The Cakes Report

God Bless Rehema Barber

2010-01-26T07:15:00.004-06:00

David Hall

God Bless Rehema Barber--the short-lived Executive Director of Powerhouse Memphis, and curator of its last exhibit, Everywhere, Nowhere, Somewhere.

Upon my complimenting Ms. Barber on the selection of regional works, she suggested that Fleissig and/or Patterson had disapproved of the exhibit, but that she persisted anyway. So, how ironic that after years of forgettable crap from the absentee impresario, a transplant from Hartford, Conn. discovers the work of Tam Tran, completely off the radar of the art scene, and it catapults the photographer into the Whitney Biennial.

"I'm not known in the Memphis art world, really," says Tran. (Ellis, 2009) Hell no, you’re not; and that’s the ever-loving beauty of it all. It kind of puts the shallow pool of the Memphis art scene, with its endless appetite for low-brow gimmicks, shameless self-promotion and gamesmanship, in perspective. The phenomenal rise of a Tam Tran seems to occur in spite of, not because of, Memphis’ little apparatchik. If the art world is just a social club, cool—but let’s not patronize one another saying it’s about the art. We all know it’s about the personalities.

This is something that I fear will be glossed over or that Ms. Barber’s influence will be negated by some other social climber or opportunist. After all, she did pull up stakes to come to Memphis; then found herself unemployed before the year was finished. She should be director of Memphis’ first contemporary art museum we’ll never have. I hope she is prospering wherever she landed.

Bill Ellis, Tam Tran's search for identity leads to Whitney Museum's Biennial Commercial Appeal, December 27, 2009

http://www.gomemphis.com/news/2009/dec/27/self-portrait/

Winter Blues

2009-12-11T18:27:00.004-06:00

I am inclined toward an introverted personality, so I probably come off as a cold fish in social situations, and I’m very sorry for that. Going to graduate school twice a week and working as a teacher, it’s as if I’m living from deadline to deadline, and I can’t even look up. Both my classes ended this week accompanied by quite tedious final assignments; and in between, I delivered a presentation, about using technology to differentiate instruction, for the Mid-south Technology Conference at the Cannon Center

When I finally catch a break, like this evening, I feel hindered socially and a little deflated. I love the P& H, but I haven’t been in so long, I’m actually frightened of going tonight and being around a bunch of people. What is wrong with me? I feel isolated.

I used to be part of a Tuesday night movie club, where a loosely associated group would meet at Studio on the Square for a flick, and Bosco’s for discussion afterwards; some even wrote and emailed reviews. Of course, it was always casual and non-obligatory, plus there isn’t always a new film to attend every week. I need more fun and social interaction in my life. I’d be interested in starting a weeknight movie club like that after the holidays—would any other Mid-towners?

Sorry about lack of brevity, but I haven’t figured out how to tweet.

Oh no, not again!

2009-11-23T13:19:00.002-06:00

Psalm 109:8--A Prayer for Obama or Ourselves?

By: Diana Butler Bass

Monday November 16, 2009

Categories: Christians, Religion in the Public Square, prayer and ritual

During the last few days, Psalm 109:8, a Bible verse in the form of a "prayer for Obama," has topped the Google trends chart: "May his days be few; may another take his office." Evidently, a bumper sticker emblazoned with this verse has popped up in various parts of the country. It is a sort of right-wing Christian equivalent to the old "01.20.09" stickers looking forward to the end of the Bush era.

It was, most likely, intended as a joke. But it isn't really very funny. Especially since the next verse reads, "May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow." The passage goes on the same way--asking God to pulverize this poor fellow--that he lose all his worldly goods, that his orphans be abandoned, that his father be remembered as a sinner, and finally, that "his memory be cut off from the earth."

Thus, the "Prayer for Obama," does more than anticipate that he leaves office; it entreats God to destroy the president.

Psalm 109 belongs to a special category of the psalms known as "imprecatory" prayers--it is a lament in the form of petition to destroy one's enemies. It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another--and usually more powerful--person. The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice. This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms--full of violent images of vengeance and death. Many a biblical critic has struggled with its words--and not a few--including Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians--recommend that it not be used in public worship, much less as a bumper-sticker political slogan.

In his marvelous book, Reflections on the Psalms, C.S. Lewis observed:

In some of the Psalms the spirit of hatred which strikes us in the face is like the heat from a furnace mouth. In others the same spirit ceases to be frightful only by becoming (to a modern mind) almost comic in its naivety. Examples can be found all over the Psalter, but perhaps the worst is in 109 (p. 20).

Lewis suspects that it may be best to leave such psalms alone. But then he says that we must face "facts squarely."

The hatred is there--festering, gloating, undisguised--and also we should be wicked if we in any way condoned or approved it, or (worse still) used it to justify similar passions in ourselves (p. 22).

Lewis refers to these psalms as horrible, devilish, cruel, hateful, and evil. He believes that Psalm 109--and the poetry of its kind in the psalter--should point us back to the evil we carry within and teach us each how to behave with goodness, humility, and love.

According then, to the venerable C.S. Lewis, a "Prayer for Obama" is really a prayer for ourselves to go beyond "festering, gloating, undisguised" hatred. "If the Divine does not call to make us better, it will make us very much worse," he reminded his readers, "Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst."

http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2009/11/psalm-1098--a-prayer-for-obama_comments.html

Spiritual philosophy

2009-11-21T12:41:00.003-06:00

By David Hall

What I believe is inexorably tied to who I am at this juncture in life—the body is a conduit, thus it is strength of will cultivating meaning and fulfillment, under mitigating circumstances, which yields consciousness. My life’s project seems to be learning to accept responsibility for my own mind stream, whether in the sunshine or the storm.

My fellow creatures are all likewise engaged; it is our fates shared that infuses life with beauty and the sacred. My empathy with them supercedes gods or dogmas or concern with the afterlife. I champion the fulfillment and well-being garnered of anyone’s particular spiritual path.

I must even support and defend those who embrace religious views which may condemn me. Throughout life’s journey, I’ve abandoned once-cherished fallacies too narrow and cynical to sustain, as existence itself perennially tempers beliefs. Tolerance and empathy of others, therefore, must emanate from the recognition that I too am a work in progress, prone to internal struggles, predilections and shortcomings.

May all beings find happiness.

Fresh Hickey

2009-11-02T18:24:00.003-06:00

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2398143

Interview with Jonathan & Mary Long-Postal

2009-07-25T20:08:00.012-05:00

by David Hall

So, I cannot really review anything from the PowerHouse with any shred of objectivity, but I intended to review Mary and Jonathan’s wonderful collaborations back in May, when they did the gig at Askew, Nixon, & Ferguson--Myths & Marks. Man, being a teacher is just all-consuming, and I hated letting them down, but I found myself under an avalanche of school-related chum.

What I proposed is perhaps conducting an interview with the two of them regarding the radical artistic transition precipitated by their collaboration. In a nutshell, I’ve always associated Jonathan’s photographs with a stripped-down, documentary aesthetic—know your craft, yes, but the central factor is anticipating the golden moment. Mary’s encaustic paintings would seem stationed on the opposite side of the aesthetic universe—intuitive, abstract, jewel-toned, and whimsical. I would never have imagined a merging of the two. The result is edgy, sensual and with nods to kitsch or nostalgia.

One of the pieces at Askew, Nixon & Ferguson, "Vulcan Forging Wings," is included in Everywhere, Nowhere, Somewhere…a group affair at the PowerHouse, curated by director Rehema Barber. Bill Ellis of the Commercial Appeal suggests that the subject, a muscular African-American man hammering at an anvil, is a metaphor for “African American labor from the plantation system to the industrialized re-centering that took place during the Great Migration.” I had no idea until I read up on the mythology of Vulcan, the ancient Roman god of fire, who seemingly was always working at some other god’s bidding..

“Vulcan Forging Wings” is not a simple photograph, however. The sepia image is tinted with flecks of bright color and illuminated inside a light box constructed from a pitted and chipped old window frame. The duo has appropriated all manner of window frames and vintage televisions for their collaborative body of work. An element of kitsch is implied by the burlesque eroticism in many of the images and the cathode ray antiquity of the supports.

David: Jonathan, we briefly discussed the effect that digital technology has had upon photography and why you feel compelled to now make work that borders on sculpture. Would you please elaborate?

Jonathan: Photography, when I first started taking pictures, was valued as evidence or proof of both the world we live in an individual’s interpretation of that world by virtue of emphasis and wit. That is to say a photograph was taken and looked upon as evidence of a truth. A photograph could be used in court to put someone away or a plot point in a Noir film when doctored effectively. The first thought wasn’t that a photograph is altered--now when I look at a photograph, the first thing I wonder about is which bits were hobbled together.

In a way, this technical and aesthetic rigor prevented photography from the post war self-indulgences that plagued the visual arts and some forms of music. I don't know, perhaps this attitude was fostered by an environment where highly visible patrons did not make themselves known, thus freeing artists to please themselves. I feel this resulted in a loss of certain basic skill sets.

The best of photography (of course, in my opinion) lay with the journeymen who lived in-between art and the skills needed to operate these machines that capture the light, such as Robert Frank and Henri Cartier-Bresson. There was also the important aspect of the manually produced silver print. To see a beautiful print was to reflect on the time spent in a darkroom with chemistry molding the light--squeezing it out of your hands; in a sense painting the photograph with light.

Now with digital photography, all bets are off--the shots exist in an electronic format, either to be downloaded and manipulated in any way you could wish, and then as many copies spat out of a computer as you wish, all exactly the same. Now this does not affect the idea or instinct involved in creating an object of artistic value--but it does put into question for me the value of the physicality of the work.

That is to say, you now possess an object of value--something you can love.
It could be said that digital photography works best for me while still living inside the computer. To me, the image looks its best on a good screen.

So following these instincts I felt I had to resolve two issues. First was a decision to embrace the digital game as my tool. Photography has never been an art form to live in the past. It was born with machines and advanced with them-so in my case, I felt it cowardly to abandon this aspect.

The other issue was how I might take my ideas and produce an object of value--work that could be held dear for both its conceptual inspiration and physical rendering. This is what I started thinking. I need to develop my latent skill sets that I have readymade (which would be drawing stuff and building stuff) and take pleasure in the freedom that the digital pallet allows me. So I started, in a way, making little films. The story was up to the viewer. but I wanted to give them lots of rope.

First I started printing the images on canvas and painting on them. It didn't feel right to just slap brushstrokes about just to make them unique. I painted in glazes covering the whole image and gently changing the image as I grew more confident in my eye to hand coordination. It became clear soon if I wanted to keep more of the photographic element I would have to have color under the photo image too. I am still working this out but feel good about the direction.

Then it occurred to me that a natural place to view the image would be on a TV. I found a 60's TV that sort of reflected my feelings in that it was made of wood and not built with the intention of being obsolete in 3 years. I put in a backlit image and got it all up and running a felt pretty good about the object I had made. A kind of satisfaction I had not felt in a while. So it went from there.

David: Mary, you have said the collaboration with Jonathan is a fairly recent development for both of your studio practices. Artists tend to be independent, idiosyncratic and territorial in their creative endeavors. How do two seasoned artists with starkly individual styles collaborate? Are there any conflicts, or is it smooth-sailing?

Mary: Well, I had many concerns stemming from my expectations of conflict in all these areas (idiosyncrasies, egos and amount of personal control); in addition, our teaming up earlier to work on graphic design projects had been quite bumpy due to differing work styles. And throwing in the fact that we were in our first year of marriage, I was the one with the pessimistic outlook. Jonathan has been a photographer much, much longer than I have been a painter so one of my fears was of being overshadowed or pushed aside. However, once we set down our ideas on paper and the concepts began to take shape, for the most part it was fairly smooth sailing save for a couple studio related disasters (breaking a finished piece - ouch!).

I don't think anyone, including the two of us, could imagine our disparate styles and mediums being combined. My idea was to step back a bit to a time when I worked more with collage, assemblage and such; keep the current medium I work in--wax encaustic--and use Jonathan's work in a collage-like manner, which would mean actually pulling apart his work. I had concerns that this would be viewed as destroying his work--tearing out a part of something he had carefully composed. It seemed almost sacrilegious. Jonathan's attitude was mixed, there were images that captured him that did not inspire me and vice-versa; we were able to work most of that out.

What was most amusing though was the takes on myths. Jon went for classic stories and symbols; I went for the more day to day myths--the myth of security, home and family (the house and fence marks and icons); myths of American opportunity and racial equality. The Vulcan piece in particular seems almost prescient when we had Pat Buchanan opining last week that America was built entirely by whites. Another piece, "Homesickness" which has a woman who appears upset in the background and a home with wings in the foreground, was taken by many to be very sad and sentimental, when the piece, for me was someone sick of their home or place and yearning to break free or fly away.
In the end, once the initial idea for the piece was decided and Jonathan provided or composed the primary photographic elements, I was mostly given free rein and we were both pleased and surprised with the results.

Jonathon: I had never collaborated on my art—however, as a commercial photographer. I had worked on publications, books and films, so I knew the mind set. I respect Mary's work and taste so I felt pretty safe. I think it was harder for her than me. The ideas seemed to flow well together and some times she would take the lead on a work and sometimes I would—sometimes we would switch off depending on who had the clearest vision of the work at a given time. I was pretty much happy and inspired from the first image on. We did over 20 pieces in just a couple of months, and I think everything just kept getting clearer for me.

David: Mary, your handiwork is ever present, yet it is seamlessly integrated with the other elements at play.

So, you've been painting in what seems to be a formalist style up until this collaboration. This work implies provocative narratives and gothic characters. I cannot really isolate why, but it seethes with a kind of pulp eroticism. You are in several of the photographs too, yes? Do you transition easily from abstraction to more literal modes of expression? I've watched many artists, myself included, struggle with this.

Mary: I don't really transition well to the more literal, I prefer the expressiveness of letting a painting build and “happen.” However, regarding this collaboration, I feel my adding elements of collage, mark making, and seemingly random fields of color along with Jon's disassembling and rearrangement of several photographs push the work in the additional direction of Dadaism --I was destroying Jon's prints! And making artwork that wasn't palatable to decorators or corporate collectors! There was a sense of freedom and departure from my usual work, not that I am disparaging that work or my wonderful patrons, but I have always chafed at being “pigeonholed” and performing to specific expectations.

I don't believe I am in any of the works in this show, but I am in some previous work I have always been attracted to the gothic, and although these names may seem cliché to toss out, I love Flannery O'Connor and the earlier work of Cindy Sherman--I believe the series was called “Film Stills.”

Regarding the pulp and burlesque, when I was growing up, in the late 60's and early 70's, the newspapers and billboards had all of these adverts I found interesting, intriguing and humorous: movie ads for sex and exploitation and horror films--Poor White Trash, Last House on the Left, some S&M--nazi "Ilsa" and women-behind-bar' sorts of things. This was when newspapers could afford to run large graphic ads. For some reason these really stayed in my visual memory. Also I enjoyed all the old horror and film noir movies reruns on TV. So in this sense I did collaborate in some small way when Jonathan did a previous series with noir images made into paintings and the first run of TVs, he wanted to create scenarios that could be from a movie.

David: Will the two of you continue to collaborate and has the experience offered any insights or revelations that you wouldn’t have discovered otherwise?

Jonathon: I think we will continue working together. And in a way even work I do alone is now irretrievable informed by this experience and Mary's presence and input. I feel that I have been given a freedom in a way to approach creating work. While I will certainly go back and shoot black and white photography again with all my rules and printed in the darkroom--this has been a game changer

Mary: I most certainly believe we will, I recently sent some pieces on paper to be in the Perry Nicole group show that included more collage elements and house icons than my previous work, so there has been some overlap but my solo work will stay on its own course.

Trying new things with the materials pretty much pushed me to the limit physically and mentally. Some things take quite a bit of time and work but I learned quite a bit about the possibilities and limitations of the encaustic medium.

I also learned that given enough time, I can work with subject matter suggested by Jonathan, that I perhaps dismiss too easily if there is not an immediate spark at first. Some of the better pieces actually started out with me saying, "oh, I don't know, I'm just not feeling anything about this," but after a few days on the back-burner or by happy accident the moment comes. So, I am learning to trust his ideas and in the outcome the same way that he has trusted me.
It also revealed to me the need to sometimes work outside of the boundaries that the galleries expect and take some risks. I feel this re-energizes my own interest in my solo work in some odd way. Like taking an art-vacation with my husband!

Unit One on Shape-to-Form, in Couplets

2009-07-16T18:31:00.007-05:00

by David Hall

Thick as rope or fine as twine
Rounded or straight we draw a line
You can zigzag a line or make it wavy
Mixing them all beats biscuits and gravy

Pencils, crayons, markers and paint
To each of these you should acquaint
A line from one is not like another
Show maw and paw, sister and brother

Feelings and moods are expressed by line
From jagged and raw, to tender, soft and fine
Lines show wind, flight and motion
The darting of feet, or the waves of the ocean

Lines can be found wherever you look
At school, your house or beside a brook
Up and down, side-to-side, to and fro
From corner-to-corner a line will flow

Pablo Picasso had a bad reputation
But sported mad skills and a fertile imagination
Dynamic lines render nimble sophistication
Real or abstract, he blazed every innovation

Lasso a shape by closing a line
Of an organic or geometric design
Add dimension with shading and perspective
The rules of drawing form are highly effective

Early humans on cave walls scrawled
Forms of deer, horses, and bison recalled
With only mineral colors, simple tools and burnt sticks
The prehistoric artist was pretty slick

Merge shapes to build forms compounded
Cubic, conical, cylindrical, rounded
Place objects near, far and in between
Depict 3-D space within your scene

Albrecht Durer was of the pompous variety
The German artist enjoyed rock-star notoriety
At the age of 13, he could draw what he saw
By his mid-20s, all of Europe was in awe

Durer was especially fond of cross-hatch
Lines neatly bunched and woven into thatch
Lines tint a picture in lights and darks
Forms emerge the tangle of hatch-marks

A string of this verse is a line
Together with others it does refine
A form of speech explicitly defined
You can write them too, if you’re so inclined

Refreshing exhibit by Jonathan Postal & Mary Long-Postal

2009-05-12T21:26:00.006-05:00

Myths and Marks
Askew Nixon Ferguson Architects
1500 Union Avenue, Memphis, 38104
901-278-6868

Remarks forthcoming.

New watercolors

2009-05-12T20:14:00.002-05:00

Click on the pictures for a larger view.

Dealing with Charity Art Auctions

2009-05-12T10:40:00.001-05:00

by Paul Dorrell

see the comments to this article here: http://blog.absolutearts.com/blogs/archives/00000267.html

All right, it’s late in the evening, you’re exhausted after working your day job, and now you’re working your real job–your art. The phone rings, and some well-meaning dilettante on the other end wants you to donate a work of art to their School Auction, Public Television Auction, or some other kind of auction. They promise you great exposure, enhanced collectorship, and career advancement if you agree. Should you do it? No.

At least, don’t do it without establishing the following guidelines:

1) You set the minimum bid price, meaning that if the piece sells for $1000 on the retail market, it sells for no less at auction (unless you warrant a 10% discount). If no one meets the minimum price, the piece doesn’t sell.

2) You require that the organization pays you a percentage of the sale price, to cover your expenses (unless you’re already well-off; in which case, donate away).

3) You make certain that the event is established and well-attended before consenting.

Look, these people mean well. What they don’t understand is how much damage they’re doing to the art world, artist’s careers, and the art market in general. How? Inevitably, in most of these auctions, they virtually give away the work, undermining the market, making you look like you don’t deserve real prices, and making artists look as though they don’t deserve any better. The exposure you typically get through this process is insignificant, counter-productive, and convinces everyone who attends that artists and their work are not to be valued.

Once you establish the ground rules, these folks will respond accordingly. They’ll also begin to better appreciate the realities of your life, the sacrifices you have to make, and the difficulties you encounter on a daily basis.

Artists basically are among the last people in the world to ask a charitable donation of in terms of money, although they’re often generous with their time. The charity organizers want a donation? Let them go to a stock brokerage, law firm, medical practice, furniture store, or congressman. In your case, if they can’t abide by the above-listed standards, I advise you don’t participate–just be nice as you decline.

In my gallery, the word went out long ago that our rules are as I’ve listed, hence I get few calls for these auctions any longer. That’s fine with me. I give away my share of money, and I donate a lot of time to causes and people I believe in. But this business of perpetually demeaning artists out of ignorance or indifference is something I’ll have no truck with. The people who are responsible for this need to acquire a more informed view of the real challenges of the artist’s life. Until they do, this sad and presumptuous state of affairs will persist—just without my gallery, and our artists.

Art Auctions Harm Artists

2009-05-10T21:15:00.003-05:00

Is there some other way to generate annual funding?
By David Hall

Art auctions have been around in Memphis for as long as I remember, and I understand how conveniently paintings and sculptures—along with spirits—inspire patronage. The fundraisers used to be the place to unload second-rate artworks collecting dust in the studio, dear ole granddad’s paintings in the attic, or the homely work of generous friends. Everyone involved in the transaction, from the charitable giver and organization to the patrons, understood that the art is simply a souvenir commemorating a gift. Now that everyone is raising money in this manner, organizations have devised signature themes and distribute cookie-cutter supports, upon which artists must place their stamp.

We say that we value culture enough to sustain an infrastructure--museums, symphonies, theaters, charitable institutions, arts education in varied contexts, etc.--but then perennially, a feeding frenzy of mounting fundraisers diminish works of art as cheap, plentiful and expendable. Everything that is exciting about Memphis’ creative community is practically a sacrifice by artists and advocates anyway, and always has been. Heck, I happen to know respected vocalists, actors, writers and musicians completely burned-out on being asked to give away their work within their own particular milieus.

One carrot repeatedly dangled to artists is “exposure”—a flaccid term suggesting a leg up. My teacher Greely Myatt once said that the only opportunity that comes from giving your work away is to give more work away. There are artists the city over whose vita lists many more fundraisers than exhibitions. Some bargain hunters boast of only acquiring art at fundraisers. One does not have to be an economist to comprehend what back-to-back art auctions do to an art market. Memphis is lucky to have the few commercial galleries that foster regional artists; but by-in-large, art and artists are not really prospering here. Many have hit rock bottom.

Yet routinely, these events ask too much of artists and galleries—to undermine the market value of their own work, never mind the establishment and evolution of an authentic art economy beyond a dwindling handful of competing fiefdoms.

Artbutcher brand is Butcher’s Art

2009-05-08T00:17:00.006-05:00

By David Hall

I first met Dwayne Butcher at the University of Memphis—during a graduate critique. A video documenting his life as a repo man is all I remember from that evening. He and another student collaborated on the piece, and it nicely captured the seat-of-your-pants drama of stealing a car.

I felt then, and still do, that Butcher gleefully plays the role of the uncouth and impetuous art world interloper--the Jed Clampett cum player-extraordinaire. The shtick--which includes Miller High Life beer, chicken wings, girls in knee-high stockings, beer guts, etc—is a big part of his current exhibit at David Lusk Gallery, The Genius Hasn’t Killed Me Yet. In addition, he did some paintings that seemingly have nothing to do with any of those things.

I don’t really understand what the formalist, even prescribed paintings have to do with the videos, or Butcher’s bona fide work of art, his own indelible and ubiquitous persona. Six short films starring the artist are viewed on a Mac G4 laptop perched atop a pedestal christened with one of Butcher’s patented drips. One features a split screen of the artist eating fried chicken and drinking a case of Dos Equis; for another, he wades shirtless—consuming a six-pack amongst the floating empties while smoking stogies--inside a makeshift Visqueen pool lining the bed of a pickup.

A monologue dubbed over one of the shorts recounts the story of a sage coworker at Churches Fried Chicken teaching Butcher how to appear hard at work while hardly working. It seems one could sporadically slide the flat metal pans, loaded with chicken, across the countertops. A video profile by ArtsMemphis TV documents Butcher taping one of the pieces featured in Genius. The artist and brother Joe take turns digging a hole with shovels and pick axe, drinking beers and smoking. A voiceover relates the story of a father chastising his son for the prior night’s drinking by making him shovel a crater in the yard. Someone once said, there is nothing so pointless as doing well what shouldn’t have been done in the first place. Do I detect a theme?

Those trademark drips and runs of paint on the media pedestal are the bridge to the sandwich-board paintings and the ones on the wall. The sandwich boards are like the ones that graced the Interactions/Interruptions event on South Main last summer—could be the same ones, I don’t know. Large rectangles of plywood are hinged at the top, and painted, generally, in two or three colors, along with a sonorous frosting of viscous, dripping paint. The ones on the wall add some contrasting drips and a simple line drawing in fat-tipped, black marker; they are exceedingly more interesting for it. Butcher is something of a perfectionist when it comes to his surfaces. Colors are applied in rich bands of modulated tone with great care.

I am amused, however, by the bravado regarding his “slick” technique. I think to myself, “egad, look closer dude, you’re not quite that immaculate;” but then, that too may be part of the shtick. Audaciousness has always been part of Butcher’s charm. That feigned overconfidence and self-importance, the Arkansas drawl, bad grammar and self-deprecation--along with his amenable and generous personality--are endearing. Butcher’s advocacy for regional art, his community building and a whole lot of hard work, have won the artist perhaps every possible opportunity that can be attained in the Memphis art scene—a full scholarship to graduate school, glowing press in the daily, prestigious commissions and exhibitions, a teaching position, representation at Lusk’s, and the editorship of Number magazine. That’s a long way from DeWitt.

Unless already familiar with the Butcher phenomenon, the gallery visitor may perceive some incongruity between the high art ideals implied by the abstract paintings and the low brow vaudeville in everything else. Is he being impish, playfully toying with a slacker aesthetic by producing such austere paintings and utilizing hackneyed art world motifs like the drip; or is he truly a devout colorist, dripping without irony? I’d really like to know. I only wish that the video and audio could have struck a larger profile in the exhibit—by being projected, amplified or whatever. The hysterical shorts, the deadpan spoken-word elements and top-ten lists, along with the cunning painting titles capture the essence of Butcher’s daimon.

(through May 30th)

http://www.dwaynebutcher.com/
http://artbutcher.blogspot.com/

Hey, it's another art auction!

2009-04-12T11:13:00.002-05:00

Memphis Heritage finds 150 doors for artwork
By Cindy Wolff, Memphis Commercial Appeal
Sunday, April 12, 2009

When is a door not a door?

When it's a table, or a footstool. Memphis Heritage hopes creative minds look beyond the rectangle defined by Webster's as a "barrier by which an entry is closed and opened" and see the potential in an old door.

The group is holding a contest called Adapt-A-Door as a fundraiser with the local American Institute of Architects Memphis for people to transform doors into works of art, furniture, headboards -- anything they can imagine.

Seventy percent of the creation must be made using material from the door.

Memphis Heritage was created in 1975 to preserve the city's historic properties. The group has fought destruction of landmark properties. It won some and lost some. Since 1988, the group has surveyed and registered 13,000 structures in Memphis, which put Memphis at No. 6 of cities with buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

For the ones it hasn't been able to save, the group has received permission to go in and remove fixtures, doors, anything that has historic value.

That's left the group with about 150 doors just sitting in storage, said June West, executive director.

"It's hard to fit a door into a frame that wasn't built for it," said West. "So we decided to come up with a contest to use the doors."

Deadline to sign up for the contest is Thursday. It costs $25 to enter. On April 25 at 10 a.m., contestants are invited to a Donut Door Dash at the Historic Marine Hospital, 360 Metal Museum Drive, to find the door they want to use.

A silent auction fundraiser for Memphis Heritage will be held Aug. 22 at Memphis Heritage's Howard Hall to sell the door creations. Contestants get two tickets to the event when they enter the competition.

There will be prizes for design winners.

Is South Main still an Art District?

2009-04-11T18:50:00.003-05:00

I recently discovered that Jay Etkin has closed his gallery on South Main and moved his stable to a warehouse on Union. I’ve known Jay since the early 90’s when his gallery was in Cooper-Young—I’ve always admired his commitment to regional contemporary art. Jay has always been a friend to me, and has made space for me; even though my work has not earned either of us any real money. Years ago, he had moved into his new address across from Ephraim’s gallery just weeks before the Mayor declared South Main an Art District.

What makes South Main an “Art District?” What became of the vaunted “artist incubator?” What about “Artbrew” or other proposals to establish an artist co-op in the neighborhood? What tangible benefits were realized when the city declared the area an art district?

I’ll miss Jay’s gallery and wish him every happiness and prosperity in his wider artistic endeavors.

Are you kidding?

2009-04-06T19:06:00.005-05:00

Caught this plea for donated art on my school mail--especially love the part, "what do you get? Our sincere gratitude," ellipse. And, if you act now, you can also get tickets to the party for a discount. Hmmm.

Penn says, a gift of the Bible--response to Tn Lizzie

2009-03-23T20:38:00.002-05:00

Dear Cakes,
Why did you find this interesting? I am curious. E-mail me if you'd like to...
March 23, 2009 12:05 AM

Tn Lizzie

I think that there is a strong tendency to fear what we do not understand--another faith or nationality--and thus react against phantoms of our own making.

I am an individual abiding in a path that prioritizes compassion over dogma, is largely indifferent to the subject of God or the afterlife, extremely liberal, yet my world intersects with folks of all faiths and cultures. My mother is a Southern Baptist, my father a Mormon, my collegues Muslim, Pentecostal and who knows what.

For a freewheeling liberal like me, the hardest kind of religious perspective with which to reconcile is fundamentalist belief, precisely because its values are always defined in black and white terms. Common ground is often unrecognized, and religious differences destroy friendships, marriages and other relationships.

I believe that the world is getting smaller and we'd best recognize the beauty and humanity in one another, and savor the richness and bounty of divergent cultures. If we do not, religion will become a blugeon.

Continuation of "discourse" launched on Artbutcher blog...

2009-03-20T12:31:00.006-05:00

regarding the role and reception of art criticism. Background: here and here.

Well, I don’t imagine that the following will get any more traction than previous remarks; but sometimes, a foundering attempt at dialogue and discursive-ness as much demonstrates the general climate as any would-be conversation.

Regarding the suggestion from some of us that the outspoken leaders of the art community should be writing the art criticism--I don’t expect them to be all things, but I respect them more when they apply the “buck stops here” approach. I think I can fathom several such esteemed professors or non-profit captains taking an evening or two, and between them, add a review or two at least as often as Number comes out—and enjoy a nice family meal out with the proceeds. They have as much time as a creator, who must sweat other work to subsidize creating. The bottom line is that artists working on their own are tired of being asked to give their talents away, be it a professional singer with the symphony, the ballet dancer, the painter enlisted by the annual charities or the writer who earns by the word.

All across the regional cultural spectrum, there's this kind of desperation mentality, in which just getting to participate must serve as its own reward. And that mindset perpetuates itself pretty well with an annual influx of new blood, talent and idealism. That is to whom the panelists at the critics forum were appealing, it seemed. But there are just as many veterans who are sort of planted here--burned-out, tapped-out or jaded, and who have their own mouths to feed and children to raise; plus, so many of those fresh idealists don’t last too long, do they?

Cycles of artistic subcultures first seed here, then wither, or take that energy elsewhere where it can be nourished. Meanwhile, look at longstanding non-profit arts groups—how can it be that this enormous endowment of arts funding never assimilates into the marrow of the culture, where creators are just presumed to work for free or a trifle?

A friend and I both were shocked and intrigued by observing the fact that a recent art auction was an invitational only, and that the art made for the auction was of the highest quality, or that last years annual art auction for public television was juried—it is as if a corner has been turned, and artists are now actually competing for mere “exposure.” Exposure is peddled ever cheaper by the day. Imagine if furniture stores were asked to give their best wares to a dozen or more high-profile charities all year long--to be sold to the highest bidder—while they attempt to compete in a furniture market. Yes, it’s a ridiculous analogy, because there is no real market for regional art.

One cannot really acknowledge those factors that inhibit cosmopolitan culture, because it may hurt someone’s feelings, kill a sale or endanger an endowment. Memories are short and last year’s lions fade into the woodwork or head for greener pastures. I really didn’t understand what Dave Hickey meant years ago when he declared it is almost impossible to be a critic in a “second city.” I thought that his allusion was to the kind of societal pressures, and that is certainly a portion of it. But Lurlynn put her finger on it—it is reluctance in the culture for self-reflection.

I recognize a classification of art writing, beginning with boosters, the extension of the press release (or straight up cut and paste), a top ten list, a personality profile or light-hearted interview. On the next level is the journalistic story, review, or in-depth interview. The final tier is critical writing, encompassing the elements of description, interpretation, analysis, and evaluation. Much art writing dwells exclusively upon description and interpretation. Analysis and evaluation are the elements that must be cherished and risked by the thoughtful writer. The critic is interested in big picture thinking, mindful of social, historical, political and cultural contexts. As a necessity, they will engage the “hard dialogue,” in Lurlynn’s words.

Given the limited resources and opportunities, the abiding emphasis is always on the first tier, because it is sensitive to the vulnerable, and charitable to the status quo. We even get a crumb or two of the second tier of art writing. But everyone is in survival mode. Thus look for more fluffy prose, sans criticality, because the local art economy--already lean--is getting leaner and meaner.

It is easy to pardon and find empathy with the cycle, as it is seemingly part and parcel of Southern culture itself—in anxious circumstances, loyalty and fraternity are prioritized over assessment. The primary and secondary players in the art community, even the tertiary posers and grazers, are but a sliver of a largely unacknowledged subculture; yet one that stratifies and homogenizes in much the same manner as the culture at large. The critical thinking type of critic may ignore, for only so long, obsolete conventions of antebellum thinking, but eventually he or she will sell out, quit or pay some dues.

How Radio Wrecks the Right--from The American Conservatiive

2009-03-04T06:50:00.001-06:00

Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
By John Derbyshire

With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.”

Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism. There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It’s energizing and fun. What’s wrong is the impression fixed in the minds of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, “The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.” Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development.

See more here

I found this interesting.

2009-03-02T06:27:00.000-06:00

Truthseekers need to plan a Spring cookout

2009-02-25T15:12:00.004-06:00

Ok, we've all stopped blogging--but virtual relationships are too tenuous to cultivate without some reality-based ones to substantiate them. Heck, I'll venture outside of Mid Town (I'm skeered) just to see everybody. I'll start a freaking poll.

Teaching, by the way, is killing me.

Happy Holidays, loves

2008-12-26T02:40:00.002-06:00

It was a quiet holiday with my wonderful mom, cool uncle and a dear family friend. The holiday started shaky—my older brother’s wife has bugged out on my mom, and the two of them did not come to her house this Christmas. I don’t generally enjoy this time of year because expectations are high, and emotions are volatile. I won’t go into bloody detail, but I had to maneuver some familial tidal waves.

You know, one just accepts there are some things that cannot be controlled, especially a family member’s petty grudges or irritability. It is more difficult maintaining equanimity to see your own mother sad and suffering because of vindictiveness. May some benefit come from all of this, and cultivate wisdom within everyone concerned. That’s the best I can hope for.

I watched a couple of Christmas movies—The Santa Clause II with Tim Allen was fun, and I always have to see It’s a Wonderful Life every year. Did anybody see the program on the History Channel about the Christmas truce during WWI?

Moderation

2008-11-11T12:02:00.000-06:00

Moderation is disabled--behave yourself, Charles.

Larry Norman--RIP

2008-11-09T11:31:00.003-06:00

I just discovered that Larry Norman passed away ealier this year from heart complications with which he'd dealt for quite a few years now. He meant a lot to me growing up--I bought Something New Under the Son, Upon this Rock, Only Visiting this Planet, etc. on vinyl in the 70s. I finally got to see him here in Memphis only a few years ago at one of those churches in a strip mall on Sycamore View and Hwy 70; long after becoming a Buddhist. He was frail and broke, but still such a compelling performer and humble in person.

I made it a point to wait to speak to him and told him what an impression he had made in my life, but did not have the heart to tell him of my change in path, even though i know he would not have judged me. We hugged one another like friends.

Hope y'all enjoy this video.

Mwenda Bosco from the Congo--another favorite

2008-11-08T18:57:00.003-06:00

Let's take a break, everyone

2008-11-08T06:38:00.003-06:00

Charles Page has made it his preoccupation to come here and persecute anyone who doesn't approve of his violating an abuse-survivor's privacy. Several of us have spent considerable time deleting his ugly comments, and he says he will not stop until the survivor personally requests it--which is tantamount to feeling the liberty to poop on a neighbor's front lawn until he asks you not to.

Our only concern has been the privacy of the survivor, because no one who has suffered abuse should have to be continually victimized by it. It also must be stressed that these descriptions are fictions, figments of his imagination, as he has no first-hand knowledge of the details and no basis upon which to editorialize.

Several of us have contacted the Memphis Police Department's Tara Bowen, with links to Charles' filth. I likewise encourage anyone else concerned with the future happiness and well-being of this brave survivor and his family and friends to do likewise; because church authorities, Charles' wife and family are obviously unaware of, or apathetic to, his activities. These obsessions may even have an impact or threaten Charles' own family and neighbors. You may contact Ms. Bowen here: tara.bowen@memphistn.gov

I have temporarily turned comment moderation on, because my patience is getting thin, as is that of my wonderful co-moderators. We all need a break.

Do not give in to anger, but have compassion for Charles, even as we seek to intervene with decisive action.

IM Conversation with a Survivor, 11.06.08

2008-11-06T22:40:00.004-06:00

Charles, does your God approve of you and the suffering you perpetuate? Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; or, what goes around, comes around. I pity you.

Survivor: I am so discouraged.

Cakes: about?

Survivor: What I just emailed y'all...maybe this isn't healthy that I feel so degraded and powerless by what CP is saying and doing. Maybe the lack of concern by the people I have contacted for help or maybe I am crazy for being so sickened by this. Why do I feel so protective of a person no one will even tell what is being said? Why am I letting one insane man's actions upset me so much?

Cakes: I heard a Christian say one time that we are the hands and feet of God, and he does his work through us...

Survivor: But it discourages me that the other hands and feet won't care.

Cakes: In many ways, it is not the victim or his family's responsibility to deal with CP, and if he is not really a member of CFBC, perhaps the leadership doesn't have a legal case. Of course they have a moral responsibility to confront him, but I don't have much confidence in Pastors and Padres--never have. I'm glad I'm a solitary Buddhist...

Survivor: Unfortunately, neither do I

Cakes: Churching is a business, and that takes priority over everything it seems...

Survivor: But as humans they should care. Perverts FEED on this stuff...the old stinking man who molested me used some of the same language that CP uses and justified it like CP...while I had to leave my body to float on the ceiling away from his smell and the pain...I am not healthy right now......CP is bringing all that back with his obsessive filth...that's what it is. I am going to have to go into my shell and get away from this until I can refuel…them doing nothing is feeling like the ones who did nothing to save me and tried to make it my fault...and I was suppose to protect myself because the parents wouldn't help me. I get it...no wonder I am sick.

Cakes: That happened long ago, and I'm not in some elevated position of never having experienced it and then making judgments...my parents didn't seem to care either and I suffered for years, but if that man is still on top of you, you're harming yourself...I can help you meditate if you want to and help you get past the mental anguish. It is about protecting and taking responsibility for your own mind stream.

Survivor: Do normal people just not see how others are harmed by this behavior...unless you have been thru this you can't care? Do they not know at all?

Cakes: Most people treat religious affiliation like a possession, a security blanket; and it is part and parcel of obtaining and collecting goods for themselves--selfishness and piety, spiritual materialism--why I don't like the sinner's prayer. A religion based upon what it can do for me is just like every other desire and obsession. So one has their assurance, or I've got mine, so screw everybody else and their problems. “I get all this and heaven when I'm done”--a favorite Christian song lyric I remember...

Whatever is done about CP, we must do. But you must make your health and well-being a priority before that. We should tread lightly when dealing with any survivor, family and friends, because they may not be capable of digesting it. Besides, the scope of CPs reach is limited and he is a sick puppy with a blog no one visits.

Don't get worked up about this--all things pass. Rely on your faith, develop more open-heartedness toward the suffering of others and love yourself...

Survivor: THEN LETS DO IT. I"M NOT AFRAID, but lets stop the agony by doing whatever we should do now. I see I am trying to somehow right the wrongs done in my life....hoping these men will step up.....do it differently. I will do whatever is the most reasonable thing to do. I am emotional and need help deciding what that is. Thank you Cakes for being nurturing to me.

Cakes: We cannot control our world--best not to try--but we can take full responsibility for our own mind streams; even till the time we stare death right in the face. But it takes acceptance of ourselves, our foibles, letting go of regret and what-might-have-beens, reaching out to others who are suffering and always promoting both wisdom and action.

Survivor: You know the pain of sexual abuse stops. But, the pain that no one cared never stops; that has been MY obsession: to care and to protect my children. After all the work I've done to heal, I am still a mess. I am very willing to participate or do alone what you think will stop CP in this area of abuse; but I think I need to withdraw until I can heal myself.

Cakes: Relinquish any expectations of others while encouraging them to do the right thing. That may seem like an oxymoron, but it is not. When I confronted (name withheld) about his abuse, I had to let go of any expectations of how he would respond, Of course I wanted an apology and reconciliation, but he acted as if he didn't know what I was talking about...I still handed all that baggage to him, and I've not shouldered it since.

We experience what we resist--first be selfish and feel everything that you feel wholeheartedly, viscerally--cry, scream, write letters, etc., whatever you have to do to fully penetrate the edges of that suffering; if you do, you'll find that it's power over you decreases significantly and almost instantly.

It will take a process and gradual healing, because these pains are persistent and ingrained, but you can get to the opposite side of suffering. My only concern is to abate the suffering of (name withheld), who I wouldn't recognize on the street, not to reconcile any deep-seated issue brought up in me by CP's persecution of this person. You could heal much directing your energy to abating suffering in others--it makes our suffering seem like ghosts and mirages.

Survivor: I will think about everything you have said and I appreciate you very much.

Open Letter to Collierville First Baptist Church

2008-11-05T21:15:00.002-06:00

Dear Chuck Herring, Mark LeGrone, Tommy Vinson, et al,

My name is Cakes, a former Southern Baptist, born and raised, and now a Buddhist practitioner. I am also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, which is the primary context upon which—in January of 2007--I became involved with a group of Christians alienated after the pedophile scandal at Bellevue Baptist Church.

A member of your church, Charles Page, has chosen to repeatedly traffic in vile and pornographic descriptions of the acts that led to the dismissal of Bellevue’s disgraced minister, including the name of his victim; not merely on his own blog, but mine and anywhere that he takes a notion. Further, he takes pleasure in badgering former Bellevue members made unwelcome by seeking renewal and reconciliation through their conscientious efforts to enact substantive consequences for the failures of, not only the pedophile-minister, but also those ministers that knowingly shielded him.

It is repugnant that the survivor of this crime would have his name dragged through the mud over and over, and to be further victimized by a stranger who does so in the name of some divine mandate. Charles Page is suffering from some emotional or mental disorder, and worthy of compassion; yet not so much that he be allowed to perpetuate the suffering of others, especially one who has suffered sexual abuse, and the many victimized through intimidation, social expulsion and hubris.

An intervention is in order, to provide Charles Page with the help he needs to find healing from his preoccupation with a young survivor; who like any survivor, just wants to move on with his or her life. Furthermore, Collierville First Baptist Church is supposed to be representative of Christ, and as such, I would think that a member peddling in such depraved and destructive speech—in the name of Christ--would be a priority for the spiritual mentors of this poor, misguided soul. If not, then the church leadership is nothing more than another bunch of empty suits who value career over conscience.

Also, I have a copied the page to my hard drive as well as kept an archive of every putrid comment he has dumped on my blog. Do something, please!

Dialogue with the precious Tn Lizzie

2008-11-05T02:51:00.004-06:00

Methinks it's not over yet:
What about the Electoral College?

"After Election Day, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December [that would be Dec. 15], these electors assemble in their state capitals, cast their ballots, and officially select the next President of the United States...

The votes of the electors are then sent to Congress where the President of the Senate opens the certificates, and counts the votes. This takes place on January 6 [Tuesday], unless that date falls on a Sunday. In that case, the votes are counted on the next day...

The President-elect and Vice President-elect take the oath of office and are inaugurated two weeks later, on January 20th."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sounds to me like this is not a done deal yet. Wouldn't that just be like God, to do what seems impossible!?!

Dearest Cakes,
I am sorry that you are still sick. I am even sorrier about the American media handing our free republic over to a Socialist. I read earlier today about Hitler's rise to power. It reads very much like our headlines today. THAT scares me.

I also read this, "In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government."

Where is Obama gonna take us?

Well TnLizzie,

I don't see any resemblance of the rise of Hitler to the Chancellor-ship of Germany, and then the "election" of Hitler after the death of Hindenburg. I didn't see in Obama's book the vilification of the Jews, or any other race, homosexuals and "deviants," like those that poured from the Fuhrers pen, or stoking the fears and anger of the populace on the heels of a humiliating military defeat.

If anything, Republicans have been the agents of fear this campaign, painting "Brother Hussein" as a Muslim (even if he was, so what), a terrorist, cobbling so-called "defense of marriage" legislation (homosexuality doesn't affect the 1-in-3 fractures of heterosexual marriages), a socialist (do you use a public library, public transportation, the national Highway system, pay into and benefit from social security?), his citizenship disputed--no matter, I would never call Republicans a bunch of Nazis.

Rather than saying you perceive the similarities, would you please explicate them, because again, all we have are the words from which to discern the arguments. We must put all the words on the table, so that each may weigh, and yes, scrutinize and debate the viability of propositions in the light of day.

The Conservative majority in the Supreme Court suspending the tabulation of votes and picking the president, secrecy in the executive office on many fronts, the invasion of a sovereign country based upon the false assurances of dangers from our executives, unqualified cronies placed in positions of responsibility--to our citizens' detriment--cronies in the Justice Department, spying on citizens and outing CIA operatives for a political vendetta, etc. seem more dictatorial to me; yet I would never call the Bush administration fascists.

This is not a democracy, rather a Constitutional Republic--I for one would like to see the country elect leaders through popular votes rather than the Electoral College. But let's be honest--both Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in maintaining the primacy of this practice. That is not likely to change anytime soon.

You think homosexuality is a sin; I do not. If you think orientation is a choice, then you will naturally see the rights sought and granted as a privilege, but my friends in mutually established, committed relationships only want the rights enjoyed and taken for granted by heterosexuals.

Since our founders were careful that this country did not promote any religious viewpoint above another, yet not abridge any one's practice thereof, it neither harms you nor heterosexual marriage one iota for those you consider engaged in an abomination to partake of the same co-mingled households you obviously value. You know, in Nazi Germany, homosexuals were cooked in those same ovens alongside Jews and people experiencing a disability.

Deregulated American corporations moving its labor to third-world countries and eliminating an American middle class while dividing the nation into the very wealthy and the very poor is also redistribution of wealth. Making health care only available to those that can afford it, and letting the rest become ill and die is privileging one group over another. Seeking to undermine public education through federal legislation and unfunded mandates likewise privileges one class of peoples over another, even if they merely gained that wealth through a trust fund, as opposed to vaunted "rugged individualism."

That is not class warfare; it is rather stating verifiable data. I don't understand how Christian Conservatives reject the theory of evolution, yet seemingly fully embrace the convenient tenets of social Darwinism.

It is time to cease the incendiary and calculated language that paints the "other" as evil and two-dimensional.

That is my purpose here.

From NRO's the Corner: John Derbyshire

2008-11-05T00:30:00.002-06:00

Sour Loser [John Derbyshire]

Just watched Wonder Boy's speech. Hmph. "Callused hands"? When did he ever have callused hands?

All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden! …

I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against from new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now?

What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters.

What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters.

Sour? You bet I'm sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now? Where are they headed this next four years? Down the toilet, that's where. Pah!

Yes we can!

2008-11-04T23:18:00.003-06:00

It is 11:18pm, November 4, 2008, and I have just watched--from my sick-bed--President-elect Obama's acceptance speech with tears in my eyes. How wonderful to know that this country has made such strides beyond the ignorant and bigoted days of past, when a African-American individual couldn't even use the same water fountain as a white individual.

Like many southern whites, I was raised in a family atmoshere which both feared and loathed African-Americans, no doubt passed from generations prior. I never thought I'd see the day when a majority of the American people would affirm the full citizenship and participation of every individual into the fabric of this nation. This is a watershed moment and I hope that it reaps waves of good will and racial reconciliation, and not the least in our own fractured community.

I know what this means to my kids, and I rejoice with them.

I know most of my visitors are McCain supporters--I am not here to gloat; and I believe he is a good and honorable man. I encourage you to continue to make your voices and values heard.

God bless America.

More Obama Equals Hitler Tripe

2008-11-03T22:46:00.002-06:00

I'm sure Anon will appreciate the thesis of this man's tortured prose. Does anyone think, read history or regard contexts anymore, or just bait irrational fears? This Obama/Hitler nexus has got me fearing something all right--that these people actually vote based upon such desperate and asinine beliefs.

If one doesn't like Obama on principle, that can be respected; but this kind of drool is just evil, in my opinion.

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK) 10/14/08

"you know when I saw this and posted it, I thought about Germany having there elections back in the 30's. Today we say how could those German people allow such horrible monstrous deeds... I mean killing 6,000,000 Jews like that!!! Being the monstrous, fascist, tyrant that Hitler was. How did they elect him? My guess is he did not sit there and tell everyone that he was going to do it. I bet you he painted a rosy picture of how he was going to improve the country. But nobody looked at him and saw how he was a student of Nietzsche, and a fascist.

And remember some basic philosophy of school 101 people … the line is such

Socialist/Communist -- Democrat -- Republican -- Fascist
As you see from the line a Socialist / communist is on the far left, and go to the far right and you find a fascist.

And just like in the past where the German people did not look Hitlars beliefs from his youth, we are not looking at Obama’s upbringing like this lady in this article/editorial pointed out. I just hope that Obama does what he says he is going to do. Because I for one really do like what I hear the man saying he is going to do. But the fact is his history does not show that he will do it.

Oh and before people call me a rascist and a fascist like in some previous posts.. I am a republican to the bone."

Protecting the Life of Barak Obama

2008-11-02T08:54:00.002-06:00

The following I recieved from my friends in the Pagan community. I have seen Obama being compared to Hitler, in other places people are speculating that he is the anti-Christ, and otherwise we live in a country that still has many stupid, bigoted and violent individuals. An assanination plot on Obama has already been thrwarted.

Please do make make this thread a repository for your views of Paganism. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, everyone already knows what you think of Pagans and their path (are you listening, Charles?). That is not what this post is for and I will not be drawn into a debate on the finer points of their beliefs. Like I tell my students, "cause no one here to feel disrespected, then you'll never have to be corrected."

We have been made aware that a clear and present danger hangs over the head of Sen. Barrack Obama. Unfortunately, we still live a country where many are taught to hate and fear others based on nothing more than the hue of their skin. Our community mobilizes all the time to send healing and protection to others, and we hope you will join us in a multi-faith magickal effort to keep Barrack Obama--and his family--safe from harm as he transitions into the role of our President.

This is not a campaign to tell you who to vote for. This is about protecting the life of another human being. We live in a society which has been taught to solve its problems with violence and murder. The gravity of this issue was brought to our attention by a Christian man who will be praying to his God, in his way, along with us. We request that the Pagan community, and others who care about life, join us in rituals, spells, and prayers of protection during three separate 24 hour periods:

1) Election night. Sen. Obama will be exposed to danger as he accepts his Presidential role. The majority of assassination attempts worldwide have occurred within thirty minutes of completing a public speech.

2) Yule/Midwinter. For those of us who are Pagan, we know that this is a time of new beginnings, a perfect time to add protection to the man who will be in the White House within the following month. (Our non-Pagan friends may wish to work together at Christmas, Kwanzaa, or Twelfth Night.)

3) Inauguration Day (January 20). Sen. Obama will take the oath of office on the portico of the Capitol Building in front of as many as 250,000+ people. He will then take a car or will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue in his own inaugural parade to the White House. There he and his family will sit outdoors and watch the rest of the parade.

Please use all your networking resources to pass along this request to as many Pagans and Pagan organizations as you can. After that, the momentum will build on its own. Leave no one out! Do not leave out Christians, Jews, or others who may wish to join this effort, assisting us by connecting with the face of the creator they worship. This is not a political issue, it is a value-of-a-single-human-life issue. If the racism situation were reversed, many of us would offer the same lifesaving energy to Sen. McCain.

And, when all this is complete, maybe we should start sending love and healing to those people living in blind hatred who created a need for this sort of mobilization in the first place. With love to all and harm to none,

Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, author and artist
Headmaster, Grey School of Wizardry
Church of All Worlds

Edain McCoy, author, teacher,
student and Concerned Citizen

John Mark stands for reason on the Bratton Report

2008-11-01T23:28:00.004-05:00

My old friend and nemesis over at Bratton's is talking sense on a thread where Obama is being compared to Hitler. Thank you, sir, for taking the high road.

"I'm still a little reluctant to equate Obama with Hitler. Heck, I'll just say that I reject that comparison entirely.

Hitler's actions spoke much louder than his words. Whether this will be true of Obama remains to be seen.

But if we've learned anything over the last few years, it's that it is not fair to allege the worst possible crimes against people we don't like just because we don't like them. Sure we're headed for hard times, but history will speak for itself when it's all said and done."

http://thebrattonreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-from-obama-cults-music-department.html

Conservatives for Obama

2008-10-27T22:31:00.001-05:00

McCain is a decent man!

2008-10-13T23:21:00.001-05:00

Former Bush speech writer on McCain's negative campaign

2008-10-13T23:12:00.003-05:00

Obama in the Corner
by David Frum
National Review Online
Oct. 8, 2008

Let me say at the outset:
I’ll be voting for John McCain on November 4.

I’ll be voting for the man who was right about the surge, who holds clear-eyed views about terrorism and America's enemies, who has fought for leaner government over 20 years, who maneuvered the Roberts and Alito nominations through the Senate, who was right about Vladimir Putin, and who has throughout his career shown a personal candor and humility unusual in national politics.

Like a lot of Republicans, I’ll be swallowing a great deal in order to cast my vote. I’ll be swallowing objections to McCain’s views on issues from immigration to campaign finance reform. I’ll be swallowing doubts about personality and temperament. And above all, I’ll be swallowing some fairly intense suspicions that a McCain administration would veer quite sharply to the left – as McCain reverts to a career-long practice of pandering to conservatives during elections and then apologizing to liberals afterward.

I’ll do all this because I’ll be voting as much against Barack Obama – the most liberal Democratic presidential nominee since Walter Mondale – as for John McCain.

Bona fides established? OK, now for the sermon.

American voters are staggering under the worst financial crisis since at least 1982. Asset values are tumbling, consumer spending is contracting, and a recession is visibly on the way. This crisis follows upon seven years in which middle-class incomes have stagnated and Republican economic management has been badly tarnished. Anybody who imagines that an election can be won under these circumstances by banging on about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is … to put it mildly … severely under-estimating the electoral importance of pocketbook issues.

We conservatives are sending a powerful, inadvertent message with this negative campaign against Barack Obama's associations and former associations: that we lack a positive agenda of our own and that we don’t care about the economic issues that are worrying American voters.

Republicans used negative campaigning successfully against Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, it’s true. But 1988 and 2004 were both years of economic expansion, pro-incumbent years. 2008 is like 1992, only worse. If we couldn’t beat Clinton in 1992 by pointing to his own personal draft-dodging and his own personal womanizing, how do we expect to defeat Obama in a much more anti-incumbent year by attacking the misconduct of people with whom he once kept company (but doesn’t any more)?

Here’s another thing to keep in mind:

Those who press this Ayers line of attack are whipping Republicans and conservatives into a fury that is going to be very hard to calm after November. Is it really wise to send conservatives into opposition in a mood of disdain and fury for a man who may well be the next president of the United States, incidentally the first African-American president? Anger is a very bad political adviser. It can isolate us and push us to the extremes at exactly the moment when we ought to be rebuilding, rethinking, regrouping and recruiting.

I’m not suggesting that we remit our opposition to a hypothetical President Obama. Only that an outgunned party will need to stay cool. A big part of Obama’s appeal is his self-command. It’s a genuinely impressive quality. Let’s emulate it. We’ll be needing it.

How Valid is Palin's Abortion Attack on Obama?

2008-10-13T22:22:00.002-05:00

Monday, Oct. 13, 2008
How Valid is Palin's Abortion Attack on Obama?
By Michael Scherer / Washington
for Time

With less than 23 days to go before Election Day, John McCain and Sarah Palin are launching a range of attacks on their Democratic opponent that revolve around one central question: Who is Barack Obama? Whether these broadsides focus on Obama's ties to former domestic terrorist William Ayers, his votes on funding troops in Iraq or his record on crime in Illinois, they all aim at emotional, hot-button issues that the McCain campaign hopes will cut through the political clutter and current financial crisis to help convince voters that Obama is not the man they thought him to be — nor is he fit for the most powerful job in the world.

The McCain campaign's latest salvo centers around perhaps the hottest issue of all, abortion, which up till now hasn't dominated much of the campaign conversation.

Late last week, and with little fanfare, Palin began claiming at rallies and in a radio interview that Obama had once opposed providing medical care for certain newborn babies, who later died. Without any clear context, Palin's statements seemed to suggest that Obama supported a form of infanticide.

"As a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn't even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion," Palin said on Saturday, during a Johnstown, Pa., rally. "These infants, often babies with special needs, are simply left to die."

The allegation was part of a broader line of attack that Palin, who opposes abortion in all cases including rape and incest, used to paint Obama as the real extremist on the issue of abortion. "A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn."

Two days earlier, during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show, Palin said Obama had voted against providing medical care to babies who were alive after attempted abortions. "It's very appalling," Palin said. "If more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we have already seen." Hours later, in Wisconsin, she repeated the charge that Obama had voted against providing "health care for a child who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion."

In each case, Palin's words were carefully chosen for maximum effect, without employing any outright falsehoods. Taken in isolation, however, her statements were also quite misleading, as they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies after birth who had a chance of survival.

The reality is very different. Between 2001 and '03, Obama repeatedly voted to oppose bills in the Illinois senate that would have declared, simply, that any child "born alive" as a result of an abortion shall be protected as a "human person" under the law. The bills broadly defined a live birth as any child outside the mother who shows voluntary movement, breathes or has a beating heart, among other attributes.

At the time, as the Obama campaign has pointed out, Illinois state law already required doctors to provide medical treatment for all children born after abortions who demonstrated viability, which was defined under the law as a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." The Born Alive legislation, therefore, would have primarily impacted a different category of babies — those born with life signs that doctors decided did not have a reasonable chance of survival.

During the debate over the bill, Obama and other abortion supporters used the term "previable fetuses" to describe these situations. Obama voiced concern that if applied to state abortion law, the Born Alive legislation's recognition of a "human person's" rights for the previable would complicate the legal underpinnings of abortion rights.

In a 2001 statement on the state senate floor, Obama explained his rationale for opposing the bill. "Whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal-protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term," he said. "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

At the time, pro-choice leaders and legislators across Illinois joined Obama in making this argument. "It would have completely eviscerated Roe v. Wade," says Pam Sutherland, who was president of the state's Planned Parenthood chapter at the time. "[The] bills were so unclear that it would have been litigated forever." Obama was not alone in heeding these concerns. More than 20 other senators joined Obama in opposing one of the early versions of the Born Alive bill.

In addition, the bill was packaged with other legislation that would have established liability for any doctor or hospital that "harms or neglects or fails to provide medical care" for any live child after birth. Coupled with the Born Alive legislation, this would have established liability for the death of children with life signs after abortions, even if those children had no chance of survival. The Illinois State Medical Society, which represents the state's doctors, sided with Obama, opposing the package of bills because they "attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neo-natal care and greatly expanded the civil liability for physicians."

The principle advocate for the Born Alive legislation in Illinois was Jill Stanek, a nurse who testified in 1999 that babies deemed nonviable after birth following abortions were left to die in what she called a "soiled utility room." Since then, Stanek has become an outspoken opponent of Obama's candidacy. In a recent interview, she explained that one of the purposes of the legislation was to remove the decision about a child's viability from the doctor performing the abortion, whom she maintains cannot be trusted to make an accurate judgment. "If a baby is going to be alive at his abortion, there should be a second physician on hand," Stanek said.

In recent months, Stanek has been working with an independent group, BornAliveTruth.org, which has been running television ads in swing states that feature an abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen, who says that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." This claim is misleading, because Jessen was deemed viable after she was born following an abortion procedure. In an interview with TIME, Stanek argued that the ad should still be seen as accurate, since it is possible that a doctor could have made a different decision. "It is more of a hypothetical," she said. "Obama would have agreed with the abortionist if the abortionist so chose to have her be claimed nonviable."

The debate over the meaning of Obama's votes is further complicated by a legal dispute between abortion opponents and supporters over the relative meanings of the Illinois legislation and a similar federal law that President Bush signed in 2002. The federal law was unopposed by pro-choice groups, because they did not believe it would have any legal impact on abortion availability, which is generally governed by state law. "There was never any federal abortion law," explains Sutherland. "So when they passed that law, it did not change anything. It was just a statement."

Nonetheless, McCain has argued on the campaign trail that Obama should still be condemned for his state votes, in light of the federal vote. "Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions — living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as 'previable,' " McCain said in an August radio address. "This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Obama voted against it."

Like Palin's statements late last week, McCain's radio address was carefully written to avoid outright falsehoods, while effectively misleading voters about the background of Obama's votes. It is true that Obama voted against a state bill that had language similar to a federal law. But the Obama campaign says Obama would not have objected to the federal law if Obama had been in the U.S. Senate at the time.

The campaign also says Obama would not have objected to an amended version of the state's Born Alive legislation, which passed after Obama left the state senate. Like previous proposals, the amended bill declared that any child born alive was a "human person," but it also specifically stated that the legislation should not be construed to "affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion" or "alter generally accepted medical standards," effectively eliminating the concerns of Obama and other abortion supporters like Sutherland that the law could be used a way to limit access to abortion.

Such complexities, however, are easily lost in the rapid-fire sound-bite contest that has predictably come to consume the presidential election. We are left instead with emotionally charged claims that mislead as much as they inform.

It is without dispute that Obama is pro-choice; he has a long record of opposing efforts that might limit legal access to abortion. To suggest, however, that Obama supported the death of children born alive after abortions is misleading. State law in Illinois, which Obama supported, has always protected the life of a child born alive after abortions, if doctors believed the child had a reasonable chance of survival.

Desperate Tactics

2008-10-11T00:13:00.004-05:00

Obama is a traitor, cry McCain supporters
Crowds at Republican rallies hurl insults at Democrat candidate

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Friday, 10 October 2008

Rallies for John McCain and Sarah Palin are becoming rabble-rousing events where warm-up speakers encourage unruly crowds to vent hatred for the Democratic contender, Barack Obama. Cat-calls of "traitor", "criminal" and "terrorist" have been heard.

The McCain campaign protests that it does not condone such behaviour and does not want to see it happen. But in the closely contested states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, a campaign that had been confined to the internet is coming into full public view. One of the main things that the Obama campaign's "Fight The Smears" unit have been battling are the false rumour that their candidate is Muslim. At a 6,000-strong rally in Pennsylvania this week, as the two candidates on the Republican ticket waited backstage, a senior party member asked the crowd how they would feel about having a president with the middle name Hussein.

"Think about how you'll feel on 5 November if you wake up and see the news, that Barack Obama – that's Barack Hussein Obama – is the president-elect of the United States," said Bill Platt, the Lehigh County Republican chairman. The crowed booed, jeered and hissed at the very thought. Then another speaker, Peg Ferraro, denounced the Democratic candidate's "background and affiliations", saying they were "questionable" and asking: "Do we know who his friends are?"

The remarks were later condemned by the McCain campaign as "inappropriate rhetoric, which distracts from the real questions of judgement, character, and experience".

Yet the fact remains that – falling badly behind in polls and with dwindling amounts of cash to finance TV adverts – Mr McCain needs any ammunition he can find to break his rival's momentum. He avoided attacking Mr Obama on a personal level at this week's debate in Nashville but his running mate and Republican officials have been whipping up the party faithful.
When Mrs Palin accused Mr Obama of "palling around" with terrorists, in Florida this week, one member of the audience was heard to yell "Kill Him". And audience jeers of "terrorist", "bum" and "liar" peppered an address by Mr McCain in Pennsylvania. Cindy McCain, in a departure from normally mild public remarks, has also cast aspersions on Mr Obama's patriotism. "Let me tell you, the day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body," she told the crowds.

The Democrat's number two, Joe Biden, said such tactics were "dangerous", accusing Republicans of choosing "to appeal to fear with a veiled question: Who is the real Barack Obama?"

Mr Obama is leading in swing states and the latest Gallup tracking poll gave him an 11-point lead nationally. He is also outstripping McCain in spending on advertising, paying $3.3m (£1.9m) for TV spots on Monday alone, compared to the Republican's $900,000. So, while the Republicans attack Mr Obama, the Democrat can afford to counter-attack and promote his presidential qualities and personal narrative.

Mr Obama has noted that his rival shied away from attacking him in the same room during Tuesday's debate. "I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face."

It remains to be seen whether Mr McCain will wheel out the big guns at next Wednesday's third and final debate in Hempstead, Long Island.

Apology

2008-10-09T22:49:00.002-05:00

Hey Blog friends,

I think that when new moderators were added, that I somehow quit getting updates in my email of further comments, so I had presumed that no one was posting and that my blog was dead. I want to thank all the folks that have dropped by and apologize that I didn't acknowledge you. I've been working really insane hours to keep up with school and night class, so I've been neglecting my blog. Thanks to you, Gmom (yo, yo, yo) and OC (just say'n) for the housecleaning!

MJM, the Garbage In/ Garbage Out is applicable to Buddhism--the notion is that one should take responsibility for one's own conciousness. So, what one consumes is very important. I try to make smart choices. Also, there is the danger, as Ace alluded to, that a reaction to antagonism often makes us antagonists--and thus we become the very thing we abhor. It is always best to reflect upon our impulses and evaluate to what it is we are reacting. I always write slow, otherwise, I am subject to being somewhat reactionary myself.

Regarding Sarah Palin, she is beautiful, but I don't see any substance there. I believe she was chosen to woo the disenchanted Clinton-Democrats and the Conservative Christian base disenchanted with McCain's liberal-Republican leanings. I don't think McCain had anything to do with choosing her. McCain's no spring chicken, and I fear her becoming President should he pass while in office. I also find it unpalatable that the Republican's have chosen to fling do-do at Obama in order to make up for sagging poll numbers. I think it will backfire.

Regarding Mike Bratton's batcave, if he has decided to roll up the welcome mat for all but the fawning and mal-articulate commenters, then the intellectual equivalent of endless backslapping makes for redundant and boring reading. I enjoyed the little tempest about the children singing for Obama and the allusions to the Third Reich.

I like Obama and McCain, but I don't trust the Republicans anymore. For me, the Iraq war is the deciding factor. I believed then and now that it was politically motivated (like the choice of Palin), drummed up in an atmosphere of fear and reactionary vengence after 9/11. There are no official numbers for innocent deaths as a result of the war, since early on, the puppet government outlawed keeping tabs; but the Lancet has reported numbers in the 100,000s. Nope, I find the Republicans discredited and believe Bush will be remembered as the worst President in this nation's history for the Iraq debacle alone.

Hope y'all still love me.

I saw this last Saturday

2008-10-08T23:21:00.004-05:00

Religulous
REVIEWED BYPaul Asay
from PluggedIN
Let's face it: most documentaries these days don't bother to document anything in an objective, journalistic sense. We can thank Michael Moore for re-conceiving the documentary film as something akin to a sensationalistic, cinematic op-ed piece. If you have something you hate, or something you want to humiliate in as public a way as possible, make a documentary! And this is precisely what Bill Maher does in his new anti-religion film, Religulous.

Maher, who grew up Catholic (with a Jewish mother), loathes religion. This film doesn't make it clear why he hates it so, aside from some comments about how Catholicism "wasn't relevant" to his life as a child. But hate it he does. Religulous is Maher's attempt to sell the idea that religions are the most dangerous threat facing mankind, that "religion must die for mankind to live."

Maher spends the film traveling all over the world, along with Borat director Larry Charles and a small camera crew proficient in the art of "sabotage interview." The first half of the film is mostly focused on evangelical Christians, how they believe in things like a 5,000-year-old earth, etc. Maher takes a trip to the Creation Museum in Hebron, Kentucky, where he interviews creationism guru Ken Ham against the backdrop of animatronic dinosaurs with saddles (for humans to ride on). And he also interviews young-earth evangelical Mark Pryor, a democratic senator from Arkansas who creates some of the funniest moments of the film. To be fair, Maher also interviews Christian evolutionist Francis Collins, but he too comes out looking a bit buffoonish.

Ever the equal-opportunity atheist, Maher spends the second half of the film undermining religions and cults of every shape and size. He goes to Utah and skewers Mormonism, interviews Puerto Rican cult leader Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda (who claims to be the Antichrist), and even gets high with a leader of a religion based around marijuana. He goes to the Vatican and interviews some crazy Catholic priest, and Jerusalem to deconstruct Judaism and Islam. Maher is particularly hard on Islam, offering somewhat surprising pronouncements about the inherent violence and barbarism of that most touchy of all world religions. At moments like these, Maher might actually find allies in conservative Christian circles.

All along the journey, Maher and Charles jazz up the images with achingly sardonic voiceovers and music, and some very clever quick-cut editing (inserting 2 seconds of Charlton Heston-as-Moses at opportune moments, for example). It's stylishly presented, to be sure, but for all its panache, Religulous is ultimately a very predictable movie. It borrows from the usual suspects (Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock) in formatting the agitprop docu-comedy template for this particular crusade, and we can almost see the punchlines coming as a result.

What do you expect to happen when Maher stops at a truck-stop chapel in North Carolina to quiz long-haul truckers about biblical inconsistencies? What else but exploitative ridiculousness can result when Bill "religion is too easy" Maher spends a day in Florida's Holy Land Experience—where the Passion of the Christ is reenacted with cheap props while a Sandi Patty wannabe sings "Via Dolorosa"?

Honestly, it's not the hardest thing in the world to make a religion look silly when you only focus on the kitschiest, most grimace-inducing practitioners of it. Sure, we have to own up to these unfortunate (but fortunately fringe) elements within our ranks, but Maher shores up little credibility for his cause by refusing to talk with any opponent with an ounce of nuance of theological rigor.

He also loses credibility by sheer fact that he is Bill Maher—an ardently liberal, slightly greasy elitist with a penchant for condescension. Maher doesn't help break the "out of touch liberal" stereotype when he smokes pot on camera, for instance. And on Larry King Live in August, Maher exposed his amoral approach to life when he defended John Edwards' extramarital affair, saying, "people like new; you can't stop human nature." This "anything goes" view of adultery is doubtless not an opinion many people share with Maher.

Maher's biggest problem with this movie is not that it is reckless or condescending (which it is), but that it espouses a point of view that, quite simply, is not shared by many people in the world. Maher's ideology has no room for the miraculous or supernatural. Such things are all hocus pocus to him and cannot be believed by anyone with a brain. Faith of any kind (i.e., believing in something that can't be proved) "makes a virtue out of not thinking," according to Maher. Right there he loses about 98 percent of the world's population.

Still, Maher certainly isn't timid. He's about as aggressive as anyone can be in espousing an opinion. This becomes evident in the final five minutes of Religulous, when the tone of the film gets deadly serious and Maher presents his closing monologue. Here, he summarizes the argument: religions are dangerous because they make people think they know the answers, even when doubt is the only rational approach to life. Maher ends by calling on all anti-religionists (apparently he thinks there are huge numbers of them in hiding) to quit being timid and take up the cause of shutting down religion in the world. Otherwise, the religion-caused apocalypse will surely be imminent.

What nuance Maher had up till then is lost in this final segment of alarmist hysteria, which reminded me of LBJ's famous "Daisy Girl" ad during the 1964 presidential election. It's a cheap shot scare tactic—somewhere between An Inconvenient Truth and Future Shock—and it conveniently ignores certain facts about history, namely that religion has been the source of untold good in the world. Maher's thesis that all things evil and destructive are a result of religious delusion simply does not hold water historically. Countless atheistic regimes have bred violence and calamity in the world, totally outside of any religious motivation. Religion has far from a perfect record, but then again, nothing has a perfect record.

Religulous is best seen as a comedy (and there are many funny moments) and not as a serious or measured examination of anything. It's a movie meant to make religious people look stupid, to "prove" that religious belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive. If you are already prone to believe that, then this movie is for you. For everyone else, Religulous is a trifling and shoddy tirade that, ultimately, is not much of a threat.

In order to be happy, one must first withdraw from agony and bitterness

2008-09-25T17:00:00.002-05:00

Most of my friends on the blogs know that I am not a Christian. I grew up Southern Baptist but left that world before I turned 30. My present spiritual temperament is one guided by the aspiration to assume responsibility for my own thoughts, to not be thwarted by emotional reactions and left-over baggage. I sort of realized that I cannot control my world, and I’d best be at peace with it, though it crumbles about me. It also emphasizes the practice of finding less enmity, less division between oneself and others; common ground between thinking, compassionate human beings—though they differ in ideology and religious practice—is not insurmountable.

Like any other discourse, it only requires a mutual respect for others, confidence in oneself—lest you find yourself always on the defensive—and a willingness to communicate. Even the aggressive or self-serving remarks by people who don’t really engage others in such a gracious way serve to document behavior and establish whether or not conversation is worthwhile. It is unfortunate to find zealots who will dismiss the thoughts of the unbeliever wholesale; while their redemption obviously extends to every barb and snare. But believe me, it too serves a purpose.

Thanks for dropping by, everyone!

Thanks Junk

2008-09-24T21:17:00.003-05:00

Hey, if Watching History hasn't cleared the room of other visitors...

I am knee-deep in work and more work. As is evidenced here, there or anywhere, some people don't want to cultivate an environment of mutual respect and good will; over the weekend I was exhausted and had just been made aware--rather abruptly--of some setbacks on intiatives to which I've devoted myself since July. I was deflated and sad.

But, life goes on and I am resolved to making the adjustments to my program.

"Liar, liar, pants on fire."

2008-09-21T04:01:00.001-05:00

Sorry that this blog has become the repository for the immature rantings of Bratton's league of sycophants. John Mark, or Arnie at the time, didn't attend the meeting referred to in the last post. A stenographer didn't attend either, so John Mark has about as much business calling me a liar as he does in stating that I support genocide and eugenics because I simply took issue with a misquote of Margeret Sanger.

Doing so launched a barrage of similar diversions from John Mark, saying that I built my ethos upon the proposition of "getting laid." He continued in those assertions in much more crass language the entire thread, without deletions or banishment from the moderator.

All because I didn't want an author's well-documented remark to be altered.

Call me anything you want, John Mark, and go taddle to papa too.

Reply to Mike Bratton

2008-09-20T14:10:00.000-05:00

Here is the truth: No one has been banned from this blog except one very deserving individual. The deletion of pugilistic comments is not unusual around here. For some antagonistic posters to insist the practice is anything but ordinary is, at best, disingenuous. When I warn folks about impending consequences for their bad behavior, I'm not kidding."

"If people like David the Cakes and O.C. (one of my favorite shows is Orange County Choppers, by the way, but only when they don't have to get their language censored) want to lie and bravely talk smack from the comfort of their keyboards (when I know they'd be much, much more mannered in a real-life setting), then that's their prerogative. But as I said before, if others' posts aren't on topic, they will disappear. Thusly, and like so."

Well, big daddy has spoken and since I am no longer welcome over at the Bratton Report, I will address this remark here.

1st--one can call it banned, being censored, or anything else, but if there comes a time when all comments by me are indiscriminately deleted--and there is nothing of the antagonism of some or the wanton destructiveness of other commentary; only that I am not a believer and the moderator has made judgments of my character--then I am resolved to any subsequent contributions being cast aside as well. Yes, I have been banned.

2nd--I don't talk "smack" and I met Mike Bratton in person--I asked very piquant questions that he was too timid to answer until it was he that got back behind the safety and comfort of his keyboard. This was the inquiry:

Would you be willing to admit that troubled members of Bellevue have a reason to doubt the integrity and efficacy of its leadership, in light of the handling of the pedophile scandal and the partial scope of the investigation?

He said he would withhold answering until he thought about it. Later, he said no they didn't, and I don't remember his "rationale."

3rd--the commentary is often antogonistic on the Bratton Report; but it's OK Mike, and not subject to the blanket dismissal like NBBCOF since it is not "single issue." However, the demi-god of that blog is arbitrary and partial in his outrage.

4th--I have the same manner in virtual space as I do in person, direct, substantive, sovereign, and polite.

The face of Modern Calvinism?

2008-09-20T11:57:00.000-05:00

A word from "Miriam"

2008-09-20T11:30:00.000-05:00

You don't scare US, Charles. But then we're not apathetic. Just because we don't display "your brand" of outrage doesn't mean we don't have outrage. We just don't visit it all over the internet and continue to victimize people who have already been hurt. Even journalists know that you don't divulge the identity of people who have been abused. And you withhold their identity why, Charles? Out of compassion. Not because you don't care - but because you DO care about what has happened to them.

I am not just talk but action.

What does the Bible say about a haughty spirit, Charles, or about thinking more of oneself than they ought to think? Or about our words matching our walk?

I am pushing the envelope on obedience.

So, the "elect" don't have to be obedient? Interesting.

No one in today's Christianity encourages me in this. We are all about moderation and getting along with everybody.

And for good reason. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have LOVE one for another."

It's interesting to me that Cakes created this particular thread and entitled it, "Watching History before our eyes," and what a display we've seen. Given an inch, you've insinuated yourself all over a mile - you have once again taken over a corner of the internet that was created as a haven for intelligent discourse and turned the conversation back to your own insistent agenda. Charles, we all know you have your own blog. If we wanted to discuss Calvinism, Arminianism, and Pelegianism with you, we would post there. If we wanted to discuss molestation in graphic detail, we would engage you in such lurid discussions. But we have all made it clear that we don't want to do that. Systematically, each blog you have hounded and stalked has thrown you out on your ear. Praise be to our Father, He heals old wounds in His own time, and many of the people you keep calling out as victims have long ago moved on. Their experiences will continue to be a part of them, but they are capable of intelligent conversation about other things. Yet they continue to become righteously infuriated and indignant when they see others being victimized. That is only one of the myriad reasons we have had enough of you. You continue to seek every opportunity to victimize victims as often as you can and as sickeningly as you can.

Charles, I rebuke your methodology and your madness. It is not necessary, and it is not Christ-like.

Watching History before our Eyes

2008-09-17T23:08:00.000-05:00

I have been called everything in the book since befriending the truth seekers in January of 2007, about the time of the first exodus from Bellevue. I knew that good people were already socially excommunicated, and sometimes even intimidated, if they didn’t yield loyalty to a dysfunctional regime. I felt that I could absorb much of the vitriol and hatred being directed at the truth seekers, because first, it’s not my heartbreak or loss, and not so emotionally invested in the church, nor the theological pretexts and post-rationalizations.

Of course, no errant believer discredits the given path; and be assured that I do not confuse behaviors with the legacy of Jesus Christ.

It is sad when religion produces more crass-ness, arrogance and self-righteousness in a world already teeming with suffering and hatred. You are what you do (and what you say); even so, the endless tit-for-tat that passes for some dialogue is not so much offensive as it is boring. I recommend A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms—it will help the writer discover many tropes that can be used besides the declarative sentence.

If you want to be received in good faith as intelligent and sociable, then your diction should not undermine discourse. If you discredit yourself, maybe you shouldn't whine when an observation of the fact is voiced. Or do.

Either way, I am not harmed by emotional outbursts or prognostications on my eternal fate.

TN Lizzie rocks!

2008-09-17T16:38:00.000-05:00

A few reminders:

1. Do not argue with difficult people, or let them draw you into an argument. When this happens, no one wins.

2. If they are simply arguing with you, then they are not looking for conversation.

3. Remember that they are entitled to their opinion, just as you are.

4. Cheerfully answer all reasonable questions, but do not be put on the defensive. What they do with information is up to them.

5. Don't let them steal your joy.

6. Pray for them, that they may receive the gift of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Jesus died for them too.

"BTW, just for the record, Jesus Christ rose again on the third day and Buddha DIDN'T."

2008-09-14T09:46:00.000-05:00

Wow, you don't know how many times I've heard that point directed toward's me. Buddha was just a dude, like me or you, not God made flesh--it is precisely why he is so venerated. It is easy for fundamentalists to assume that I worship Buddha the way they do the Christ. No, Buddha didn't die for my sins nor raise from the dead--but Buddhism doesn't concern itself with original sin and separation from God, or even whether there is a God or not.

I don't believe we come into the world already damed for eternity to an eventual furnace--thus in need of a supernatural savior to be a sacraficial lamb. I don't know what is on the other side of the veil, and absolutely at peace with the unknowable. One may dispute that it's unknowable, but in the realm of God or the afterlife, all opinions are merely subjectively--not empirically--validated.

Alternative view on Saddleback

2008-09-13T12:47:00.000-05:00

James Zogby

As much as the Obama phenomenon exposed a fault line in the American body politic, with Obama struggling to heal this divide, its opposite, the Palin phenomenon, confounded these efforts, working instead to deepen the rift. These days, the gap is wide, with the two sides looking across the chasm incredulously, appearing, at times, to speak different languages.

This election could have been different -- but a change in McCain's strategic approach to the campaign, and the addition of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket, has altered the dynamic of the contest. In the week that followed the Republican convention, many sat in awe as swelling crowds screamed in delight as Palin, the self-proclaimed hockey-mom, repeated her well-rehearsed and tele-prompted lines.

Republicans once worried about the ability of their standard bearer, a maverick and aged war hero, to galvanize the party's base and expand its appeal into the broader white working class. McCain had appeal, to be sure, but generated no excitement. Now, with Palin at his side, the anemic Republican campaign seems revitalized. But why?

Only paid party operatives were bold enough to look straight-faced into TV cameras and, in an effort to explain Palin, mouth talking points like: "she is experienced as an executive" (boasting of her two years as mayor of a town of 7,000 and less than 20 months as Governor of one of the U.S.'s least populous states); "she is a proven reformer" (in the face of growing evidence of earmark abuse, petty corruption and a bit of nepotism to boot); "she has foreign policy experience" (noting that Alaska sits across the Bering Straits from the most desolate parts of Russia); or, finally, "she is a proponent of family values."

One can argue all of these matters, but none is sufficient. The explanation behind the emotional outpouring generated by Palin lies elsewhere. In part, like its mirror image in the Obama phenomenon, it is evidence of the profound alienation that has gripped the electorate, but with a difference.

Americans, today, feel adrift in a world seemingly out of control. Cultural, social and economic transformations are exacting a weighty toll. Obama understood the resultant angst, and inspired hope. He created silence in his crowds, urging them to think and act, and to empower themselves to become the agents of change. Confronting the same angst, McCain and Palin affirm the rightness of what people already believe and dismiss those who question these beliefs as "out of touch."

Obama challenges America to ask questions and assume personal responsibility. Palin, much like McCain, preaches certainty. And while Obama speaks to "the angels of our better selves," Palin uses sarcasm and anger at "them" -- the "elites" and others who have abandoned "us" and threatened "our" way of life.

In this regard, Palin adds emphasis and punctuation to the approach already taken by her standard bearer, John McCain. For weeks now, I have been brooding over the message McCain projects in an effort to understand the subtext of his appeal. I listened carefully to both McCain and Obama in the interviews they gave at Saddleback Church, and was struck by their extraordinarily divergent approaches. Because it was a church and the focus was on faith in action, commentators examined "the religious dimension" of the discourse. One instant analysis presented the number of times each used the word God (Obama 5, McCain 1), but this missed the point.

But something else occurred to me, and so, doing my own word count, here's what I found: Obama, I discovered, used the expression "I think" 60 times in his responses, while McCain used that same expression only 8 times. McCain, on the other hand, used the phrase "my friends" -- which he often employs before uttering what, to him, is self-evident truth -- 14 times. On more than a dozen occasions McCain used another rhetorical device, i.e., repeating a punch line for emphasis, as in "my friends, that is the truth, the truth." There, in a nutshell, was the difference: a reflective intellect asking challenging questions versus glib and condescending certainty.

It is this same desire for affirmation that the sarcastic self-confidence of Sarah Palin satisfies. She may not know much, but she knows enough; and what she knows, she knows with certainty. After her appearance at a rally in Virginia, one Palin devotee declared, "She justifies what we do every day." Said another, "She's a courageous woman, and what she doesn't know she can learn quickly. Let's face it, no president knows all the issues." A third noted, "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent."

Add to this the "commonness" of Sarah Palin, and her appeal becomes even clearer. At the same Virginia rally, a woman noted, "She's just as flawed as we are, and let me tell you, there are more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than there are American parents with Harvard grads. Added another, "She's more like us than Obama." These are the angry white voters to whom Hillary Clinton appealed, with pointed references to Obama as an "elitist" and "different" -- and this is the same appeal that Palin now exploits.

This is not new, of course. It was Richard Nixon and his feisty vice president, Spiro Agnew, who expanded the Republican base by striking out at elites and directing anger at "them." And it was George W. Bush who, on both maternal and paternal sides was the grandson of patrician wealth, broadened that base once again by posing as the common man, complete with an affected drawl. With Palin, both themes come together, the anger and the elevation of the common. And for Republicans, these are necessary ingredients for victory. In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the Republican president and his handling of the economy, foreign affairs and more, the GOP would have difficulty winning their case on the merits. To get working class voters to vote against their interests, they needed, as they have in the past, to change the debate. This is what Palin has helped them to do.

What has emerged out of all of this are two distinct groups, seeing different things, speaking different languages, and because they are roughly equal in size this election will remain close. We are a deeply fractured nation, and this election, which one hoped would help to heal the divide, may in the end, only deepen it.

In order to be happy, one must first withdraw from agony and bitterness

2008-09-13T00:05:00.000-05:00

Well.

As much as I know you all defend me because you care about me, I'd like y'all to leave WH and JM to their opinions.

As I said before, and as is true in my own life, living is a journey with mis-steps and false-confidences, and the best attitude toward another’s antagonism is acceptance.

Mainly because when one is motivated to communicate out of emotion and defensiveness, it only escalates the division and heightens the tension; logic or analysis are not really at play anymore. It seems to have the opposite effect than the one intended. Leaving a vile comment to die on the vine is its most fitting comeuppance.

Besides, if someone calls me an "asshole," then what real damage have I suffered? Really, so much of discourse is people trying to pull people into their own personal hells and persistent obstacles to peace.

People will make you feel as if you owe it to them to shoulder their baggage; but I can have compassion for them, and still refuse to become emotionally wrapped up in their suffering. That's stupid compassion, destructive to all concerned.

I remember dark times in my life in which I confused my ego or wounded pride with my ethos. I'm not going to judge it too harshly, I'll try to regard them just the way they are, and have confidence that they will come around to eventually speaking to me, not at me.

I am like Mike Bratton, WH and JM, or have been during times in my life. Sometimes people go through personal experience which sort of binds them to an identity or campaign; and some are dealing with emotional disturbances. What if someone had written me off before I flowered? Well, I know some folks did.

I would also submit that it is that vulnerability, fallibility and even failure that makes a more sympathetic and compassionate human being in the long run. No one can make you feel angry or sad unless you allow it.

Can The World of Star Trek Help Americans Understand Muslims and their Culture of Terror?

2008-09-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

(This is from the archives of Landover Baptist Church--I thought it appropriate to the discussion going on at Bratton's, where "christian" polititians like Bush are being castigated for acknowledging good, peaceful Muslims.)

True Christian™ Star Trek fan, and Sunday School teacher, Geoffrey Mullins, thinks so. Most fans of the popular television series, Star Trek, are already aware that the show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, gathered ideas for his fictional Klingon species during a trip to the Holy Land in the late 1960's. After only a cursory viewing of an early episode of Star Trek, Landover Baptist Pastors were shocked at how closely Roddenberry's Klingon characters resembled Arabs, in both their features and mannerisms.

"I'm not a big fan of Mr. Roddenberry," says Landover Baptist Pastor, Deacon Fred. "But our opinions are very similar when it comes to Muslims. Being a Jew, Mr. Roddenberry knew first hand what it was like to be persecuted by such a filthy, backward race of warmongers. My guess is that he couldn't come right out and say what he felt in public, so he used the television series, Star Trek, to get his views across. Only an unsaved idiot would have a hard time seeing how obvious it is that Star Trek's, Klingons, are actually Arabs in disguise. I understand it's harder to tell with the new series, because they started to get politically correct and had to change the makeup so it wasn't so obvious. Well, you don't need a degree in Theology to see how clear it still is. In fact, I think the new makeup does an even better job of bringing out the demonic nature and character of the Arab people."

Sunday School teacher, Geoffrey Mullins, has incorporated several Klingon-filled Star Trek episodes into an eight-week Bible based media study on Muslim culture and behavior. Landover Baptist is the first church to use Geoffrey's study in their senior high school Department. "Our Christian children are getting most of their information about Arabs and Muslims from the media," says Mullins, "and the media is biased toward Muslims. It often paints them in a positive light. What we like about Star Trek is that they just tell it like it is. The show's writers don't tip-toe around the negative facts about Muslim behavior. They don't even try to hide how silly the Muslim religion is, or how Arab people, for the most part, are nothing more than a pack of bloodthirsty dogs, hell-bent on destruction. Star Trek even accurately depicts the Arab language as something that sounds more like a baboon trying to hack up a ball of phlegm than it does someone trying to communicate using words."

Students are coming away from the Sunday school program with fact-based knowledge about Arabs that they can use in the real world. They are excited about what they are learning and are very vocal about it. One student remarked, "Arabs drink wine made from blood, and they are always talking about killing people, and how much they hate everyone else, and how glorious it would be to die in battle. Saddam Hussein does the same thing, only he doesn't have a funny shaped forehead."

Another student argued, "Arabs won't ever change, not even a million years from now. They will always be uncivilized. They eat platters full of live snakes, for crying out loud! Yuck!" Yet another student pointed out, "Even after an Arab like "Worf" was integrated into civilized culture, he still struggles with his basic animal instincts and he has all sorts of stupid religious baggage he can't let go of. I don't see how the rest of the crew can trust him; they act like a bunch of liberals. I'd never turn my back, if I was on that ship."

Studies show that Mullins' Star Trek seminars help keep the short attention span of Christian high school students in check. Students are so interested in the television show, that horseplay during Sunday school has decreased by nearly 87%. Mullins reports that nearly all students attending his classes can successfully answer over 100 complicated questions about Muslim behavior and mating habits after the program is over.

Regarding Insult: Whenever you have the urge to spit on somebody, you can come to us

2008-09-11T21:23:00.000-05:00

A man once came and spat on Buddha, on his face. Of course his disciples were enraged. His closest disciple, Ananda, said to him,"This is too much!" He was red-hot with anger. He said to Buddha,"Just give me permission so that I can show this man what he has done.

"Buddha wiped his face and said to the man, "Thank you, sir. You created a context in which I could see whether I can still be angry or not. And I am not, and I am tremendously happy. And also you created a context for Ananda: now he can see that he can still be angry. Many thanks, we are so grateful! Once in a while, please, you are invited to come. Whenever you have the urge to spit on somebody, you can come to us.

"It was such a shock to the man, he could not believe his ears, whatwas happening. He had come expecting that he would anger Buddha. He had failed. The whole night he could not sleep, he tossed and turnedand could not sleep. Continuously the idea haunted him -- his spitting on the Buddha, one of the most insulting things, and Buddha remaining as calm and quiet as he had been before, as if nothing had happened,wiping his face and saying to him, "Thank you, sir. And whenever you have this desire to spit on somebody, please come to us."

He remembered it again and again. That face, that calm and quiet face, those compassionate eyes. And when he had said thank you, it had not been just a formality, he was really grateful. His whole being was saying that he was grateful, his whole atmosphere was grateful. Just as he could see that Ananda was red-hot with anger, Buddha was so cool, so loving, so compassionate. He could not forgive himself now,what had he done? Spitting on that man -- a man like Buddha!

Early the next morning he rushed back, fell down at the feet ofBuddha, and said, "Forgive me, sir. I could not sleep the whole night." Buddha said, "Forget all about it. There is no need to ask forgiveness for something which has already passed. So much water has gone down the Ganges." Buddha was sitting on the bank of the Ganges under a tree. He showed the man, "Look, each moment so much water is flowing down! Twenty-four hours have passed -- why are you carrying it, something which is no longer happening? Forget all about it."

And I cannot forgive you, because in the first place I was not angry with you. If I had been angry, I could have forgiven you. If you really need forgiveness, ask Ananda. Fall at his feet -- he will enjoy it!"

Why was this censored, Mr. Bratton?

2008-09-09T23:45:00.000-05:00

I think my point is that I am viewed as the "other," the unapologetic non-believer; and that I can generally, but not aways, expect hostility in this forum. You can piddle with the adjectives if you wish, JM.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but I've met only a few whom lived up to the designation. A haughty, judgemental, or exalted nature seems to be the direct opposite of the ideal. If a heaven is full of such people, then I'm sure it will be an absolute bore.

I know in your book, "once saved, always saved"--so a "Christian" is a Christian is a "Christian," the zealot and backslidden alike. But I make distinctions between Christians and "Christians"--individuals who follow Christ in word and deed; and those unsympathetic individuals with merely an insurance policy against liability for all future vices and degradations. Save your immortal soul, yet the bug in the ointment is that--motivated by self-interest (not burning in hell)--you haven't been redeemed of your own fear and self-grasping--it's still all about your own happiness and well being.

My path recognizes the irony of so-called "spiritual-materialism," or the naked hunger to possess redemption like one possesses any other comforting object; or that, having gained it, we gloat with some kind of new found status amongst those who haven't.

I do not presume this is the single conversion experience of the Christian--only one seemingly tainted with the very ego-clinging that is at the heart of the problem. It is no wonder such bluster, incivility and ungraciousness preside here.

Who Pharted?

2008-09-09T22:22:00.000-05:00

If this blog looks familiar, it is because it parodies one from which I've just been banned. I have come to love keeping up with my friends on the "Christian" blogs, particularly the subcultures that have formed as a result of Bellevue Baptist pedophile scandal, "investigation" and subsequent exodus of the unwelcome, alienated and unreconciled. I would miss all of my friends at the Bratton Report, so I hope they'll come throw stones at me here. Speaking of stones, John Mark may feel welcome to deliver one of his many dissertations on my root chakra (in Christian love, of course).

I will paste some of the rich thread the moderator censored or deleted concurrent to being banned, and open up comments in the interest of unfettered discourse. There are no arbitrary or partially enforced proscriptions on content. All are welcome.