned, I stuck around to talk to a gal from SWAP named Andra. I asked her about the idea of annexation, and she stated that she was a "neutral" on the subject, being neither for nor against it, but was mainly concerned that the interests of the people of West Hill be addressed. As it is, annexation won't be on the discussion table for a while now, since it the vote failed back in 2012.

I came away from this event with a different outlook on the way things ought to be around here. On the one hand, I had always embraced the idea that annexing West Hill into Renton would be good for the community. Andra herself said that King County has failed to provide basic services and law enforcement to the West Hill area. But I've always been the sort of guy who looks at the big picture. I read the Wall Street Journal and WORLD Magazine. I follow national and global news avidly. When election time rolls around, I gear up for local politics as a matter of course. I have to vote, after all. But apart from a few stints here and there, I've never really been a part of a local, small-scale, grassroots campaign. Attending this meeting, I've glimpsed what that atmosphere, that culture, is like. I think that it can be a powerful force for conservative, free market political reform. You may ask, "What's new?" My point here is that I've never fully understood the concept of a grassroots effort, and now I've gotten a front row seat.

Going back to the annexation thing, I still believe that it's West Hill's best bet. On the City of Renton website, an article on the subject of annexation reads, "The City's policy stance has been to welcome areas that wish to annex but at the same time Renton must maintain service levels to current residents. Annexation is ultimately a choice of area voters." Now that I've had a glimpse of the grassroots activity going on in the Skyway/West Hill area, I'm beginning to understand why that initiative may have failed. 

My father, his friends, and myself in a minor capacity, worked very hard to secure victory with the 2012 West Hill Annexation Vote. We distributed literature, put up signs, did door-belling, and may have run a call center. But there wasn't the streak of enthusiasm brought on by your typical grassroots campaign, not enough of the youthful energy I saw at the Teen Talk event. I can't help but wonder that if we had worked with the local grassroots organizations, organized rallies and speeches, reached out to the community in much the same way as these organizations are doing now, that they would have succeeded. The initiative lost by about 10 percent of the vote, 680 votes to be specific.

But here's the thing: The people of West Hill want to combat their problems. They're open to solutions, which was plain to see at the meeting on Thursday. And if they're open to solutions, to positive change, then maybe a real difference can be made. Concerning the providing of services, Renton Mayor Denis Law noted in his 2015 State of the City address earlier this month that "the culture for quality service begins at the top." In our present state of affairs, King County Executive Dow Constantine is the guy at "the top." I don't know much about him or his policies, but I understand that he's focused on increasing the efficiency of the bus line and combating climate change. While that is neither here nor there, what I do know is that Mr. Constantine is not focused on helping the citizens of West Hill. I for one don't want to wait around until he does want to help us. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to try something new.

Follow Levi on Twitter at @levi_sweeney, and submit questions and post ideas with the hashtag #QLevi

The Metal Clan and Utopianism

A couple weeks back, I ended my post on Zaheer and Zen Anarchism (that sounds so fun to write) with a promise that the next time I wrote about The Legend of Korra, I'd talk about the Metal Clan. That day has come, and I now plan onc talking about how the Metal Clan relates to the philosophy of Utopianism.

Utopiansim refers to the belief or philosophy surrounding the concept of utopia. Utopia itself is defined by merriam-webster.com as "an imaginary place in which the government, laws, and social conditions are perfect." Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig defines Utopiansim as "arrival at... a kind of perfect world, a paradise on earth, as it were—the perfect society." Although this precise term wasn't coined until English philosopher Thomas More wrote the book Utopia in 1516, the idea of utopia has been around since Plato's Republic at least, which dates back to around 380 B.C. Utopia has been discussed in various other literature and other media across the centuries, and in the modern era has led to the development of the respected but relatively new genre of dystopia. The Legend of Korra provides in Book 3: Change an example of what is for all practical purposes a utopian society: Zaofu, home of the Metal Clan.

Zaofu is a community made up largely of metal and earth-benders, founded and led by some of the descendants of Toph. According to its leader, Suyin Beifong, it is a place where everyone is encouraged to strive for their maximum potential. She also states that it is "the safest city in the world." Indeed it is, as it contains elaborate security measures, such as retractable metal roofs over the city, metal-bending powered gondolas for entry, and a crack squad of metal-bending police, though Lin Beifong doesn't think much of all this. What's more, it's implied that all or many of the city's earth-bending inhabitants have learned Toph's ability to detect lies in other people through earth-bending, providing a neat incentive for the residents of Zaofu to never fib. Zaofu is evidently a meritocracy, housing some of the world's finest scientific minds, including a certain Howard Hughes-esque businessman who we haven't seen since the Book 2 finale. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Zaofu is a utopia, most likely following the philosophy of classical liberalism (not to be confused with liberal progressivism), perhaps not intentionally established, and not stated outright by the characters, but definitely meeting much of the criteria.

But here's the catch: Utopia, by its very definition, is imaginary, just like Zaofu is imaginary. But unlike many imagined utopias, Zaofu's status as an ideal society is subtly deconstructed by pointing out one of the principle holes in the proposal of utopia: Who's going to make it all happen?

Many utopias, especially those based on the principles of socialism, profess that given the proper conditions, a classless, stateless society will emerge in which everyone works for the common good. Of course, this has never happened in reality, with attempted experiments with such models resulting in oppressive dictatorships such as Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Revolutionary France, and countless other nasty historical episodes. The main problem with this idea is that human nature is, by default, self-serving and uncharitable. The only way to organize a group of such creatures to work for the common good is through coercion, such as in a dictatorship or an oligarchy. But if that happens, then the ideal of a classless, stateless society is lost, and the whole experiment is for nothing. Due to their inherently faulty natures, the economies produced by socialism and its ilk generally descend into kleptocracy, or in a few extreme cases, anarchy. In many cases across the modern developing world, multiple dictatorships have risen and fallen in succession, calling to mind the French proverb, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." As Lois H. Sargent wrote in her essay "Anyone for Utopia?" in 1977, "Utopians seem never to give thought to the mechanics of management and operation of their imagined systems."

Cincinnatus (519-430 B.C.)

Part of the reason societies like the Soviet Union developed into dictatorships was because the dictators in question typically don't want to relinquish their power. (The rest of the reason for these particular events have to do with a discussion of Communism, which is beyond the scope of this post.) Rare in history is the benign ruler who, when given absolute power in a time of crisis, resists the temptation to take hold of it until someone else can take it back by force. The Roman statesman Cincinnatus (519-430 B.C.) comes to mind, as does George Washington, who refused the opportunity to become King George I of America after the American War of Independence. In the Soviet Union, people like Lenin and Stalin, despite their ostensibly sincere belief in the Communist Utopia, were evil tyrants who used their power to bring about many deaths, if for Lenin it was thousands and Stalin millions. Later Soviet dictators weren't much better, using their power to line the pockets of they and their friends while the people lived in squalor. 

It is this element of corruption which all dictatorships and oligarchs have in common that exposes a chief vulnerability of any kind of utopia. In The Legend of Korra, a principle leader of Zaofu is revealed to have been in league with the villains. The reason this is significant is because it shows that Utopia can't be accomplished as long as there are imperfect humans trying to make things perfect. All civilizations have rulers, and if a ruler is corrupt, the whole civilization will be corrupt along with him. As we have seen, corruption is often the case in dictatorships. Imagine if the aforementioned Zaofu leader had used his position to accumulate illicit wealth, curry favors, accept bribes, or pervert justice for his own ends, which nearly does happen? What would we make of this Utopian community then?

The other big problem with Utopianism, an extension of the problem outlined above, has to do with the nature of government. Government is designed to restrain the corrupted nature of man, as the founders of the United States set out to do, with successful results. The American experiment is unique in that it went about this task by restraining the government; that is, by setting in place certain safeguards, such as separation of powers and elected representatives, so that the government would not grow too big or oppressive. The founders had no illusions, however, that they could produce a perfect society. James Madison, widely known as "the Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist #51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The long and short of it is that there will always be iniquities in any society made up of imperfect men. Even the nation of Israel, whose law codes (forming the first five books of the Bible) were provided by God Himself, and was supposed to be a model for the rest of the world, was a less than perfect society, frequently veering into apostasy, war, civil unrest, and other blights, to the point of being split into two separate kingdoms after the death of Solomon. (See 1 Kings 12)

Oddly enough, Israel in the days of the judges was little more than a loosely federated coalition of tribes led by a council of elders, and yet things were usually just as chaotic then as they were during the period of the kings, if not more so. (See Judges.) Thus, not even a semi-democratic theocracy such at this could bring about Utopia, not by a long shot! If all of this tells us anything, it's that there is no hope of a truly perfect society, not one made by human hands, until the coming of the Lord in His power, when there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth. Imperfect man can never make anything truly perfect, permanent, or stable. This world is, after all, transient and temporary.

In sum, we see from The Legend of Korra than even a society as wonderful and idyllic as that of the Metal Clan is not invulnerable to fault. For all its veneer of Utopia, it is still shown to be fallible in some key respects. It brings to mind another location from Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Legend of Korra's predecessor. This location, the city of Ba Sing Se, is a dystopia controlled by the villainous Grand Secretariat Long Feng, who through the use of the Dai Li, the sinister secret police, claims to be maintaining "an orderly utopia. The last one on Earth." Unfortunately, poor Long Feng is just as deluded as Marx, Wells, and Lenin. The only Utopia to ever exist will come at a time when all of them have faded away, and this one will never fade away: The kingdom of Christ, the Son of the Living God. And unlike any human made utopia, its coming is inevitable and everlasting.

Follow Levi on Twitter at @levi_sweeney, and submit questions and post ideas with the hashtag #QLevi

Image 1 courtesy tv.com. Image 2 courtesy kids.britannica.com.

Big Hero 6: The Myth of the Corporate Supervillain

Warning: Minor spoilers for Big Hero 6 lay ahead.

I was pretty excited when Big Hero 6 won this year's Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Not only did it totally deserve it, but it did it while marking a significant milestone in comic book movie history: It is the first adapted superhero property to win an Oscar, the second, after Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight in 2008, to win any Oscar for anything superhero-related. And it really did deserve it. It has a compelling story, a world which was interesting to watch and beautiful to look at, a charming cast of characters to relate to, and some great emotion and deep themes. It even managed to deliver a pretty unique take on several common superhero tropes. It's the last of these that I want to talk about today, specifically concerning the character of Alistair Krei, voiced by Alan Tudyk of Firefly and Serenity fame.

In Big Hero 6, Krei is a businessman who runs the technology company Krei Tech. Krei first appears as an interested party who wants to buy the new robotics technology invented by Hiro Hamada, the film's protagonist. Hiro declines the offer on the advice of his brother Tadashi's mentor, Professor Callaghan, the scene setting up Krei as the film's obvious bad guy. But surprisingly, it turns out to be a red hearing which the  characters as well as the audience buy into. It's also a neat subversion of a trope which has been played out many times before: the Corrupt Corporate Executive.

The Corrupt Corporate Executive is often used in works of fiction as a stock character who is typically bald, fat, smoking a big cigar, or some combination thereof. Quite plainly enough, this character is a corporate executive who engages in villainous activities, which may or may not be related to their profession. Examples readily abound all across fiction, including Lex Luthor of DC Comics, Hiroshi Saito and Varrick from The Legend of Korra, Norman Osborn, Justin Hammer, Bolivar Trask, and whoever is running Roxxon at any given time over at Marvel, and even Jon Spiro from Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl.

Typically, corrupt corporate executives in fiction are greedy, obnoxious, dishonest, and evil. They will go to any lengths to make an extra buck, up to an including everything from cooking the books to mass murder. Some even commit the unpardonable sin of *gasp* making and selling weapons. Obviously, they are usually motivated by monetary gain, and they are typically psychopaths who routinely abuse their employees and customers, and use their vast financial resources to cover up their dirty deeds.

But I have a news flash for writers who like to write corporate bad guys this way: This is not what real corrupt corporate executives, I believe, are even remotely like.

My first objection is a matter of logic: How on earth would someone who does half the things that, say, Lex Luthor does have any hope of succeeding in business? Business is a very teamwork driven industry, and being greedy, obnoxious, dishonest, and evil is not a good way to get people to want to work for you, or for that matter, buy stuff from you. I mean, would you honestly want to do business with Justin Hammer or Jon Spiro, the latter of whom has blatant mob connections and the FBI and CIA breathing down his neck, but still somehow remains a successful businessman? I certainly wouldn't. The notion that people like them stay in business by spreading a bunch of money around is plainly laughable, as it could obviously cost more to bribe their way out of trouble than it would by simply playing by the rules. The International Chamber of Commerce, in a plain statement of the obvious, has said of corruption as related to public relations, "Enterprises seen to be doing business with integrity are more likely to attract and retain highly-principled and motivated employees as well as ethically-oriented investors. In contrast, companies confronted with corruption cases have faced reputational damage."

Secondly, even the corporate executives who are corrupt in the real world aren't out poisoning the reservoir, or knowingly selling dangerous products to the unwitting public, or hiring spandex-clad thugs to intimate business rivals, all of which are crappy business models. The ones that do do things like that get shut down fast or are fined into oblivion, and often for even smaller slights than that. Oddly enough, I can't remember the last time Pfizer poured cyanide into the reservoir for some reason. No, corporations that engage in illegal activity are a bit more mundane in their lawbreaking. The International Chamber of Commerce defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private financial or non-financial gain. It diverts resources from their proper use, distorts competition and creates gross inefficiencies in both the public and private sectors." It is furthered categorized as bribery, solicitation of bribery, or extortion.

What does this mean? It means that a real life corrupt CEO isn't plunking down bags of cash to hire supervillains to scare his business rival into a buy out, or being overtly hostile during a hostile takeover, or stealing an inventor's property for sinister purposes, as the heroes in Big Hero 6 suspect Krei of doing. At least, not in America. Don't ask me what it's like in China or Venezuela or Brazil, because that's a whole different pie. No, your average corrupt corporate executive is engaging in a little "creative accounting," moving the numbers around to disguise the company's profits. Maybe he's helping the mob launder money if he's a bit more adventurous. If she's a little lower in the hierarchy, it could be embezzling. Bribing a government inspector? It happens. It all boils down to the simple fact that if you're an exec, and you do something illegal, it's not probably not going to made into an movie, and you're going to be unceremoniously carted off to a minimum security prison really, really fast. Which brings us to the next hurdle of being a corrupt corporate executive: anti-corruption programs. 

Most major, profitable companies have some kind of anti-corruption program. Whether these programs are effective or not is debated, but it's a good sign that they exist at all. Even if they aren't particularly good at detecting corruption, when the company begins to go down the tubes thanks to corrupt executives, these guys are usually there to blow the whistle. In short, if anti-corruption programs don't take down a bad exec, the company will implode on its own, kind of like what happened with Enron. The point is, bad behavior among corporate big wigs usually comes back to bite the perpetrators in the end, and as a result is plainly more trouble than it's worth. 

Which brings us back to Krei.

Krei isn't given a whole lot of analysis in the film, largely existing as the aforementioned red hearing. He's affable, ambitious, mildly smug, a little feckless and implicitly intelligent. I mean, he built up his own tech company and was involved in a teleportation project with the military, so he has to be a clever guy. But he's not the film's villain. He doesn't actually do anything illegal, or even wrong. We only know what his "bad" qualities are based on what the film's real villain says about him, and this villain isn't exactly an impartial judge of character. The closest he gets to being bad is a tragic accident in which he was only vestigially responsible for, if only because the film's real villain blames him for it. The point is that he's not a corrupt corporate executive. He's not even such a bad guy! In fact, the only reason that Hiro and his friends think Krei's a bad guy at all is because Fred, their resident comic book geek, points out the villains of a lot of comic books are actually corrupt industrialists. It's a clever and funny way of subverting a by now very tired superhero cliche.

In the end, Big Hero 6 is a fine entry into the Disney animated cannon, being a fun, rollicking, emotionally deep film that sucks you in and keeps you glued to the screen the whole way through. It's beautiful to look at, engaging to watch, and provides fun for the whole family. I wholly recommend it as entertaining, innovative, and uplifting. I'd love to see where they go with a sequel.

Fun fact: This isn't the only animated Disney flick that Alan Tudyk has lent his voice to. He also voiced the slightly more villainous Duke of Weselton in Frozen. Oddly enough, he also voiced Superman in Justice League: War.

Follow Levi on Twitter at @levi_sweeney, and submit questions and post ideas with the hashtag #QLevi

Image 1 courtesy of blogs.disney.com. Image 2 courtesy of disney.co.uk.

The Legend of Korra - Book 3: Change: Zaheer and Moral Syncretism

I'm not gonna lie, Book 3 of The Legend of Korra is easily the best season of the show that I've seen yet. I haven't seen Book 4, however, so I'll have to wait until then to judge whether or not this is in fact the best season yet. A word of warning though: Due to the nature of the post's content, some substantial spoilers regarding Zaheer's motivations will be mentioned.

The Legend of Korra - Book 3: Change is everything that this sequel series to Avatar: The Last Airbender was hyped to be from the start: bigger, better, and more beautiful than we've seen yet. Taking place a couple weeks after the events of the sadly mediocre Book 2: Spirits, we see that Harmonic Convergence (long story) left dozens of random non-benders across the world -including Tenzin's brother Bumi- with the ability to airbend. This prompts Korra, Mako, Bolin, Tenzin, Asami, Bumi, and Jinora to embark on a quest to gather the new airbenders and rebuild the Air Nomads from the ground up. Unbeknownst to them, however, a mysterious warrior poet named Zaheer (voiced by Henry Rollins) has broken out of prison under the watch of the strangely incompetent White Lotus, with airbending abilities of his own. He pulls together his own team of elite benders to strike at Team Avatar for enigmatic purposes. Will Korra and company succeed in their quest before Zaheer achieves his mysterious plan? (Good grief, I'm beginning to sound like Shiro Shinobi.)

Aside from the intense emotion, high drama, funny dialogue, stunning visuals, great voice acting, and cool action that is by now par for the course on this show, Book 3 boasts what is quite easily the best villain we've seen yet. Unalaq and Vaatu were just two more generic evil bad guys at the end of the day, and Amon, while getting an awesome build-up, was the victim of a lousy payoff. It didn't help that he and Tarrlok went out kind of stupidly, and don't even get me started on Hiroshi Saito. Zaheer though, Zaheer is a whole different animal. Zaheer is quite easily one of the best TV villains I've seen yet, and the best I've ever seen in an animated series. I'd even say that he's one of the best villains we've seen in the entire Avatar-franchise, up there with Azula, Long Feng, and Ozai. What makes Zaheer such a great villain? Simple: He has the most complex, well-developed, interesting, and well-executed motivation we've ever seen on this entire show, and in my book is tied with Zuko for that category in the entire franchise.

But what is that motivation, and why is it so important to Zaheer's character?

As any seasoned writer who might be reading this blog would know, in a story, character motivation is everything. Without a motivation, a character is just a random blip on the screen with no purpose and no place in the story. They're just there, doing nothing, affecting nothing, and that makes for a pretty boring story. Believe it or not, making up a character motivation is a lot harder than it sounds if you're a writer. I can't begin to tell you of the ribbings I endured in an old creative writing class I took a few years ago that stemmed from my characters having terrible, poorly thought out motivations. Simply put, the better motivation a character has, the better odds he (or she!) has of being a great character. And remember what Zaheer has?

That's the thing about Zaheer though: His motivation is so complex and mysterious that even Korra and the rest of Team Avatar doesn't know what's driving him and his pals until about halfway through the season, and even then it blows their minds even more than it does the audience's. The long and short of it is that the guiding philosophy of Zaheer's group is that the natural order of the world is, in fact, disorder, and that they are on a righteous mission to topple all the world's governments and throw the world into anarchy. Throw in a smattering of humanism, and you've got what amounts to Zen Anarchism, which is probably the most bizarre philosophical label I've ever seen, discussed, or otherwise conceived of.

It's also inherently unworkable.

I don't know exactly what the show's illustrious creators (Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko) were trying to do when they introduced Zaheer, but Zen Anarchism as a practical philosophy is fundamentally irreconcilable with its very self. Zen, insofar as I understand it, is the attainment of wisdom through meditation, which in Eastern philosophical thought is basically thinking really, really hard. Anarchism, on the other hand, advocates for a stateless society where no government exists, based on the premise that any kind of governance only leads to more suffering, which is right where Zaheer stands. But the entities that cherish the obtaining of knowledge and wisdom, such as institutions of higher learning and many religious bodies, are historically shown to be byproducts of an established society in which there exists some sort of governing authority. The environment of peace and safety required to pursue a Zen-like lifestyle is unattainable in an environment of anarchy. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." 


If men were angels. The key problem with with Zaheer's outlook is that he's got all backwards. Men aren't angels because of bad governments; certain governments are bad because men aren't angels. One particularly memorable scene from episode 3 of Book 3: Change ("The Earth Queen") features Team Avatar arriving at Ba Sing Se. In an obvious parallel to a similar scene in Book 2: Earth of Airbender, they come into the city, only to find that it's a old, broken down cesspit of poverty and pestilence, ruled over by a despotic dragon-lady of a monarch who bleeds the people of their tax-money and then leaves them to rot. The message: Things haven't changed at all. If anything, they've gotten worse. In universe, the Ba Sing Se of 75-plus years prior was, in Troper parlance, a Crapsaccharine World. At least there was a semblance of order, and things were relatively safe and peaceful. Now, it's a full-on kleptocracy, where the kingdom and its citizens are the chattels of the Earth Queen. 

Does this mean that all government is inherently bad? Not quite. While any human effort to erect a lasting authority based on its own principles, borrowed or invented, is doomed to fail, almost any government is worse than no government. An every-man-for-himself mentality, where the rule of law is defined by who carries the biggest stick, is unquestionably a chaotic nightmare that only a shortsighted fool would really want. Look no further than Somalia. Is Zaheer such a shortsighted fool? He's no dummy, but I think we'll have to wait until Book 4 to find out the real answer to that question, owing to the inevitable consequences of the back half of Book 3: Change.

In short, man was never meant to live apart from his neighbor, a situation which Anarchism cannot resolve. You can talk all you want about mutual cooperation without government, but again, men are not angels. A mirror of the ultimate authority is needed if the ends of God are to be met, that is, if mercy, justice, peace, love, and gentleness are to be the ruling attributes of a society. The common refrain in the book of Judges was, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Scary, huh? In the book of Romans, Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Jesus Christ himself said in the book of Luke, concerning taxes, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Zaheer may think he knows what's best for the world, but Korra and company would be happy to know that he's wrong, rightfully rejecting Zaheer's worldview.

In sum, Zaheer has great appeal as a villain. He's smart, cunning, cool, has a complex and compelling motivation, and feels like a flesh-and-blood person. He's not a megalomaniac like Ozai, nor is he a destructive tyrant like Unalaq. He has a lot more in common with Amon than anyone else, even though they fall on two opposite extremes of the ideological spectrum. He even has a girlfriend, for Pete's sake! (Incidentally, I think that "The Earth Queen" features the franchise's first onscreen lip-lock between two consenting adults.) I love how he quotes poetry and airbends like a boss, because he's just that awesome. It helps that he has some real badbutt friends. His "philosophical mumbo-jumbo," as Korra put it, may be unsound, but he's nonetheless a very charismatic villain.

Next time, we'll be talking about another interesting faucet of The Legend of Korra: The Metal Clan.

Images courtesy of avatar.wikia.com

Firefly: The 'Verse According to Mal

I was first introduced to Firefly in 2011 while researching for a paper on the comparative merits of science fiction and fantasy. In hindsight, I believe that this particular subject was too subjective to warrant serious debate in an academic paper, amount to little more than an opinion piece followed by a comparison of box office numbers and accolades. However, researching for this paper allowed my dear friend Nathan (a different Nathan; not the one who believes that the 1978 Superman film is the greatest superhero film ever made, and yes Nate, I will never stop bugging you about that, old pal) to help me start watching Firefly. I remember liking the show then, and I recently re-watched the whole series on a whim, and I was blown away by how good it actually was to my older eyes. A combination of witty dialogue, fun action, engaging stories, excellent acting and production design, and a ingeniously creative plot made for what could potentially have been the greatest sci-fi TV show ever made.

For those who don't know, Firefly was a short-lived television series created by Joss Whedon, the man behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and The Avengers. Firefly fell into the sort of unique genre-splicing category that Whedon is known for, being best described as space western. You have a nine guys and gals flying through space in a ship called Serenity in the years following a galactic civil war. Serenity is captained by Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), a veteran of the losing side of the war, the Independents. The winner of that war, the Alliance, is depicted as a callous, draconian regime which Mal states is intent on everyone being "interfered with or ignored equally." After re-watching these 14 episodes in preparation for finally watching the big-screen sequel Serentiy, I came to conclude that Malcolm Reynolds is probably best described as a libertarian.

Don't ask me what Whedon's personal political views are, but I believe that this series is probably the most balanced and compelling portrayal of a political viewpoint which I remotely agree with. Mal cherishes what freedom and livelihood is left for him and his compatriots as smugglers, prowling the edges of "civilized" space looking for work, legal or illegal. He and his crew know that their business is a dangerous one, but Mal firmly wants to avoid being caught up in the society of the government he loathes, be it "make-work" jobs provided by the Alliance or even a semblance of legitimacy under the same oppressive system. In other words, he's a disaffected man of principle who doesn't like to admit that he still has principles.

And he truly is disaffected; before the end of the war, Mal was a religious man who fought for his comrades and his cause, ready to charge into battle at a moment's notice. When we see him in the series in the present day, he has no love for God, having an awkward, sometimes tense relationship with Shepherd Book (Ron Glass), a preacher who finds himself traveling aboard Serenity. On the surface, Mal hasn't changed much since before and after the war, still being generally affable and honest, aside from the occasional illegal activity that he and his crew engage in. But underneath, he's plainly much more cynical and dour than he was before, and remains that way throughout the series. I haven't seen Serenity (the movie) yet, but I understand that this might change a little. And there's still all the Serenity comics that I have to read...

The main point, however, is that in a fictional world plainly meant to resemble post-Civil War America, Mal is a clear analogue to the Confederate soldier who honestly believed that he was fighting for a just cause when he signed up for the Confederate army, and then wondering why their just cause hadn't won the day. Unfortunately, that's where the similarities end. The Union is not the Alliance, and the Alliance is not the Union. There's no Lincoln here, no Robert E. Lee, no Grant, no Jefferson Davis. As much of a parallel it's meant to be, the context simply doesn't allow for any great analogy between the two situation than on a primarily superficial level.

Insofar as I know, there hasn't been much detail given about the exact nature of the Independents' idea of good government, if any, so it's obviously difficult to give a fair evaluation between the broad swathes of a despotic federated entity and a libertarian resistance movement. If what I've heard about the Alliance from other sources is anything to go by, however, I think that it's more than fair to say that they're obviously really bad guys. Until I watch Serenity and read the comics, I confess that I might not be able to produce as well-rounded an analysis on this subject as I could, but I believe that at the moment, I'm pretty sure this will do. Besides, when I finally do watch Serenity, I'll have someone else to write about: Shepherd Book.

Fun Fact: Alen Tudyk, who played Wash in Firefly, also voiced Mickey in Halo 3: ODST and Krei is Big Hero 6. Tudyk wasn't the only Firefly actor to voice a character in ODST. Nathan Fillion voiced Buck, and Adam Baldwin, who played Jayne in Firefly, voiced Dutch.

Image courtesy of moviepilot.com

Ms. Marvel, Vol. 1: No Normal: A Muslim Superhero, or a Superhero Who's a Muslim?

I think that it's an established fact that these days, we view diversity as a virtue. Back in the day, diversity was nice to have, but not essential, like faith, hope, and love. I learned in my Communications Studies class that diversity is good for business, as it fosters a wide variety approaches to problem solving and so forth. But today, diversity is so important to the movers and shakers of our society that if you don't have it, you must be a racist or a bigot or a sexist or a radical right-wing haters-gotta-hate type. I mean, why wouldn't you want diversity in your workplace? Don't have any people of color? Yep, definitely racist. (Incidentally, my workplace currently employs four people, one of whom is a woman and another of whom is Vietnamese.

But once again, I'm getting off track. All that said, let's talk about Ms. Marvel.

The point of my above rant was that we value diversity very highly in today's society. Some opinionated but grossly misinformed persons believe that institutionalized racism is still a problem, but really, who honestly believes that? Walk into any Wal-Mart, Starbucks, school, gym, or government building, and you'll see people of all colors, creeds, and walks of life living, working, and playing together in peace. The very existence of the comic book Ms. Marvel is yet another nail in the coffin of the theory that institutionalized racism still exists to a large degree in this nation, even if the comic book itself doesn't seem to have gotten the message.

Under the pen of G. Willow Wilson, this new incarnation of Ms. Marvel has a 16 year old girl named Kamala Khan living a normal life in Jersey City. She's a huge Avengers fan-girl who weirdly reminds me of my sister, writing fan-fiction in her spare time, chafing at her parents' authority, and dying to eat bacon. Oh, and I forgot to mention this, but she's a Muslim, ethnically Pakistani. Anyway, on her way home one night, she gets caught up in a mysterious cloud of mist, which, after a brief hallucination, gives her superpowers. Inspired by selected quotes from what I believe is the Koran, she decides to fight crime as Ms. Marvel!

Let me tell you, I really like this book. Kamala is a likable character with a fun supporting cast. You've got her parents, her brother, her friends Bruno and Nakia, and the beginnings of her very own archvillian. The book mainly goes for the humorous side of being a superhero, such as when Kamala fails spectacularly at foiling a convenience store hold up, avoiding serious harm due to sheer luck and an incompetent robber. It's very Spider-Man-esque, sort of like Brian Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man. It also reminds me somewhat of Chuck Dixon's run on Robin when Tim Drake was in the suit back in the '90s. And considering that Tim Drake's Robin and Spider-Man are some of my favorite comic book characters of all time, that's a huge compliment coming from me. This book is more quirky than either Ultimate Spider-Man or Robin, kind of reminding me of Brian Q. Miller's Batgirl in that regard, but with a stronger emphasis on social media technology, with Kamala's unique background giving the story extra flavor.

Speaking of which, that brings us to the central point espoused in the title of this post: Is Kamala a Muslim superhero, or a superhero who's a Muslim? A similar question was addressed by Ben Stone to Paul Robinette on Law and Order. What I mean to ask is if Kamala is a superhero who is defined by her identity as a Muslim, or a superhero who just so happens to be a Muslim? Happily for the story, it so far seems to be the latter. However, it makes me wonder if the writers would be gutsy enough to address the philosophical consequences of a Muslim superhero in post-9/11 world. It would be an awfully profound story to tell if done well, but so far the closest we've seen to such questions being addressed are not-Liz-Allen's mildly offensive and ludicrously vacuous asides. And seriously, this girl, I think her name is Zoe Zimmer, is totally Liz Allen, and her boyfriend is obviously a stand-in for Flash Thompson, right down to the letterman jacket. 

It doesn't help that Kamala herself seems to buy into the presumption that a large percentage of white people are racist bigots, when this is simply not true. I mean, it's just silly to believe that in a world where people are constantly tripping over themselves to avoid being seen as racist, the currently fashionable cause of today's elite is a crusade against racism. Does racism still exist in the hearts of some people? Absolutely. I'm sure there are plenty of people, whether they're white, black, Arab, Asian, Hispanic, or polka-dot, who are racists. Is institutionalized racism a problem in this country anymore? No. You're not going to be denied entry into a hotel if you're black and the proprietor is white, nor will you be denied a BLT at Wendy's if you're Hispanic. In fact, if this did happen, you could probably sue and win.

I don't know if Kamala or her writers will come to understand this, but I do know that I will continue to follow this new Marvel comic because its a good, fun story which makes me laugh and smile. And mind you, the last Marvel comic I read was Marvel's Road to the Avengers, a terrible collection if there ever was one, which nearly drove me away from reading Marvel's stuff forever. But now, I'm willing to expand my horizons. Maybe Marvel is getting better. Maybe. I'm willing to give it chance now.

Image courtesy of goodreads.com

True Villains: A Case Study in Moral Nihilism

Imagine a world where evil wins.

Picture it. The heroes are defeated. The bad guys are triumphant, making wisecracks and pumping fists. Their heinous deeds are splashed across the canvas of your imagination, brought to fruition and on display for all to see. And those wicked sots are actually proud of their actions, feeling justified by them. But there's more: In this scenario, evil deserved to win. In fact, the bad guys are actually the good guys, and the people you thought were the good guys aren't actually all that good. In fact, they're humorless, self-righteous prigs at best, and oafish bullies at worst. What kind of world is this? It's nothing short of a nightmare. 

But it is, in a perversely profound way, right on the mark about what things would really be like without reality's single defining factor: God. 

I've talked a little about my faith on this blog before, but it's mostly been something of sideshow. I'd throw in a Bible verse on the weekends, fill in the people who actually read this thing on the sermons at my church, maybe name drop Big G on occasion, generally in a humorous manner. But now I'd like to talk about something serious. Ironically enough, the spark of this serious discussion comes from a frankly silly and ostensibly lighthearted source: a webcomic called True Villains.

My good buddy Nathan (the other Nathan; not the one who thinks that the Richard Donner Superman movie is the greatest superhero movie ever made) recommended this webcomic to me as a possible source of inspiration, and for a good laugh, in writing my own webcomic. In fact, both my own webcomic (Currently in the works. More on that in the future!) and True Villains have a similar premise; a satirical take on the conventions of genre fiction from the vantage point of the bad guys. To be specific, True Villains takes the standard tropes of your average fantasy world (like, "the good guys always win" and "crime never pays" and "bad guys don't wear yellow."), and turns them inside out and flips them upside down. 

To be honest, this webcomic is fun stuff, with a style of humor that zigzags from raunchy to ridiculous, though never to the extreme of either. In addition to being funny, the characters are admittedly likable. You've got adventurer-turned-apprentice-to-the-evil-bad-guy Sebastian Jalek, Elia the Necromancer, Mia the magical child, Bayn the kid sorcerer, and Xanith the aforementioned evil bad guy. I swear, the makers of this strip could make a truckload of cash on T-shirts of Xanith saying, "I have a plan," or Mia smiling.

But remember what I said earlier, about imagining a world where evil wins? That's pretty much what this strip is, complete with the heroes who aren't heroes. I don't want to sound like some kind of killjoy, but the tail end of Saga 5 made me feel a lump in the pit of my stomach. In it, Sebastian tells his old adventuring buddies, including his sister, to basically shove it, complete with his own explanation of how he sees morality. For the sake of brevity, I will not include the full outpouring of bullcrap that spewed forth from the character's mouth (even Xanith, who's a flipping demon, agrees with me), but I will summarize it. In the scene, Sebastian essentially says that good and evil are two equally valid choices, and that morality is defined by the whim of the chooser. He isn't nearly that honest, wrapping his perversely self-justified twaddle in doublespeak, equating his lack of a definite moral compass with "freedom." 

Freedom. Freedom to do what? Freedom to do whatever Xanith, a sadistic liar, tells him? Freedom to kill and destroy whenever it's convenient? Freedom to aid a psychopathic murderer like Elia in various acts of wholesale slaughter? Near the beginning of the strip, Xanith orders the pair to burn down a whole village for a laugh, with Elia melting the faces off of the survivors. Sebastian admittedly saves Mia from the catastrophe, but only based on an arbitrary notion of morality that he readily discards at will, such as in a recent strip when he's assigned to kill a child said to be "the Chosen One." What kind of freedom is that?

Sebastian goes even further, claiming that it's pointless to fight for good, because there will always be evil. Here's where he turns from moral relativism to outright nihilism. Nihilism is the belief that nothingness defines reality, that life is simply futile. Sebastian has embraced nihilism, declaring that he is glad to be on the side of evil, because it makes him feel "free." He sees himself as above good and evil, doing thing not because he should, but because he can. In other words, he believes that he can do whatever he wants with no consequences. 

Of course, in the world of True Villains, it's vaguely possible for Sebastian to have a point, if only because in that world, there is no "God" as we understand it. There are said to be many "gods," such as a god of progress, a god of stability, a god of fear, a god of tall grass, etc. In fact, there is said to be a "god" for every aspect of reality. (Logically, this would imply that there are gods for good, evil, justice, truth, etc., but these "gods" are also said to be "unbiased" towards good or evil. How a possible god of justice could be "unbiased" toward either good or evil is beyond me.) Again, this is perversely profound, in that if there were a world wherein no supreme, objective standard of morality existed, then the logical extreme would be that there would be no supreme, objective standard of morality at all. Any honest atheist philosopher would say just as much, if not more so. Therefore, Sebastian and his cohorts are perfectly justified in committing acts of injustice, and have no reason to pretend to have a moral code, because there is no basis to have such a code if there is in fact no God, or even many gods. In the words of Fydor Dostoevsky, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

This is all rather ironic, as there are plenty of "good guys" who mainly consist of the aforementioned humorless, self-righteous prigs, and also plenty of bad guys who readily admit that they're "morally bankrupt" and on the side of evil, including Sebastian's boss, Xanith. It's even acknowledged that Hell exists, and that all of these "gods" have both angels and demons working for them. The convoluted nature of this invented theology is nonetheless quite disturbing if given sufficient thought. It doesn't help that there's a lot of attention given to the various acts of necromancy and "dark magic" employed by our villains, which is disgustingly portrayed in agonizing detail. Good grief, I'm beginning to understand why people like Jack Chick don't like D&D. 

In sum, we have a mildly intelligent, well-written and illustrated, yet at the same time quite disturbing webcomic, where good and evil are equivalent to blue and orange in difference. It's a world where basic concepts of morality rest upon the whim of the individual, where good is a word and a word is air. (Thanks for the quote, Shakespeare!) That does sound like a nightmare. As the good book says, "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!"

Image courtesy of tvtropes.org

The Theatre and I

My history with the stage is... complicated.

I used to go with my family all the time to Story Book Theatre's musical productions as the Carco Theatre. I remember enjoying those shows immensely, and I've occasionally gone there with my family in recent years. The theatre there is a bit silly to me now, but I still have good memories of it.

When I was in elementary school, I was part of my church's children's choir, KWAM (Kids With A Mission). We put on small musical productions for our church. I sang in the choir, played a few parts, and said a few lines. I have a lot of good memories from there. I even got KWAM Kid of the Year in my final year there. I can't say that I learned much about the finer points of acting and singing, or the finer points of anything theatre related, but I still had a fairly good time.

My next experience with the theatre was my Musical Theatre class in Junior High. There I began acting and singing in earnest, if not particularly well. It was a pretty fun class, and I made some good friends there. I wound up playing the Wolf in Into the Woods, Jr. I pretty much made a complete fool of myself both on and off the stage, for in those days of youthful folly, I saw fit to play the buffoon. As I was stuck in my uncomfortable Wolf costume backstage most of the time and could not get a hold of a video recording of the play, I have no idea whether the play itself was good or bad. But I do know that we players put a lot of effort into the production and that our teacher was just as enthusiastic and dedicated as we were. In sum, I consider that class to have been a positive experience overall.

Since then, I have not participated in any theatrical production whatsoever. However, there is no end to the amount of such productions that I have attended, none of which were particularly good.

Aside from the Story Book Theatre productions that I have occasionally gone to, I have seen several of my youngest sister's church musicals (now called Agape Kid's Choir as opposed to KWAM). I hate to speak ill of anything done with a good heart and a sincere spirit, especially from my own church, but these children's church musicals aren't exactly high class entertainment. In case it helps, however, I have been to plenty of non-church theatrical productions which can be described the same way. There were a couple of school musicals involving friends of my aforementioned youngest sister, such as Honk! Jr. and Narnia: The Musical. (The latter is a sad case of a great idea stunted by a poor script.)

The only "professional" theatre productions I've attended, other than Story Book Theatre, of course, are a few productions put on by the Renton Civic Theatre. I once went to a 70's musical version of Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen from Verona. Seriously. My dad and I scored some tickets and thought it might be fun. It actually quite stupid, silly, and dull, not being so ridiculous as to qualify as charmingly goofy, but going completely over the top. Needless to say, my dad and I left during the intermission, after which we went to the only late-night movie I've ever been to, The Last Airbender, which was arguably equally awful, if not more so. But that's another post.

Just two Sundays ago, my dad and I went to see another production from the Renton Civic Theatre. To be specific, it was their Summer Teen Musical, starring High School and college age actors from around the area. I was very excited to go to this play, as I believed that it would be a fun experience. What was it called? The Wedding Singer, that's what. If I had done my research, I would known that The Wedding Singer is the name of a 1998 Adam Sandler movie, on which the play was plainly based. This alone should have been enough to deter me, as Adam Sandler is the only actor whom I genuinely loathe. At least, he is now. I now thank the most high God that I failed to persuade the rest of my family to attend the play with my father and me.

Suffice it to say, the play was vulgar and base, substituting profanity for wit and sexual innuendo for punchlines. If what I witnessed was capable of staining the suit I wore, it would never have come out. As it is, the horrid stain upon my memory remains. I'm sure it doesn't help that the movie the play was adapted from wasn't exactly the best source material, but surely whoever was responsible for that monstrosity of a play was intelligent enough to understand that it was complete pigswill. What kind of person who works with High School students honestly wants them to parade in front of their parents, friends, and relatives belting out song lyrics which are awash in obscenities? I honestly don't know, though if the enthusiastic applause of my fellow audience members was anything to go by, I was evidently the only one who cared about this rather disconcerting implication. (As a side note, I must say that as appalled as I was by the crass jokes that gushed forth from the actors' mouths, I was even more shocked at the laughter that was coming from mine.) I do not mean to disparage the acting and singing talent of the cast, but the play's libretto was fantastically foul.

I am now at a crossroads regarding theatre. All of my experience with theatre has been substandard at best and outrageously tasteless at worst. Should I seek out better examples of theatre and the stage, or should I give it all up and stick with movies and books? Are my experiences a survey of the whole of modern theatre, or is it only an unfortunate dip into a muddy portion of the pond? Am I a theatre person? Is theatre for me?

To answer my own questions, I don't know. I'd have to go see more plays, do better preliminary research, and spend more money. Until then, I earnestly reach out to you, gentle reader, for a bit of help. Are there any books on theatre you could recommend? Have any of you experience with professional theatre? Is all theatre as bowdlerized as disco Shakespeare was, or as profane and bawdy as The Wedding Singer was? I certainly hope not. Until then, "So, good night unto you all. Give me your hands, if we be friends, and Robin shall restore amends.”(Puck, A Midsummer Night's Dream.)

Fun fact: Into the Woods is set to be made into a movie by Disney, to be released this December. Considering what the full, unabridged play actually was like, I'd be cautious. It's not exactly Into the Woods Jr.

Image courtesy of theguardian.com

The Big Seven - Part 2: Matt Slick

Note: This is a part of a biweekly series focusing on big names in modern Christian thought who have influenced me personally. The posts in this series, entitled "The Big Seven", do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the persons discussed, due to the margin for error that must be allowed in an independent personal blog. It is, however, the will of the author to make sure that the opinions and views of the persons discussed are presented as accurately as possible.

-----

Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM), based online at carm.org, is the brainchild of Matt Slick. This website features numerous, well written articles on many diverse subjects pertaining to Christianity, the Bible, and Christian apologetics. There is also an extensive video repository on the site. It is therefore very surprising to learn that in its early days, there was but one man responsible for maintenance and operation of carm.org: Matt Slick!

Mr. Slick (Man, that sounds funny to type), a Calvinist, makes no secret of this fact, though this was apparently lost on one critic. This particular critic stated, "And, unless one looks specifically for Slick's personal information, CARM's web presentation could easily deceive a visitor into thinking it is a multi-staff, professional research organization." Though it was nothing like that when the criticism was leveled, that is exactly what CARM is today. Like everyone with something worthwhile to say, Mr. Slick has his fair share of both supporters and detractors. Fortunately for him, he is both a web-savvy man and a Bible-savvy man, having a full time job working on computers in addition to holding a Master of Divinity.

Matthew J. Slick converted to Christianity as a teenager, and went on to become an avid student of the Bible, to put it mildly. He "devoured" scripture, reading the Bible and everything he could find on it. His full testimony can be read here, but the most important thing to know for our purposes is that he specializes in the study of cults and apologetics. He earned his Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1991 and founded CARM in 1995, and has been running or helping to run the organization ever since. While Mr. Slick formerly updated and wrote the content of CARM exclusively by himself, his website has since greatly expanded. CARM now employs some thirty "Writers, Researchers, and Email Helpers", including Ray Comfort, who will be covered in a future installment of this series.

As previously stated, Mr. Slick's ministry focuses primarily on the study of cults and on Christian apologetics. His articles cover a veritable mountain of topics, talking about everything from Atheism to the Zodiac. Mind you, it's not entirely comprehensive (I couldn't find a page on Zoroastrianism, for one thing), but I suppose in this line of work construction won't be done until kingdom come. At any rate, the information found at carm.org is clearly written, well organized, easy to find, and absolutely accurate. It is the go-to place for information on non-Christian cults such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, other world religions such as Judaism and Islam, and secular philosophies such as Agnosticism and Atheism.

CARM is more encyclopedic and better organized than Got Questions Ministries, but slightly less comprehensive and personalized. However, it does cover the most important topics with a degree of intensity and understanding that is truly a marvel in and of itself. For instance, the pages on topics such as Atheism and Jehovah's Witnesses have numerous sub-articles, a good stock of short videos, and relevant answers to the most pressing questions regarding those topics. It is for this reason that I happily point interested persons to carm.org to find answers to their questions about Christian apologetics and cults.

Mr. Slick's writing style is flowing and conversational, plainly and simply explaining the information he wishes to communicate. Where the topic calls for a terse explanation, he delivers a terse explanation. Where the topic calls for a more in-depth explanation, again, such an explanation is given. He makes sure to reference relevant Bible verses throughout articles that call for them, a good sign among internet sources if there ever was one.

One thing that might throw up red flags with the uninitiated is Mr. Slick's views on Roman Catholicism. He correctly points out that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate due to its reliance on works-based salvation and prayers to the saints as well as to Christ, the latter practice explicitly defying the second commandment. Mr. Slick does not, however, identify them as a cult, as some of his detractors have claimed. The point here is that Matt Slick is not afraid to point out doctrinal error where it is clearly present, but is judicious enough to not go beyond the parameters of what needs to be said.

In sum, Matt Slick runs a great ministry with CARM, and it has been very helpful to me in my personal study of the scriptures. He is one of a great many of wise persons in modern Christian thought who I have studied and will continue to learn from. I therefore point in his direction all of my readers, Christian and non-Christian, seeker and sold-out, to go to his website and consult the CARM databases. The information there is highly enlightening and informative, thorough yet succinct, and you will not find a dull page there. It is, in short, a great resource, and Matt Slick is a great preacher, teacher, and apologist.

Image courtesy of life.biblechurch.org

Fun for the Whole Family at Renton River Days 2014

An audible calm pervaded the scene. The spectators quietly conversed among themselves as they waited for it to begin. A small passenger airplane flew overhead. The hot sun beat down on me.

And then, it started.

What am I describing? I am describing the annual Renton River Days Parade, a local festival which attracted families from all over Renton and the immediate surrounding area, such as West Hill and the Renton Highlands. The attractions featured in the parade were just as diverse as the people, with everyone from local politicians to school marching bands to Ms. Washington to the Seattle Seafair Pirates.

The parade participant which was nearest and dearest to my heart, however, was undoubtedly Lee's Martial Arts. They featured a cool board breaking move while on parade, some bo-staff twirling, and a bunch of students all marching together. As they do every year, they went down to Liberty Park and held the Breakathon, in which they broke boards to raise money for Community in Schools of Renton. Yours truly was supposed to help out at this event by holding boards and manning a booth or some-such activities. Unfortunately, I forgot my uniform and as a result was late to the party, as it were. I did, however, get the opportunity to break a leftover board with a nice, solid punch. Anyhow, I believe that the Breakathon this year was, once again, a great success.

Getting back to the parade, there was an ever-present aura of joy and fun, as the parade participants handed out candy and other S.W.A.G. (Stuff We All Get) to the spectators. The Wal-Mart guys handed out school supplies. Various local businesses handed out flyers. Even Fred Myer handed out water bottles. However, I suppose I should mention a few particularly tasteless participants in the parade. Namely, the decidedly gross looking zombie/ghost/horror people, and these also decidedly gross looking knockoffs of the aforementioned Seattle Seafair Pirates. I think they're called the Buccaneers or something, but all I know is that they're in the parade every year, and they always look pretty nasty. Then again, pirates being pirates, maybe that was the intended effect?

As for the festival itself, there were dozens of booths, I'd even say nearly a hundred, which were even more diverse than the parade. There was a GOP booth, manned by Mr. Bill Stinson, who I had previously met at the King County GOP Picnic. There was a Mountain Mist booth. There was a whole half of the grounds reserved for art-related booths, including this one guy who made fancy-looking pendants and earrings, another guy who made jewelry out of sand dollars (I got one for my sister), and another booth where these two ladies sold this fancy looking soap. There was also a booth for a children's chess program, where I acquired a Chess piece key chain.

All in all, it was a very nice festival this year, and I earnestly desire that I could explore the booths and attractions for the whole weekend. It's a very nice festival, and I wholeheartedly recommend it for tourists and residents alike who find themselves in the area at the time. I have fond memories of past Renton River Days Festivals, and this year was no exception. If you don't have any place to go tomorrow, and you're in the area, go down to Renton River Days at Liberty Park. Bring your kids. You'll both have a blast.

Image from personal collection.

The Big Seven - Introduction & Part 1: Lee Strobel

Introduction

This is the first in a biweekly series on seven of the biggest names in modern Christian thought: Lee Strobel, Matt Slick, S. Michael Houdman, Ray Comfort, William Lane Craig, Ken Ham, and Josh McDowell. These are people who are not only strong voices in the Evangelical Christian movement and Christian apologetics, but who also have had a strong influence on me. Some of them you may have heard of, others may be a little more obscure than others. However, I believe that each of them has contributed greatly to helping spread the gospel  and discerning truths from falsehoods. The collective wisdom of these seven great men has been insurmountable in shaping my core beliefs, and I now humbly embark on this series for the purpose of their commemoration.

----------

I must confess, of all the people who will be covered in this series, Lee Strobel is the first and foremost among them all (thus far) in my ever-continuing study of God's word. He is also the only one I have ever met face-to-face. I remember him coming to our church a few years ago, and I actually got to meet him and shake his hand. My words turned to nothing as I completely geeked out. I finally managed to string together a coherent enough sentence in order to ask him to sign my copy of The Case for Christ. He happily did so. He seemed like a nice guy.

Before he became a Christian, however, Lee Strobel was, by his own admission, a self-absorbed drunkard who lived only for his own self-gratification. His background as an investigative journalist brought him in front of a lot of different people, some good, some bad. But he didn't think much of God or Christianity, believing that he knew all the answers. That is, until his wife became a Christian. Mr. Strobel was at first bemused at his wife's conversion, but later began to notice how she changed her behavior, and found her change in behavior "winsome." So, when his wife invited him to church for, he went with her, notepad in hand, totally prepared to utterly dissect and roast the sermon.

He was in for a surprise.

The long and short of it is that Mr. Strobel got thinking about the big questions about Christianity. How could the Bible be thought to be true? Wasn't it full of contradictions? Who was Jesus? Did he really claim to be God? Was he out of his mind? Did evolution explain away the need for any kind of religion anyway? These answers were suddenly brought to the forefront of Mr. Strobel's mind, and he used his skills as an investigative journalist to embark on a quest to use  to find the answers. He found his answers, and his personal quest to find those answers, culminating in his conversion to Christianity, are recorded in The Case for Christ, published in 1998. That fine tome was followed up by several other similarly named and structured books, such as The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and The Case for the Real Jesus. He has also published several other books related to apologetics, such as What Jesus Would Say, God's Outrageous Claims, and a foray into crime fiction, The Ambition. I look forward to reading the first and the last of these latter three.

Lee Strobel is the first Christian author whose apologetics books I ever read. I fondly remember my fifth grade Sunday School teacher, Mr. Don Joss, giving me a copy of The Case for Christ for Kids, a little, eighty-six page book which I cherish today as a prized possession. (On a side note, I can't seem to find my autographed copy of The Case for Christ in my house. It's probably tucked away on a shelf somewhere, but I wish I could find it so I could show it off to my friends.) That engrossing little book got me interested in seriously studying my faith, so much so that it eventually lead me to read the adult versions of Mr. Strobel's books. Those, in turn, eventually led me to combine my love of Mr. Strobel's work with my love of the works of C.S. Lewis, leading me to read The Screwtape Letters. The rest is history, but it can all be traced back to Mr. Joss and that little green-and-white, eighty-six page book. To go on a brief tangent, I am as much indebted to Mr. Joss (and to my parents) as I am to Mr. Strobel in regards to becoming serious about my faith.

Of the books that Mr. Strobel has written that I have thus far read, my favorite of them is probably The Case for Faith. I will always have a special place in my heart for The Case for Christ, as it was the first one I read, and it appeals to my personal preference for facts, information, and logical investigation. The Case for Faith, however, resonates with me because it seeks out to answer hard-hitting philosophical questions in an in-depth manner, such as why a loving God could send people to Hell, or why there can't be more than one way to heaven. Granted, the answers presented within aren't quite as good as answers presented in certain other books, but it's still a darn good read, and I like it. In addition, Mr. Strobel's writing style is very engaging, and that aspect of his work makes me all the more eager to read The Ambition. I think it would be fun to see his take on a crime story.

Lee Strobel has had a profound influence on my knowledge of both the Bible and my faith, not to mention my personal philosophy. He was willing to seek out and ask hard hitting questions from the best representatives available, including thrice consulting William Lane Craig, a preeminent figure in modern apologetics who will be discussed later in this series. His example is one that should be followed by seekers everywhere. It's because of Lee Strobel and people like him, such as J. Warner Wallace, that I became such an avid student of the holy scriptures. The only thing I disagree with Mr. Strobel on is related to a point made by William Lane Craig concerning the Big Bang. (More on that in our installment on Ken Ham.) But on the whole, I humbly give his work the praise that it so richly deserves. I also would direct interested readers to check out the trio of documentaries based on his three main works, The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator.

Image courtesy of thechristianclinic.org

Independence Day 2014

Today is Independence Day, more commonly known as the Fourth of July. On this day in 1776, exactly 238 years ago, in the city of Philadelphia, the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, finalizing the decisions to break away from the tyrannical rule of the British Empire. Not all of the members of the Continental Congress were able to be there to sign it at once, coming in and out of town sporadically to sign when they could. However, this historic document, penned by the great Thomas Jefferson, was the foundation upon which our young country based its most essential doctrines of law. As much as certain pundits, politicians, and people would like to have you think otherwise, it remains as pertinent and relevant today as it did then, along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For the weekend, I would like to ask everyone to relax, have a barbeque if you can, spend time with your family and friends, watch a patriotic film or historical documentary (preferable a good one), and to enjoy the fireworks. As the great orator and statesman Daniel Webster said, “May the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country!”

A happy Fourth of July to all of you out there!

"[I]f my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
- 2 Chronicles 7:14

Image courtesy wikipedia.org

Phoenix Jones

Superman. Batman. Spider-Man. Robin. Batgirl. The Avengers. The Justice League.

And now, Phoenix Jones.

Phoenix Jones is an indelibly controversial figure in Seattle culture. He is equally controversial in the real-life superhero (RLSH) subculture. He is easily the most famous "superhero" of Seattle's superhero team, the Rain City Superhero Movement (RCSM), of which he is the founder and leader. He is also without a doubt the most famous real-life superhero in the United States, or at least the one with the most media coverage. What makes him controversial is not his propensity for self promotion via the apparently equally bemused and amused mainstream media, though that is worthy of concern, but his decidedly direct and not mainstream crime fighting methods. In any case, Phoenix Jones has more than his fair share of both fans and detractors, to the point where he is the only superhero I've ever heard of to have an actual, dedicated "supervillain" to oppose him.

The man who later adopted the alias of Phoenix Jones, MMA fighter Ben Fodor, has, like all superheroes, a not-so-secret origin story. Fodor has detailed in multiple interviews how his young son was injured by the broken glass of a car window, and how he asked a bystander for help. To Fodor's astonishment, the bystander declined on the basis that it would ruin his YouTube video. Fodor, a lifelong comic book reader, was thus inspired to patrol the streets of Seattle, namely bars, and do things such as break up fights. However, he soon realized that his activities were drawing undue attention, which led him to don a (admittedly silly looking) costume, and take on the moniker of Phoenix Jones. The ski-mask he originally wore with his costume was, according to Fodor, the same one filled with rocks which broke the glass car window which injured his son.

After a series of misadventures, Phoenix Jones formed his own superhero group, the Rain City Superhero Movement, which includes his wife, Purple Reign (now separated); ex-con Midnight Jack; El Caballero; Evocatus; Pitch Black; Ghost, and a host of others who have come and gone over the years. Such aforementioned misadventures include an occasion where Jones/Fodor was arrested after attempting to break up a brawl, though the charges were dropped. He has been covered extensively by the media, usually portrayed in a positive light. However, he is not universally loved, as a large number of fellow RLSH and crimefighters can attest (there is a difference). The New York Initiative, for example, has taken a dim view of him for what they see as reckless tactics and seeming glory hound nature.

Jones has been criticized for his publicity-friendly approach and his direct, hands-on crimefighting methods. He is different from RLSH in that he doesn't just do homeless outreach and what not. No, this man and the RCSM actively patrol bad neighborhoods such as Belltown and Pioneer Square, looking to stop crime. This mostly amounts to getting medical attention to people who have overdosed on drugs, breaking up fights, or stopping other petty crime, but they have had their share of big cases. They once stopped apprehended a stabber, and later helped to quell acts of vandalism by members of the Anarchist Black bloc on May Day 2012. These are commendable acts which deserve recognition.

It doesn't stop there, however. A "supervillain" named Rex Velvet has taken to the internet with a website and as series of videos with remarkably high production values which criticize Jones in a sinisterly exaggerated manner. As Jeremy Jahns has noted, most "real-life supervillains" are little more than "internet trolls with cameras and makeup." This guy, however, put some real effort into his videos, and is actually kind of funny. What's even funnier though, is that he calls himself a supervillain, but at the same time believes that he's advocating for law and order. I wonder if that makes him Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good?

Now, there are a lot of things about Phoenix Jones that get people edgy, but the most flagrant misnomer about him is that he's a "vigilante." Vigilantism is defined by the Legal Dictionary as "Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong... [...]." At first blush, that seems to describe Jones perfectly. However, nothing could be further than the truth. Jones and his compatriots have clearly demonstrated that they don't routinely break the law in their activities, as some fictional superheroes have been known to do. Rather, they set out to patrol the streets, deter crime, and when they are forced to confront lawbreakers, they always call the police first and act as good witnesses. Jones and his crew have repeatedly attested to this fact, saying that they aren't out to violate anyone's "civil rights." In sum, Phoenix Jones and the RCSM are little more than a glorified neighborhood watch group, a concept which I discussed in an Op-Ed that I submitted to the Seattle Times some time ago (it never got picked up, but can be found in the Notes section of my Facebook page).

Many people may wonder exactly what Jones hopes to accomplish in his activities. Even with all of his allies in play, and his efforts at branching off into a world-spanning movement called "the Jones Army," Phoenix Jones doesn't hope to end all crime all by himself. Thankfully, his stated goals aren't quite than ambitious, but he does have high ideals. His stated mission is to combat "apathy." To paraphrase the man himself, he has said that, "If everyone reported crime, there would be no crime." He and his sidekicks hope to inspire people to stand up to the violence and crime in their communities, to actually call the police, report crime, be good, cooperative witnesses, help people in need, and to generally be good citizens. That's what Phoenix Jones is all about, and that's something that I find quite appealing, even admirable.

In the end, Phoenix Jones may be a little reckless when it comes to the publicity, and his rocky relationship with the Seattle Police Department may be the end of him, but he has a good heart. He is determined to do what he can to keep the city safe, and he will endure mockery, danger, and outright threats against his life in his mission. This is not to say that he's infallible, for no man is but Christ. It may be one day that he will suffer some disgrace. But if the selfless actions of him and his crew on May Day 2012 are anything to go by, and indeed, they were selfless (what kind of glory hound disguises his identity?), I reckon that we've got ourselves a new hero. The social media saturation may be a bit much, but that's his way of doing things. Here's hoping that he doesn't go and get himself killed in really dumb way.

Image courtesy gq.com

Want to read more about Real Life Superheroes? Check out my review of the documentary Superheroes. You also might want to take a look at Heroes in the Night, the blog of journalist and author Tea Krulos.