Real American Hero

When I was a boy, my favorite toy was G.I. Joe. Ok, actually perhaps my favorite particular toy was my Winnie The Pooh. Everybody's got to have their teddy bear (mine was a general).

Back to the main point, however. My favorite genre of toy was G.I. Joe. I had quite a few. My brother and I would have big G.I. Joe battles that would last for days and never ever had a resolution. But they had lots of building, climaxing action! Also, none of our GI Joes ever died. The bad guys could die, but each GI Joe was a beloved character, and thus was not allowed (being a good guy) to die. This doesn't mean they never suffered bodily harm. On the contrary, they suffered great bodily harm. Consistently. Anyway, I had a medic so they were OK.

They also had to learn to fly, as the plastic bags sometimes failed as parachutes. And they had to learn to live on their own, as sometimes they went over the wall into the hospital parking lot. I remember that one got lost that way forever. Was it Duke? Snake eyes? I have a memory, but it's vague.

Ok, so I'm posting this because I found a jewel of a website! It lists all the GI Joe's (3 3/4") that were ever made. It is a snapshot of my childhood.

Here is my first G.I. Joe ever: Shipwreck. Shipwreck had to have back surgery, and very early on he lost the ability (such an important but flawed ability in these toys) to bend at the waist.

Here is my favorite GI Joe ever: Storm Shadow. He had a cool red backpack with a sword!

Here's my medic: Lifeline. I liked how he had the oxygen mask. Got shot? What you need is an oxygen mask!

I remember that my brother had this one: Crazy Legs. He was, if you read his personal information (I am remembering this from the top of my head) a pianist. You can check to see if I'm right by clicking on the link and poking around.

There're many others in there that I had, but I think these are pretty cool and I don't want to make the post unreadably long. You can also find out how much they're worth now on that site. The good news is that most of them have appreciated. The bad news is that I played with them extensively, probably draining them of all their value. But more good news! That's what toys are for!

Joshua Tree

Ok, some of the Joshua Tree Pictures! Try this link: Flickr Joshua Tree pics.

Here's a tantalizing preview:



That is Libby walking through a cholla cactus garden.

Out and About

Libby and I spent the last three days at Joshua Tree camping. It was a nice trip. We'll post pictures when we can. Here's the short version.

Monday:
Leave Apt. around 10:30. Arrive at North Entrance (Oasis of Marra) after noon. Poke around the oasis. Camp at Jumbo Rocks campground. We checked out the campsite, and saw gnatcatchers, quail, phainopepla, verdin, cottontails and a jackrabbit. Eat. White-crowned sparrows. Wind. Check out stars.

Tuesday:
Get up just before sunrise. Walk. Eat. Drive. Walk to 49 Palms Oasis (first in parking lot at 8:00 in the morning!). 49 Palms is really amazing and beautiful, but it got crowded, so we were lucky we showed up when we did. Black throated sparrows, white winged dove, bewick's wren, cactus wren, hooded oriole, hermit thrush, costa's hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, gray flycatcher, other various flycatchers, etc. Walk back. Drive long time through West Entrance to Hidden Valley. Brewer's sparrow. Barker Dam. Vaux's swift, many swallows, white-throated swifts, yellow-rumped and townsend's warbler. Jumbo Rocks to nap. Eat. Walk. Five jackrabbits! Fire. Stars. Sleep!

Wednesday:
Get up after sunrise. Eat. Pack up. Walk. Rock wrens, green-tailed Towhees, chipping sparrows. Drive south towards Cottonwood. Stop at exhibits. Note scratched and illegible surfaces. Upon one was scrawled in ink something about how Christian white men ruined the land and the Indians. Mourn. Drive. Cholla Cactus garden. Ocotillos blooming! Cottonwood Springs. House finches, ravens, kingbirds, warblers, sparrows, snakes and a warbling vireo. Drive to 10, off to Libby's parents house and then home a little after 6:00.

Shower and eat Jelly bellies.

Sayers Had An Illegitimate Child

Libby and I have been reading Dorothy Sayer's murder mysteries together lately. I'm not sure how long, but we're on our third novel and have read most of the short stories.

In reading these novels, I have been surprised not to find C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, or Charles Williams. In short, the novels are not the kind of 20th century Oxfordian Christian fiction that I expected. I don't think Sayers presents a plainly Christian world-view.

My previous exposure to Sayer's is mainly in regard to Dante: her translations and some papers. I've also read parts or most of her article on women and her famous work on education (The Mind of the Maker). Most of these works are from later in her life, and I suspect she either changed considerably or has a literary philosophy very different from the Inklings.

For example, her characters reflect contemporary ethical thought: not classical ethical thought (though they are familiar with it). Much of this thought either seems anachronistically wicked - a separate Aristocratic morality - or contemporary bad thinking - consequentialist morality. The former is demonstrated in Clouds of Witness, though she does a good job of painting a difficult moral situation in respect to some adultery, ultimately I cannot find any appropriate accusations leveled toward the Duke. The latter is demonstrated in Unnatural Death, where at one point Murbles argues that the murder may not be unethical - it prevents the Crown from getting money - merely legal.

I find that here, and in some other places, she's coming down on the opposite sides of questions from Scripture, the historic witness of the Church - and from the Inklings.

Many people would say, "So?" to this argument, and I think that's fair. I don't censor my own reading so that I only read books with which I agree. It is, however, much rarer that I pick up a book I expect to find agreeable and experience a disillusioning. Sayer's early fictional writings are such an experience.

Coming Soon: Another author I'm really enjoying - pooor Sayers' pen pales by comparison - is Flannery O'Connor. She's my favorite American prose as of yet - perhaps favorite American literature ever. (Can you count Eliot as American?) I'll post about her when I've digested her stories more fully: there's an awful lot to think about.

Gospel of Judas

You can read the text of the new Gospel of Judas here.

I think the text's nature alone is sufficient proof of its non-authoritative nature regarding the life of Christ (it's bizarre Gnostic gobbley-gook).

Irenaeus (student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John (eyewitness to Jesus' life) disproved the Gnostic interpretations of Jesus' life handily enough a couple thousand years ago. You can read his great work here.

I think it's neat as a historian to see a new text this old uncovered, but it doesn't really have any challenge to the Christian's faith, as claimed by the mass media. Hear The New York Times: "The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today."

Here's a question: if the Gospel of Judas is true, who wrote it? How would they know this truth? If, after the Last Supper Jesus revealed the true nature of his ministry, when did Judas get to tell someone else about it? Remember: even the Gnostic admitted he died very soon after Jesus' death. It must be their ministering angels told them about it: but that assumes a direct divine revelation that, ordinarily, most secular scholars would not respect. And most don't: only a few bizarros believe that the Gospel of Judas is filling in gaps in our understanding of Jesus' life. All it's really doing is filling in gaps in our understanding of old dead heresies. This is good for some academics' dissertations (especially scholars of Irenaeus), but it doesn't really matter very much to the culture or to Christians at large.

Embrace Our Commonality

The year? Nineteen thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine.

The twin towers were still standing in New York. The U.N. declared "The Year of Older Persons." The human population surpassed six billions. War raged in Kosovo, and Bill Clinton was the president of the United States.

But, perhaps the most wildly improbably important event of all was the advent of a single motion picture. No, I don't mean that flop of a flick continuing (after a long, long time) the Star Wars franchise. I mean a tale of good, evil, misunderstanding, and peace. I mean Pokemon: The First Movie.

Rest assured that I and a good friend were there the night that it opened. Unlike many others my age, I made a point of not missing this movie in the theaters. How could I? A little yellow mouse with bizarre electric powers of appealling cuteness was calling me. Ladies and gentlemen, I was not able to turn a deaf ear to his siren cheep. Besides, if you showed up opening night, you got a free commemorative Pokemon card!

I admit that at the time I was disappointed in the film. Last night I gave myself the opportunity to reappraise my impression. This review is the conclusion of that reappraisal.

Pokemon really probably should never have existed. It's kind of fun to watch, sometimes, and I played the Gameboy game, but it really did only exist to create marketing opportunities, which isn't the kind of art that I would choose for my children.

Nevertheless, its authors made a good go of it. The TV show was consistently entertaining, mostly because it did not take itself very seriously. The flaw of the movie is that it does take itself completely seriously.

First, if you ever, for whatever unimaginable reason, watch the movie on DVD, skip, skip, skip!, "Pikachu's Vacation." It is boring, and it is rediculous.

Second, the movie is tolerable. It has one moment that is laugh out loud hilarious involving psyduck, and it even manages to be somewhat moving in the midst of slamming you over the head with a self-contradictory non-violent message. It condemns violence. Violently. In a world that exists so that Pokemon can fight each other. It asks simple questions (that have been asked in better ways before) to which the answer is Jesus, and almost gets it. To which I say, "Hurrah!"

However, instead of renting this movie, buying this movie, or otherwise patronizing it, read your Bible. You'll be the better for it.

Lastly, perhaps the most powerful voice against this movie is its cover.

Coming next week: a review of Pokemon: The Movie 2000.