MOVIES (Last weekend, 4/27-4/29)
1. Disturbia ($9 mil, 3rd wk, $52 mil total)
2. The Invisible ($7.7, 1st wk)
3. Next ($7.1, 1st wk)
4. Fracture ($6.8 mil, 2nd wk, $21 mil total)
5. Blades of Glory ($5.1 mil, 5th wk, $108 mil total)
ALBUMS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Avril Lavigne, The Best Damn Thing, 121K (408K total in two weeks)
2. Joe, Ain't Nothing Like Me, 98K (first week)
3. Nine Inch Nails, Zero, 57K (246K in two weeks)
4. Various, Now 24, 55K (656K in five weeks)
5. Daughtry, Daughtry, 49K (2.3 mil in 23 weeks)
------
Some interesting albums:
108. tobyMac, Portable Sounds, 7K (156K in 10 weeks)
129. Relient K, Five Score and Seven Years Ago, 6K (158K in 8 weeks)
SONG DOWNLOADS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder," 244K (new song)
2. Carrie Underwood, "I'll Stand By You," 124K (new song)
3. Avril Lavigne, "Girlfriend," 116K (1.1 mil total)
4. Kelly Clarkson, "Never Again," 107K (new song)
5. Timbaland, "Give It To Me," 97K (648K total)
COMMENTARY
Last weekend no movie made $10 million. I remember articles fretting about the movie industry last year when the top movie was under $30 million. Regardless, they're up 3% on the year, and besides, Spiderman 3 will make more money this weekend than all the movies put together did last weekend.
Meanwhile, album sales, which have been dropping for several years, thanks to illegal downloading and not helped by legal single-song downloading, hit a new record low last week. Avril's latest sits at the top for two weeks in a row, although the stupid song "Girlfriend" finally fell from the top downloads, thanks to a new Maroon 5 song.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Health Care, Haircuts, and A Republican Actor (553 days to go)
One poll says Obama is ahead of Hillary in Democratic polls. Not that you can't find one poll that says almost anything you want.
Hillary has said she has a universal health care plan for a while now, without admitting where the money will come from. Obama has pretty much said, me too. Now Edwards says, "Me three... but it might take more taxes." At least he's honest. Apparently all the Dems are for this Universal Health Care thing.
Not sure whether it's better to take even more money from the wealthy just because they can afford it (the fundamentals of socialism) or leave the poor hard-working folk in debt from hospital bills. Not sure whether the President has much say over health care, either... I need to check my Constitution, but I would've thought that was more of a Congress thing (which Obama and Hillary are supposed to be a part of when they're not campaigning for an election 18 months away). Maybe Congress should just regulate ridiculous hospital bills ~ that might solve a lot.
Meanwhile, conservatives are having a lot of fun with the $400 haircut that John Edwards took out of our tax dollars or his campaign funds or whatever... He said it was a "mistake." Ad hominems are so much fun in politics, because the character of the person is just as important as their arguments.
On the Republican side of things, the latest rumors are that Fred Thompson will be entering the race (what's with this "enter the race" colloquialism anyway? If you don't enter soon enough, will you be too far behind? Not if the race hasn't even started yet.) Apparently he was an actor turned senator. *shrug* Everybody seems to have fond memories of Reagan. But everybody's also glad that Ahnold doesn't qualify.
Well, that's about all we have for now. I can't say much more because I just can't bring myself to do in-depth research into the qualifications, viewpoints, and policies of anybody when we still have 553 days to go.
Edmond the Hun
Hillary has said she has a universal health care plan for a while now, without admitting where the money will come from. Obama has pretty much said, me too. Now Edwards says, "Me three... but it might take more taxes." At least he's honest. Apparently all the Dems are for this Universal Health Care thing.
Not sure whether it's better to take even more money from the wealthy just because they can afford it (the fundamentals of socialism) or leave the poor hard-working folk in debt from hospital bills. Not sure whether the President has much say over health care, either... I need to check my Constitution, but I would've thought that was more of a Congress thing (which Obama and Hillary are supposed to be a part of when they're not campaigning for an election 18 months away). Maybe Congress should just regulate ridiculous hospital bills ~ that might solve a lot.
Meanwhile, conservatives are having a lot of fun with the $400 haircut that John Edwards took out of our tax dollars or his campaign funds or whatever... He said it was a "mistake." Ad hominems are so much fun in politics, because the character of the person is just as important as their arguments.
On the Republican side of things, the latest rumors are that Fred Thompson will be entering the race (what's with this "enter the race" colloquialism anyway? If you don't enter soon enough, will you be too far behind? Not if the race hasn't even started yet.) Apparently he was an actor turned senator. *shrug* Everybody seems to have fond memories of Reagan. But everybody's also glad that Ahnold doesn't qualify.
Well, that's about all we have for now. I can't say much more because I just can't bring myself to do in-depth research into the qualifications, viewpoints, and policies of anybody when we still have 553 days to go.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Just Say No to Crushing That Baby's Skull
So yesterday the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that it was not unconstitutional to ban partial-birth abortion. I guess that's a good thing. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not so sympathetic of a type of second-trimester abortion that involves cutting open the baby's (excuse me, fetus's) skull so you can suck out the brains and collapse the skull to make the dead thing easier to remove. What about the baby's rights?
But I digress.
The bottom line is that I don't really like the method of this decision any more than I do the original decision that made abortion OK in the first place. Sure, I'm all for it, just like I'd be all for the Supreme Court deciding that it's unconstitutional to play Nickelback on the radio (cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the way these decisions should be made.
The commenters and bloggers are all dissecting this decision and arguing about women's rights and child's rights and all the hashed and re-hashed arguments. But frankly, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with any of that. It all came down to the personal opinions of whoever happened to be presiding at the time of the decision, just like the first decision did.
The problem with the judicial system is that they have to decide between constitutional and non-constitutional. This is an either/or fallacy because sometimes events are simply a-constitutional, not mentioned one way or the other. And thus, our conservative victory yesterday is a shallow one, because in the future a different set of judges could use the opposite arguments to make the opposite decision. Much of our law has been reduced to an oligarchy of nine.
But that is all the stuff of old conservative rantings. What's new here is that we feel the need to get the feedback of all the presidential candidates. As if their opinion would really make that much difference if they were elected (unless a justice happens to die and they get to pick a new one that agrees with their abortion views AND gets confirmed by Congress. But we just replaced two). As if their statements are any more meaningful than the decision itself, since they are only saying what will appeal to their potential voters. In case you hadn't guessed, all the Republican candidates supported it, and all the Democratic candidates opposed it. (see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/high_court_upho.html for specifics)
In other words, things have become so politicized that we can't even know what the candidates really think about anything. Everything they say will be dissected by the media and public, so every response has to be carefully orchestrated. Even the sincerity of something like sending condolences to Virginia Tech loses its meaning because... well, what else are they going to say?
Supreme Court making laws... Presidential candidates forced to say things... we are simply experiencing the inevitable results of massive-scale democracy mixed with the corruption of power. I guess Carmen (don't you remember, back in the day, when he was cool?) got it right when he said, "The only hope for America is Jesus..." Let's humble ourselves, turn from our wicked ways, and pray for God to hear from heaven and heal our land. May corruption be removed, and may truth be made known and set us free.
Edmond the Hun
But I digress.
The bottom line is that I don't really like the method of this decision any more than I do the original decision that made abortion OK in the first place. Sure, I'm all for it, just like I'd be all for the Supreme Court deciding that it's unconstitutional to play Nickelback on the radio (cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the way these decisions should be made.
The commenters and bloggers are all dissecting this decision and arguing about women's rights and child's rights and all the hashed and re-hashed arguments. But frankly, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with any of that. It all came down to the personal opinions of whoever happened to be presiding at the time of the decision, just like the first decision did.
The problem with the judicial system is that they have to decide between constitutional and non-constitutional. This is an either/or fallacy because sometimes events are simply a-constitutional, not mentioned one way or the other. And thus, our conservative victory yesterday is a shallow one, because in the future a different set of judges could use the opposite arguments to make the opposite decision. Much of our law has been reduced to an oligarchy of nine.
But that is all the stuff of old conservative rantings. What's new here is that we feel the need to get the feedback of all the presidential candidates. As if their opinion would really make that much difference if they were elected (unless a justice happens to die and they get to pick a new one that agrees with their abortion views AND gets confirmed by Congress. But we just replaced two). As if their statements are any more meaningful than the decision itself, since they are only saying what will appeal to their potential voters. In case you hadn't guessed, all the Republican candidates supported it, and all the Democratic candidates opposed it. (see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/high_court_upho.html for specifics)
In other words, things have become so politicized that we can't even know what the candidates really think about anything. Everything they say will be dissected by the media and public, so every response has to be carefully orchestrated. Even the sincerity of something like sending condolences to Virginia Tech loses its meaning because... well, what else are they going to say?
Supreme Court making laws... Presidential candidates forced to say things... we are simply experiencing the inevitable results of massive-scale democracy mixed with the corruption of power. I guess Carmen (don't you remember, back in the day, when he was cool?) got it right when he said, "The only hope for America is Jesus..." Let's humble ourselves, turn from our wicked ways, and pray for God to hear from heaven and heal our land. May corruption be removed, and may truth be made known and set us free.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, April 01, 2007
It started out with a kiss, how did it end up like this...
I watched three very different movies recently, and noticed an eerie similarity. There's not a whole lot of common elements among an insightful, blasphemous commentary on the world's perception of Christians, a completely random but hilarious sci-fi spoof, and an intense but over-the-top drama about malevolent weather patterns.
Except when it comes to romance...
In Saved, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. A couple scenes before the end, just before the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. They kiss. Now the relationship starts and carries into the conclusion...
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. At the very end, just after the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. And here comes the kiss. And now they're together for whatever sequel does or does not come...
In The Day After Tomorrow, the guy likes the girl from the beginning (no way). A couple scenes before the resolution, she realizes - no, not that she likes him too. She realized this awhile ago. Instead, she realizes that he likes her, too (what a plot twist!). And there's the cue for the kiss. And now as the movie ends, they have a relationship...
We have a very definite pattern. Whether the guy chases the girl across the galaxy, around a Christian school, or into a public library in downtown New York, once they both realize they like each other, it's "Let's make out and now we're together..."
Something's terribly wrong here. Now don't mistake me for being prudish or old-fashioned. Although I have heard that in the "old days" you didn't kiss a girl until you knew you were going to marry her ~ something that doesn't strike me as a bad concept. But that's not my point. Let's dig deeper. I've frequently pointed out how popular music's lyrics about sex reveal an underlying focus on selfish pleasure instead of unselfish love and respect. I think kissing in movies reveals the same thing.
Let's be real. At the risk of oversimplification, making out is pretty unique as far as romantic pleasures go. On one side of it we have kid stuff like putting your arm around her, which also works for encouragement and comfort and manly stuff like that. On the other side of it we have adult stuff like sex, which also works for getting pregnant. But I'm pretty sure that the only direct purpose of making out is to have a lot of fun.
And it's simply not smart or mature to begin a relationship based on the pleasure you get out of it. That's why I roll my eyes whenever the movie couples have to kiss as soon as they realize their mutual attraction. That's why I love the scene in Return of the King when Faramir and Eowyn look into each other's eyes and she just puts her head on his chest and he holds her and they both smile.
It's easy to forget about how these ultra-pretty movie hero relationships might have gone after the movie was over. It's easy to forget that their characters were engineered to be "perfect" for each other, something that may or may not be true about whomever you happen to "like" at the moment. So this is just a friendly reminder that if you don't feel like making out the moment you find that special person, that's quite alright.
Quite alright, indeed.
Edmond the Hun
Except when it comes to romance...
In Saved, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. A couple scenes before the end, just before the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. They kiss. Now the relationship starts and carries into the conclusion...
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. At the very end, just after the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. And here comes the kiss. And now they're together for whatever sequel does or does not come...
In The Day After Tomorrow, the guy likes the girl from the beginning (no way). A couple scenes before the resolution, she realizes - no, not that she likes him too. She realized this awhile ago. Instead, she realizes that he likes her, too (what a plot twist!). And there's the cue for the kiss. And now as the movie ends, they have a relationship...
We have a very definite pattern. Whether the guy chases the girl across the galaxy, around a Christian school, or into a public library in downtown New York, once they both realize they like each other, it's "Let's make out and now we're together..."
Something's terribly wrong here. Now don't mistake me for being prudish or old-fashioned. Although I have heard that in the "old days" you didn't kiss a girl until you knew you were going to marry her ~ something that doesn't strike me as a bad concept. But that's not my point. Let's dig deeper. I've frequently pointed out how popular music's lyrics about sex reveal an underlying focus on selfish pleasure instead of unselfish love and respect. I think kissing in movies reveals the same thing.
Let's be real. At the risk of oversimplification, making out is pretty unique as far as romantic pleasures go. On one side of it we have kid stuff like putting your arm around her, which also works for encouragement and comfort and manly stuff like that. On the other side of it we have adult stuff like sex, which also works for getting pregnant. But I'm pretty sure that the only direct purpose of making out is to have a lot of fun.
And it's simply not smart or mature to begin a relationship based on the pleasure you get out of it. That's why I roll my eyes whenever the movie couples have to kiss as soon as they realize their mutual attraction. That's why I love the scene in Return of the King when Faramir and Eowyn look into each other's eyes and she just puts her head on his chest and he holds her and they both smile.
It's easy to forget about how these ultra-pretty movie hero relationships might have gone after the movie was over. It's easy to forget that their characters were engineered to be "perfect" for each other, something that may or may not be true about whomever you happen to "like" at the moment. So this is just a friendly reminder that if you don't feel like making out the moment you find that special person, that's quite alright.
Quite alright, indeed.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Kiva.org: A Stroke of Brilliance
So I logged into MySpace yesterday and was greeted with banners telling me about a new MySpace section about making a difference in the world and all of that. This being related to my purpose in life, I clicked on it to see if it was all talk or if there was anything real to it.
To my surprise, there was.
Amidst the fluff and vague optimism was a link to Kiva.org. This website is using a truly unique idea to help people out of poverty in poor countries. It involves people with money giving money to people without money. But it's a far cry from the generic donate-money-to-some-charity-and hope-it-gets-to-an-African-kid-and-not-the-CEO-of-the-charity stuff that usually stops me from running to charities with even some of the little money that I have.
At Kiva.org, you lend money to an entrepreneur in another country (translation: somebody trying to start a business but having no money to meet the start-up costs), and after they get their business going, they pay you back. Kiva hooks up with your PayPal account (used safely by millions of eBayers to take care of the transaction)
Sound like a scam? Far from it.
I googled "Kiva.org" to see what people were saying about it. You know, see if it was for real and if it really worked. Well, that took me to the Wikipedia page for Kiva.org (yeah, there's a page for everything), which told me that
1) this thing is being supported and encouraged by PayPal (duh), MySpace (where I found it), YouTube, Google, and Microsoft. With these gigantic corporations involved, it doesn't sound like a sneaky scam for your money.
2) Depending on which part of the Wikipedia article you read, these loans are being repayed, a few months or a year later, at a rate of 100% or 99%.
"In a little over a year, Kiva has rapidly grown to become the most trafficked site in microfinance with +35,000 Internet lenders generating +$3 million in loans to thousands of entrepreneurs in +25 developing countries – all with a +99% on time repayment rate thus far. Kiva is staffed and governed by experienced consumer Internet and microfinance leaders."
Just go to Kiva.org and look at the home page. These aren't random guys from poor countries asking for some money with a vague idea of starting a business with it. They're asking for specific amounts to meet specific needs to get a specific business going in a specific location. You can donate in multiplies of $25 to meet a percentage of their need. Kiva takes care of the rest. A few months later, their business is going, and you get your money back. You can then reinvest or keep it.
So, what do you have to lose? Nothing. Unless you just happen to invest in the less than 1% whose business fails. And even that seems more productive than donating to a random charity, where you have no idea where the money goes or what good it does.
I'm definitely going to pick somebody and lend some money. You should, too. Especially if you have a job. If you have more than a couple hundred dollars sitting in the bank, taking out $50 of it has no real effect on your life. And then, a year later, when you get it back, it'll feel like free money, and you'll know (not just hope) that you helped somebody out by getting a business going in a poor country.
This is an excellent idea and I offer it my full support.
Edmond the Hun
To my surprise, there was.
Amidst the fluff and vague optimism was a link to Kiva.org. This website is using a truly unique idea to help people out of poverty in poor countries. It involves people with money giving money to people without money. But it's a far cry from the generic donate-money-to-some-charity-and hope-it-gets-to-an-African-kid-and-not-the-CEO-of-the-charity stuff that usually stops me from running to charities with even some of the little money that I have.
At Kiva.org, you lend money to an entrepreneur in another country (translation: somebody trying to start a business but having no money to meet the start-up costs), and after they get their business going, they pay you back. Kiva hooks up with your PayPal account (used safely by millions of eBayers to take care of the transaction)
Sound like a scam? Far from it.
I googled "Kiva.org" to see what people were saying about it. You know, see if it was for real and if it really worked. Well, that took me to the Wikipedia page for Kiva.org (yeah, there's a page for everything), which told me that
1) this thing is being supported and encouraged by PayPal (duh), MySpace (where I found it), YouTube, Google, and Microsoft. With these gigantic corporations involved, it doesn't sound like a sneaky scam for your money.
2) Depending on which part of the Wikipedia article you read, these loans are being repayed, a few months or a year later, at a rate of 100% or 99%.
"In a little over a year, Kiva has rapidly grown to become the most trafficked site in microfinance with +35,000 Internet lenders generating +$3 million in loans to thousands of entrepreneurs in +25 developing countries – all with a +99% on time repayment rate thus far. Kiva is staffed and governed by experienced consumer Internet and microfinance leaders."
Just go to Kiva.org and look at the home page. These aren't random guys from poor countries asking for some money with a vague idea of starting a business with it. They're asking for specific amounts to meet specific needs to get a specific business going in a specific location. You can donate in multiplies of $25 to meet a percentage of their need. Kiva takes care of the rest. A few months later, their business is going, and you get your money back. You can then reinvest or keep it.
So, what do you have to lose? Nothing. Unless you just happen to invest in the less than 1% whose business fails. And even that seems more productive than donating to a random charity, where you have no idea where the money goes or what good it does.
I'm definitely going to pick somebody and lend some money. You should, too. Especially if you have a job. If you have more than a couple hundred dollars sitting in the bank, taking out $50 of it has no real effect on your life. And then, a year later, when you get it back, it'll feel like free money, and you'll know (not just hope) that you helped somebody out by getting a business going in a poor country.
This is an excellent idea and I offer it my full support.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, March 11, 2007
We keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change...
Now we see everything that's going wrongJohn Mayer's hit single "Waiting on the World to Change" beautifully captures the apathy of today's youth. We know the world's not perfect, but we just don't know what we can do about it. This often causes us to just give up or stop caring. After all, what real difference could I make even if I wanted to? So we just keep on waiting and maybe something will change.
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
I think deep down inside most of us have a desire to do something of significance. Every now and then I'll get a glimpse of this, such as the Facebook group "For Every 1,000 that join this group I will donate $1 for Darfur," maxing out at almost 500,000, and its hundreds of spin-off groups. We'd all love to do something to help the suffering over there, but when you think about it, even if this guy gives $498 to some charity, what is that really going to do? How do we know that throwing money out there will even do anything? So we keep on waiting...
But that doesn't have to be the end of it! The individual today has more power to change the world than at any previous point in history. A regular college student can start a facebook group with the potential to unite hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Anybody can upload a home-made video to YouTube and get millions of views. Admittedly, the majority of the groups and videos never rise above the double- or triple-digit status in recognition, but the point is that the potential is there for something that wasn't possible even five years ago.
Music sales used to be influenced by how well record labels marketed their artists into radio stations and MTV, etc. Now a regular guy who makes it on American Idol can choose to sing a song and see iTunes downloads for the week go up 1000% or even more. (3300 to 36,000 for Keane's "Somewhere Only We Know" two weeks ago; 600 to 24,000 for Jason Mraz's "Geek In the Pink" last week)
Do you realize how incredible that is? Thousands of dollars are made (or not made) based on one individual's song choice. Alan Greenspan used to be the only single person with that kind of economic power. Every single person has a greater potential for influence than ever before!
So how do we bring peace to Darfur? How do we feed the homeless and reduce crime and change social attitudes of abortion and reduce the selfish message of pop culture and stop political corruption? How do we move from the hypocritical irony of words to real, effective action that changes the world?
Well, I don't know. I just know that it's possible. Anyone can do something to make a change, but anyone can't change everything. God has put different passions in the hearts of different people, and they'll each have to work with others to get things done.
One day our generationI don't know how it's going to happen. I just know that waiting isn't going to do it.
Is gonna rule the population
So we keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
Edmond the Hun
Friday, March 02, 2007
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know...
There are very few things that make me angry. One of them is pop culture's destructive degeneration of healthy relationships.
It's time for some more venting.
The fourth-highest selling album of last week was Kidz Bop 11. If you don't know, Kidz Bop is a strangely successful series that takes radio hits and re-records them with kids singing them. Apparently 75,000 kids convinced their parents to buy the latest one. Cute? Maybe occasionally.
Some of the hit songs are harmless. As much as I despise Nickelback, at least "Far Away" is about commitment through the distance. But something about ten-year-olds singing about destructive relationships just really gets me. James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" was bad enough. But this latest installement includes Beyonce's You're-not-"Irreplaceable" (I could have another you in a minute) and Hinder's "Lips of An Angel" (It's hard to be faithful to my new woman because I'm still in love with you).
Seriously?! And then we wonder why these kids grow up to be teenagers who sleep around and cheat on each other and break each other's hearts and have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like.
I'll tell you why. It's because our culture doesn't know what a healthy relationship is anymore. We've forgotten that having sex whenever you want isn't any better for you than eating whenever you want (Parenthetical citation: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity). Pop culture seems to think that relationships are simply about getting what you want.
We haven't quite forgotten that relationships are about the simple joy of spending time with someone, that when she's in your arms there's nothing else in the world. But we have forgotten that relationships are about unselfishness. They're about respect. They're about your attraction for that special someone causing you to desire their happiness and safety above anything else. Some people call that love.
Emery said it best in their song "So Cold I Could See My Breath"
How quickly lust can pretend it's love
Designing words to help us believe
It’s so much more than just tonight
So we have got to get this right
How quickly words can become our hands (you want it more, you want it more)
Resigning everything we believe (you want it more, you want it...)
You want it, you want it
More
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know
With answers for the world
The ambiguity shows
Even those who don’t agree with the Christian view of sex within a lifetime-lasting marriage must see that it’s dangerous to teach kids that relationships are not at all about commitment or respect or any of those unselfish virtues that actually make relationships work…
Edmond the Hun
It's time for some more venting.
The fourth-highest selling album of last week was Kidz Bop 11. If you don't know, Kidz Bop is a strangely successful series that takes radio hits and re-records them with kids singing them. Apparently 75,000 kids convinced their parents to buy the latest one. Cute? Maybe occasionally.
Some of the hit songs are harmless. As much as I despise Nickelback, at least "Far Away" is about commitment through the distance. But something about ten-year-olds singing about destructive relationships just really gets me. James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" was bad enough. But this latest installement includes Beyonce's You're-not-"Irreplaceable" (I could have another you in a minute) and Hinder's "Lips of An Angel" (It's hard to be faithful to my new woman because I'm still in love with you).
Seriously?! And then we wonder why these kids grow up to be teenagers who sleep around and cheat on each other and break each other's hearts and have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like.
I'll tell you why. It's because our culture doesn't know what a healthy relationship is anymore. We've forgotten that having sex whenever you want isn't any better for you than eating whenever you want (Parenthetical citation: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity). Pop culture seems to think that relationships are simply about getting what you want.
We haven't quite forgotten that relationships are about the simple joy of spending time with someone, that when she's in your arms there's nothing else in the world. But we have forgotten that relationships are about unselfishness. They're about respect. They're about your attraction for that special someone causing you to desire their happiness and safety above anything else. Some people call that love.
Emery said it best in their song "So Cold I Could See My Breath"
How quickly lust can pretend it's love
Designing words to help us believe
It’s so much more than just tonight
So we have got to get this right
How quickly words can become our hands (you want it more, you want it more)
Resigning everything we believe (you want it more, you want it...)
You want it, you want it
More
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know
With answers for the world
The ambiguity shows
Even those who don’t agree with the Christian view of sex within a lifetime-lasting marriage must see that it’s dangerous to teach kids that relationships are not at all about commitment or respect or any of those unselfish virtues that actually make relationships work…
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)