Willingness

       I've broken down in my car many times in my cars over the years; some instances more frustrating than others.  Some were on deserted back roads and others in the middle of busy intersections.  Let me tell you, it is not fun, especially if you have to push your car a significant distance.
       Anyways, I often found myself wondering why I was subjected to these very annoying, frustrating, and even painful circumstances.  I often found myself saying, as so many of us do when hardship comes our way, "Why God, why me?".  This really is the only question a non-believer can ask; but it has no room in the believer's faith.  I say this because pain and suffering (yes car troubles pale in comparison to real troubles, but the point is the same) conditions us to serve.  God takes a time in our lives that seems so personally debilitating for the sole purpose of preparing us to serve another in need in the future, and that is a valorous thing.  I realized yesterday why I went through, and still go through, so many car troubles in my life.
       As I was driving to my brother's house, a car was stopped on the busy two lane road ahead of me.  Instantly memories of being stranded on busy roads, as cars wiz by, and as embarrassment mounts, flashed in my head.  I remembered all the times I felt alone and broken down, literally, and I was moved to compassion for the person ahead of me.  I stopped and helped push the young teenage girl's car that had run out of gas, down to a safe cross street.  What is not important is that I helped the girl, what is important was that my selfish being actually exhibited willingness to respond to the Holy Spirit's calling on my heart.  You see folks, having compassion for stranded motorists via the pain and suffering I went through myself with cars, is one thing God has placed in my life to conform me more in the image of Christ.  He's not so much interested in me actually physically helping the person (though that is an effect of compassion), he is interested in my heart; me showing a genuine willingness to help them, whatever the sacrifice may or may not be.  Many times I've offered help to a person only to be told "Thank you, but someone is already on the way". Turns out God wasn't calling me to actually physically help those persons, he was asking me if I was willing to put someone else ahead of myself.  He was asking me if I was willing to accept a servant's attitude.  He was asking me if I was willing to be like Christ.
       When I think of the many times I refused God's calling for willingness, I cringe, because they are too many to count.  So many times I'd drive by someone thinking if I stopped I'd be late for work.  Or I'd gauge that the woman wasn't "attractive" enough to stop for, etc.  What is this saying to my God?  It's saying to God that the world revolves around me.  But everybody knows that's not true and that the world revolves around the Son...

Reasons why I didn't necessarily like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

       Before I start let me answer your question.  No I have not read Roald Dahl's book.  There, you happy?  Let me also begin by saying that I have no choice but to compare Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the 1971 classic, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, so boo hoo to all the boobirds that say you can't compare the two movies.  Some minor spoilers ahead

What I didn't like:
The whole flashback/father scenes
       -Absolutely unnecessary.  Hey, I like Sauraman, err Christopher Lee, just as much as the next LOTR nerd but his character, along with "young" Willy Wonka was completely out of place, irrelevant to the main plot involving Charlie, and totally interrupted the flow and momentum of the real story being told.  Please Tim, can you actually cut these scenes from the Director's Cut version?

Johnny Depp
       -Gasp! How could you say such a thing Keith?!  Yes, I know I've committed causual movie fan heresy, but I think Johnny Depp was mediocre in his role as Willy Wonka.  I don't think he was bad per se, but I definitely did not feel any of the Captain Jack Sparrow swagger here.  He was weird, obtuse, and enigmatic for sure, but I don't think his particular portrayal captured the innovative, flamboyant, dreamer that Willy Wonka was.  He seemed more like an apathetic factory owner that thought inviting a couple kids to tour it would break the monotony of everyday life, not one that was seriously looking for an heir to his chocolate empire.  I never thought of Willy Wonka as a "wimp" either.  I felt Johnny Depp's Wonka came off as wimpy somewhat.  (The scene of him venturing into the jungles of Lompasland nonewithstanding…I liked him there, but he seemed like a totally different character)

What I felt was inferior to the 1971 film:
The kids
       -Aside from Charlie, whom I thought both were equally well played in both movies, I felt all the supporting kid actors, and their parents, were inferior to the original ones.  For example, I remember the Violet B. from the original was so annoying that you just wanted to slap her.  The Violet in the new one was a little too "cute" and not annoying enough.  Same goes for the weird mother.
       The Mike TV in the old one I thought captured more the essence of the technologically dependent boy; living and breathing TV.  The videogame Mike TV of the new one just seemed like a burgeoning post modern apathetic punk.  I could've cared less about him and his snotty remarks.
       For some reason I enjoyed the Augustus of the old one better.  Maybe it was because he was naturally more fat (the kid in the new used large clothes to make him look fatter).  But I'm thinking it was more the Augustus of the old one was just a nice fat kid that wanted to eat chocolate.  The mean comment the new Augustus made to Charlie as they were entering the factory turned me off to him and I figured he got what was coming to him when he fell into the chocolate river.  The Augustus of the old one was just a poor kid whose stomach just got the best of him.
       The Veruca Salt of the new one was alright, but I still like the old one better, and especially her dad of the old one.  The whole "spoiling" process was much more apparent in the old version.

The ending/moral:
       -At the end of the 1971 film, before Charlie leaves somewhat sadly bemused at Wonka's finale, he returns his everlasting gobstopper, proving his unwillingness to succumb to Slugworth's greedy proposal.  This act of unselfishness was all Wonka needed to see in order to deem Charlie righteous, honest, and moral enough to inherit his famed factory and empire.  This triumphant end brings to light Wonka's overriding purpose to the whole Golden Ticket fiasco in the first place…to find a child worthy of the respected Willy Wonka name.  In essence, Wonka the whole time was testing the children to see if any of them were fit to be his "adopted" son or daughter.  Charlie was the only one to pass the "morality" test.
       In Tim Burton's rendition, we get no semblance of any morality test from Mr. Wonka whatsoever.  What we get is a nonsensical romp around his nonsensical factory (I don't mind the factory part).  But Charlie choose his family over the factory in the end Keith!  That was a good moral moment!  Ah, but you forget that Wonka already had offered him the factory before any principled fortitude was shown by the young Charlie.  Basically, the Tim Burton movie relegated the child factory tour to an experiment of survival of the fitest.  We're given no indication that Wonka cared a rats arse about what kind of person won his "contest" and subsequently inherited the Wonka empire; rather all he cared about was that someone, anyone would inherit it.  That whole family ultimatum, tear-jerking incident at the end was completely forced and did not correlate with the overriding plot at all, as it did in the first movie.  The Charlie in this movie wasn't chosen because of his unselfish attitude and pure heart, but only because he was the last one standing.  For shame.

Setting:
       -Not to take away from Tim Burton's creative mind, but I found the more realistic setting of the 1971 film to be more endearing and believable.   As outrageous as it was, you actually believed a man and place like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory could exist somewhere in the world.  The settings and the effects, though limited, did enough for the viewer to transport them to another world full of lollipops and candycanes.  The new movie tried too hard I thought to create an alternate reality.  I know they were poor, but did the Bucket's really have to live in a 45 degree angle house?  And the whole glass elevator montage seemed way over the top and saturated just to tell the audience "look how cool computer graphics are".

What I felt was superior to the 1971 film:
The Ompa-Lompas and their songs
       -No doubt we all have the songs from the 1971 classics stuck in our heads for eternity, but the new version's iteration of the Ompa-Lompas and their songs is just hilarious and I think much better.  I don't know how to explain it, but those hundreds of carbon copies of the funny looking Comlumbian guy dancing around and singing was just cracking me up all over the place.  I almost want to get the soundtrack just so I can hear those quirky, entertaining songs again.  I thought the backstory about how he came to find and employ the Ompa-Lompas was funny too.

Conclusion: 2.75 stars out of 5
       -By all means go see this movie.  If anything you'll laugh more than once no doubt.  But don't go in expecting that you're going to see a monumental achievement in cinema.  Don't go in expecting you're going to see another Oscar worthy performance from the lovable Johnny Depp.  And definitely don't go in thinking after you see this film, Gene Wilder and his crazy adventures in 1971 are going to be forgotten forever..  Just my two cents...

Agree or disagree?

Thundercats, Thundercats, Thundercats, HOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thundercats - Season One DVD!!!

      Oh such fond memories.  Word on the street is a Voltron DVD set is in the works too!  Oh happy day for this 80's cartoon child.

What are your favorite cartoons from childhood?

What not to do to your BMW

BMW nightmares

       For shame that these poor Bimmers were subjected to such abusive owners.  Makes me want to join PETBMW...People for the Ethical Treatment of BMWs

Ebb Log

      Seeking to fulfill EbbWorld’s mission statement of continually providing innovative and engaging content, I’ve decided to finally implement some sort of user interaction/community functionality. Now you, my wonderful readers, can comment on each and every Random Thought I have. And I know you’ve wanted to :)
      This functionality is in the form of a customized web log program via www.blogger.com. The interface isn't perfect, but I believe C:straight Media did a great job in assimilating it to EbbWorld’s funky fresh aesthetics.
      Anyways, please comment lots and often. I really seek to create an organism of sorts where we can discuss and converse life, love, and why despite varying opinions and viewpoints.


So what do you think about this?

Why I like Condoleezza Rice

       Unless you're a political ignoramus, you know about Condoleezza Rice, or you've at least seen her on T.V. making a briefing or something.  Condoleezza
Rice is currently serving as the United States Secretary of State, taking over for the previous one, Colin Powell.

All about Condoleezza Rice

       As impressive as Condi's (that's a cool nickname) resume is, and it is let me tell you, the thing that stands out most about her that I admire is her status.  And though her success in light of the many obstacles she probably faced because of her color is extremely impressive, that is not what I admire most about her.  You see, Condoleezza is a never married, single woman; and that I very much admire considering her circumstances.  Miss Rice has devoted her life and her career to serving her country in some of the most influential positions availible.
       You see, we "conservative" men have a bad rap concerning our thoughts and opinions on the topic of women in the workplace.  And though many men deserve chagrin for their selfish, dominant, egocentric mentalities, many of us I feel are misunderstood when we believe a woman's place is "in the home".  Perhaps we should change that saying to "a mother's place is in the home".  You see folks, the reason many people believe a mother (at least of infant to high school age children) should work the home is because it is physically impossible for a human, man or woman, to work as a full-time homemaker and a full-time office employee.  Considering that, I think a woman is more qualified to work as the nurturer/homemaker of the family than the man plain and simple.  It's not that their less qualified for an "office" job, it is just they are more qualified for the home job.  Looking at things that way relieves any doubt concerning man's apparenlty nefarious plans to marginalize and dominate women in general.  So really it's not an issue of importance or abilities, it's more an issue of realizing one's limitations and strengths, man or woman.
       Condoleezza Rice is someone who I believe realizes her limitations and strengths.  You see, as a single woman, with no husband or children to be responsible for, she can devote herself fully to her job of serving our country.  Instead of having to either choose between her career or her family or both, she has chosen to not even get involved in a relationship; realizing one would divide her focus from her calling.  I admire that.  And I'm not saying she will never get married or anything, but I think she realizes that because her current job is so demanding, there is little or no time to culture a relationship.  Likewise, if she had a family, I'm not saying she wouldn't still be qualified to serve as Secretary of State.  But because of her divided interests, I believe her effectiveness as both a Secretary of State and a mother and wife would suffer.  I think the whole concept of mother's should work the home and fathers the field comes from the realization that we aren't supermans and superwomens.  And that we weren't designed to "do it all".  But I fully support Miss Rice in her employment pursuits considering she has no family to be responsible for.

*I must admit that I do not know Condoleezza personally nor have I ever had contact with her.  I have no idea what her intentions of ideals really are.  For all I know she could feel completely insecure because she isn't married.  But I tend to think she has realized that serving her country is a higher calling then serving herself.  That's the kind of leader I want; man or woman, black or white…

**I also think it's cool that she wants to become the commissioner of the NFL.  That'd be pretty cool.  I think she'd make a good commissioner.

***These random thoughts cause me to consider the strain and difficulty single parents face everyday.

****I would never support the ideal that women should be in the home no matter what, married or single.  Of course I think a woman should be working if she doesn't have any family responsibilities.

What do you think?

Current social issues of note

So yeah, I predicted this type of government program
Ugandan official: Virgins to get free college in a short story I wrote a year ago called Sci-Fi Sex and Politics.  Read the CNN article first and then my story and you'll see what I mean.

Abortion rate at lowest point since 1976
With high-court debate brewing, report shows procedure's numbers down

       Good news right?  I doubt people are having less extra-marital sex though (aside from cases of abortions within families), they're just learning how to seemingly get away with it without having to face the physical
consequences of it…seemingly.

Defiant serial bomber gets expected life term
Injured nurse wishes death sentence on convicted abortion clinic attacker

       How brutally killing big people is any different than brutally killing little people, like in abortion, is beyond me.  I don't question this guy's zeal or his dedication to a cause, I question his common sense and logic.  His actions utterly contradict his spoken creed, which in turn manifest his true intent, which isn't to bring glory to God at all, but to himself.
       But don't let this man fool you.  The trap so many people fall into is when they judge a religion by it's followers and not it's origins and truth-claims.  For example, I don't reject Islam because it's been known to encourage men to fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people; I reject it because I don't believe its truth-claims stand the test of authenticity.

What do you think?