What do you guys think about the new OT rule that the NFL will use in playoff games?

Here’s what I understand. The winner of the coin toss can receive or kick the ball. If they receive, and score a touchdown, the game is over. However, if they kick a field goal, the other team has a chance to tie the game with a field goal or win the game with a touchdown. If they kick a field goal, the game goes into sudden death.

Personally, I like the rule; I definitely prefer it to something like the college OT.

There is one modification that I think might be interesting. Suppose the winner of the coin toss (if they elect to receive the ball) could not opt to kick a field goal (you could give them zero points for a field goal), but could only win the game by scoring a TD.

If they fail to score a TD, the opposing team could win the game on a field goal or a TD. In this scenario, receiving the football might be such a huge advantage, and some teams may want to kick instead.

How should the NFL make late season games more meaningful for teams that have secured a playoff spot?

I read some suggestions from a fantasy football magazines, but I can’t remember them all. One suggestion was to give extra draft picks. I think that’s an interesting idea. Or how about allowing one of the draft picks to move up. Maybe there could be conditional draft picks that depend on the games you win at the end of the season.

Any other ideas?

In “Making Big Government a Little Smaller”–a very misleading title–Joshua Green from the Atlantic, talks about the problem of the Federal government (via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) huge involvement in housing loans. According to the article, 95% of housing loans are backed by the US government–which experts agree is to high.

But changing this is incredibly difficult, as the article points out. Check it out.

How Does the Church Let the Holy Spirit Direct the Chruch?

Here’s my immediate answer to that question: the members meet frequently to pray (as well as pray individually) to pray specifically (and maybe exclusively) for guidance as far as important decisions the church needs to make. These important decisions include broad matters like what are the issues a church needs to address to specific ones like, should a church purchase a new sound system.

When I say, “meet to pray,” I’m thinking of something like this: the members would gather and pray for 30 minutes (just an arbitrary number) focusing on the question of what the church needs to do. Members who feel lead, would pray. (This is similar to a Quaker approach.) There could be some discussion about specific actions the church would take after the praying. The church could then meet at another time to pray about the specific ideas that came up.

Does this approach sound too wacky or impractical? If so, how does one involve the Holy Spirit in the church’s decision making?

My Impression of How Church Decisions Are Made

In my own experience, most decisions are made no differently from a secular organization. People get together to meet, voice their opinions and then come to some sort of agreement. Sure, these meetings begin with prayer (usually pretty short) and then members throw out ideas and make decisions.

Now, personally, I’m uncomfortable with this because my ideas/opinions are not always in line with the God’s will–not necessarily because the ideas/opinions are inconsistent with sound Christian principles or scripture, but they may be inappropriate for the specific church or the particular time. For example, starting a weekly Bible study for young adults, on the surface, is a good thing. What could be objectionable about that, right? While there might not be anything objectionable about this, it may not be the what God wants the specific church to focus on (at least at that moment). God might want the church to do something else, first. See what I’m saying?

But then this leads to the question how does a church let the Holy Spirit guide the church?

Kevin recommended this to me, and I just finished it. I think the book might be more aptly titled, Architecture of Beauty, as the author talks more about beauty than happiness. Indeed, at the end of the book I feel like de Botton equates “happy” architecture with beautiful architecture. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. What was bad was that he didn’t really clearly articulate his definition of beauty or happiness. (I did like the historical overview of the concept of beauty through history, the reasons our notions of beauty change and the attitude we should have towards beauty.)

I also did not feel comfortable with de Botton’s perspective and understanding of architecture–i.e. architecture primarily as a visual art form. Visual artforms convey ideas and exert influence on people primarily by how they look. A painting or sculpture looks good and/or its visual components transmit ideas to the viewer.

Architecture functions this way, but that is not the only way it works–and I don’t think it’s the most important way. Architecture affects the way we feel, not so much in evoking emotions like happiness, sadness, jealousy, rage, etc. Instead, architecture can make us feel alive. These structures/places are pleasant and comfortable–so much so that they draw people to them. Conversely, structures can be uncomfortable and drive people away. Imo, whether architecture feels good is more important that what it says to us visually. (De Botton briefly touches on the “feeling” aspect of architecture in the self-knowledge section, but it is more of footnote.)

My sense is that most architects view architecture in a similar way. The “feeling” part is a secondary priority (if that), partly because it’s not very arty or sophisticated (or at least doesn’t appear to be), and it is less conceptual and more earthy. Indeed, to practice architecture in this way is a little outside the conception of a modern artist.

But that doesn’t mean that architecture practiced in this way is not art; just not art according to a contemporary-modern definition–which values originality and innovation, self-expression and the transmission of ideas via a visual medium (Kevin, we should talk about this point.) Imo, these values are not as important in architecture, and they get in the way of making good architecture. I’d guess that de Botton wouldn’t agree with this.

Now, how often does that happen with a review of a movie, book, or piece of music? I’d say almost never–certainly not in as vivid and compelling a way as this NPR episode. While I don’t expect reviews to be “magical,” I do expect a better job of helping me appreciate the merits (or lack thereof) of the work in question.

To be fair, I think reviewers have multiple objectives: they want to help viewers determine whether they should see a movie or not (which is not always related to the aesthetic merits of a film) and they want to critically analyze the work (at least some of the reviewers). Complicating matters is the high volume of movies/books/music they must review, as well as the limited words and time to write these reviews. It’s no wonder that reviews don’t leave people with a greater understanding of what makes a work of art great or bad.

Here are some changes I would suggest to deal with the problem:

1. Limit the number of works to review I can hear the critics saying, “How can we do this? We don’t have a choice on the matter?” My response is try a different approach. I believe that the majority of works don’t deserve a lot of time and energy to review. I’m thinking of the mediocre works, the cookie-cutter and copycat type of film. A really short review or even just a rating would be sufficient for these films. These works may not be bad, but they don’t warrant a lot of time and energy. This will allow reviewers to have the time and energy to review the films that deserve it.
2. Select a handful of works that deserve the time. These works would be either really terrific films (certainly those that could be all-time greats) or, perhaps, critically acclaimed films that don’t deserve it.
3. Copy the “What Makes it Great” approach. I’m thinking specifically of the way the NPR commentators use specific examples of the film to make their points. The movie review equivalent would be for reviewers show actual clips of the film and comment on them (similar to what filmmakers did in films like The Celluloid Closet, The Cutting Edge or Visions of Light). Yes, this would take a lot of time, but it could also help people understand what makes a film so great.

Helping the layperson to understand what makes a specific book, movie or piece of music so great is one of the most important roles a critic plays in society. While the suggestions above aren’t easy, I think they would go a long way in making the reviews more valuable.

What are some of the best steaks you have eaten? What restaurants, in Hawai’i or other places you’ve tried, serve the best steak?

What makes this cool is that you can see a lot of good films, films you may not have heard of, and you get to discuss them with other people. Some of the films are hard to get a hold of, but many of the films can be seen on youtube.

The also-rans (movies rated 7/10) in alphabetical order:
(500) Days of Summer
Adventureland
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Invictus
Julie & Julia
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Sin nombre
The Blind Side
The Boat That Rocked
The Invention of Lying
The September Issue
Where the Wild Things Are
Whip It
White on Rice
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

As you can see, I went with The Proposal, to round out my top ten. In truth, it’s not THAT good a movie, but it was surprisingly entertaining and I found myself caring about the characters in a way that seems to have become rare for films in its genre. Plus, Sandra Bullock is really good in this.

And here are my 2009 awards!
Best actor: I’m still going with Matt Damon in The Informant! with Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart second.

Best actress: Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia. Second goes to Vera Formiga in Up in the Air, though I suppose you could call that a supporting role.

Best supporting actor: Alan Rickman in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Second: Liev Schrieber, Taking Woodstock. Yeah, Schrieber’s performance has grown on me in retrospect.

Best supporting actress: Anna Kendrick, Up in the air. Second (and I’m still pissed that the Academy and the press completely ignored her): Helena Bonham Carter, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Best soundtrack: Crazy Heart

Best score: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Best director: Jason Reitman, Up in the Air