Tuesday, March 30, 2010

To Catch a Predator

There are various schools of thought on the psychological impetus for abuse. The most prevalent postulates children who are abused, whether it be emotionally, physically, or sexually, are more prone to becoming abusers themselves. Some theorize that abuse is a 'learned' behavior brought on by stressors. In recent weeks, some have linked the abuse scandals in the Catholic church to the priestly vow of celibacy. In an answer to a 'chicken and egg' question, they've said celibacy causes these men to abuse children. Others believe it isn't the cause, but can certainly add to the stress. I personally don't believe the vow itself causes abuse, but celibacy is only the tip of an iceberg that looms beyond the Vatican's bow.

Celibacy and other 'small d' doctrines of Catholicism, have served not to preserve a humble order, but to propagate one of caste elitism. The 'few and proud' mentality has created a group of demi-gods who reject the 'failings' of humanity in order to become ultimate moral leaders. Clerical hierarchy attitudes can be reprehensible in their hypocrisy, but the attitudes of the 'flock' only exacerbate the problem. People teach their children from birth the members of holy orders are earth-bound saints, incapable of evil and demanding of wordless assent. Children grow to view these figures in a skewed way, not merely as learned elders but as something else entirely.

Leaders and flock alike continue to pantomime an inhuman view of things that are all too human. Perhaps this is one of the major failings of the Catholic church. Having been to the heart of Catholicism, Vatican City, I can attest to the bedazzling royal presentation. St. Peter's alone is the most decorated and imposing place I've ever seen. This basilica doesn't at all convey humility, but rather dominance. Standing in the square, one can feel the oppression, the overwhelming sense that the people who walk those halls believe they are the kings of all things corporeal. Kings who, when given the unconditional support of their followers, feel they have transcended humanity.

So how can a place so perfect, a church so divine, be a haven for men (and sometimes women) who do terrible things to children? I believe the answer lies in the aforementioned psychology. No matter how abusers develop, one trait is present in almost every case, the need for the abuser to dominate. Bullied by their parents, siblings, peers, whomever; these people need to be powerful. They feed on control. Positions of power such as law enforcement, military, and education often seem like an easy way to get that control. The clergy are powerful too and oftentimes clerical power is a position that requires little more than knowledge of doctrine. Too weak, meek, or scared to be in law enforcement or the military? Not patient or extroverted enough to be a teacher? If you study any kind of religion, the answer is obvious. How better to control people than to lead their soul? Nearly every idiosyncrasy will be explained away and accepted as a gift from God. There's almost no accountability. Human laws don't apply.

Some may argue that seminarians go through rigorous psychological evaluations, thus eliminating the potential for abusers to enter the priesthood, but it's not that simple. Almost everyone knows, the best way to catch anything is with the right bait. No amount of psychological testing can eliminate something the church has set itself up to catch in the first place. The Catholic patriarchal system is uniquely tooled to attract those who seek dominance and power. And whether these people choose to emotionally abuse those who trust them young and old or sexually abuse children, the perfect storm of storied divinity, opulent power, and 'fall on your sword' vows make the Catholic Church a collection of emboldened people with severe inferiority complexes.

The Catholic church has a lot of work to do. They must deal with abuse in a manner fitting the crime. No more hiding, no more pardoning, no more whispers. God said the truth would set us free, so tell the truth. And while they do this, they must reevaluate their mindset. A serious look at the discontinuation of celibacy is only the beginning. They must examine their attitude, their means of recruitment, and the kinds of people they're trying to attract. Do they want responsible, even tempered leaders with good values who happen to seek leadership as married clerics or do they want trolls in cassocks who care nothing for love and marriage but instead wish to dominate and destroy? Is an image and an antiquated tradition so important that they would obliterate the loyalty of their future flock to save face?

I was emotionally abused by a priest who desired nothing more than starry-eyed admiration from everyone he met. He didn't care what he had to do to get that admiration. Being a new convert to the church, I had none of the 'cradle Catholic' stigma that kept me from seeing him not as a god, but as a man. Still, I was hypnotized by his power and weakened by my own insecurities. I was eventually able to remove myself from the situation before the abuse became too much to bear. But one thing was clear to me: implied reverence means nothing. The uniform you wear, the letters before your name, they're irrelevant compared to who you are inside. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus says "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Part of humility is accepting the truth. In spite of what the Catholic church believes, man is not divine, not even close. They must accept the truth that power corrupts and adjust accordingly.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Revisionism: Substituting Reality

We all want to belong. In spite of our desires to be 'unique' we harbor the very human need to be part of something. In essence, we want to be accepted for who we are. Our culture has pushed this 'acceptance' trend to the breaking point. No matter the idiosyncrasy, no matter how damaging the behavior may be to others, the rights of the one will always outweigh the rights of the many. The psychological hunger to be accepted has turned into legal mandate. As long as someone has the strongest groups and lawyers behind them, they can force their lifestyle and beliefs on all of us. Call it art, call it expression, you can do anything with the right preamble.

Tarleton State University in Texas is about to stage a play in which Jesus is portrayed as "the King of Queers". The Son of God kisses Judas at Pilate's 'senior prom' and performs a same-sex marriage for two of his all gay disciples. Stories like these are not uncommon. The homosexual community has sought acceptance for decades by staging things just like this, the difference: they're now trying to rewrite history to get their message across.

The past few years have seen the advent of a disturbing trend. If you want to get your stake in the American freedom of expression, you exploit people and things that can't defend themselves. You use the liberal tactic of cleverly worded speculation to impart what you believe on figures in history who are long since gone and have no way of refuting your claims. Revisionist history has been smearing upstanding figures for years. They reject reality and substitute what supports their beliefs. While a little skewing of reality is fine in fiction and art, it's not fine to use skewed reality as fact in the teaching of children or the establishment of history.

Not to be left out from the cash-cow that is revisionism, homosexuals have jumped in with both feet. Did you know that half of our forefathers had covert homosexual affairs? We all know Jefferson had children with a slave girl; but did we know that he was really bisexual? Lincoln was a tortured gay man. He only married Mary because it was what was expected. One of the most recognized and respected people to ever walk this earth, Jesus, was really gay. He never married, hung out with a troupe of guys all the time, wore those smart dresses; he was gay. Why not? The logic is so completely flawed. In order to support their theories, people string together unrelated and irrelevant facts. They arrange things in such a way that the casual, ignorant observer may actually believe them. The duping of fools is something far more dangerous in the long run than honestly championing your cause.

Not only is this play an example of pure propaganda and the use of subjective fiction as a means to purvey a truth, it's a blatant smear on a faith that billions treasure. True to the current American socialistic agenda, Christianity is fair game for slander. No one fears upsetting a Christian because we are a non-violent religion. Christians won't retaliate for a simple jibe by strapping themselves with explosives and taking out a city block. They are notorious for mercy and oddly enough, for acceptance. Perhaps that's why Christians are so easy to attack. And though there is nothing concrete in the factual accounts of Jesus to prove he wasn't homosexual, there is certainly nothing to prove that he was. Established history has held that Jesus, the Holy Son of God, was if anything, asexual.

History is history, but thanks to the fact that hindsight is 20/20, we know some things to be irrefutably true. No matter how hard the revisionists may toil, they can't change what's written in stone. To even attempt such a thing only cheapens their cause. There is no validity in a belief or lifestyle that is wholly supported by conjecture. If you really want to get people's attention, tell the truth. No one does that these days.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Be an Undercover Boss

CBS has a hit on their hands. Their reality show Undercover Boss is doing well in the ratings and bringing a much-needed rosy glow to leadership of business. The premise is simple: the CEO goes undercover as a new employee in their own business. They try out a number of jobs and meet a lot of people along the way. These people help the CEO understand the workings of their business in a way not previously seen. Along the way, we meet people with amazing and touching stories. We see the shining good and shockingly bad. Not only do the 'untouchable' CEOs get a lesson but the employees come to see their leader as someone who really cares about them, not just a shadowy fat-cat only interested in money.

There's a lesson we could all learn from this. When you walk in someone else's shoes you get to know them in a special way. You find out who they really are, what their life is like. Our elected officials have forgotten what it's like to be an 'average' American. They haven't done an honest day's hard work in years, if ever. They lead pampered lives, feasting on the money we provide them in taxes. When you live like that, it's easy to legislate in a way that seems out of touch with America.

The 'historic' passage of Obamacare is an alarm clock; the time has come for an evaluation of the people who supposedly represent us. We have to be the undercover boss. We must do our research, get to know these people as we have never done before. The internet and social media provide for us excellent tools. We're able to see government stripped down, raw, uncensored, and dirty. Reagan's 'shining city on a hill' has become a dark and stormy palace of upper-crust elitists and we are the peasants toiling beyond its gates. Our civic duty is not to work our fingers to the bone and have our livelihood 'spread around'. Our duty is to choose the best employees for the job; the job of representing us in Washington. Don't be afraid, don't let them intimidate you. They are your employees, you are their boss. If you find good, celebrate it. If you find bad, punish it.

A business can only succeed if all the pieces are in place. Good leadership guides good employees and good employees make and sell a good product. The 2008 election proved one thing: we have been bad leaders. We chose our employees poorly and now, they're tearing our business down brick by brick. I say we evaluate their performance before the business that is America ceases to be.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

With the stroke of a pen, revolution begins.

Flag of our Fathers
original digital art by x_1013_x


"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
-The Declaration of Independence, 1776


America, it's time for separation. The people who govern us no longer represent us. We have, by rights of our own electoral mistakes, allowed people into our government who want only to grow government's power and expand the capacity of their own coffers. In 1776, our founding fathers did the same. They declared their independence from a tyrant who wanted no more than to keep them under his thumb. I'm not purporting succession, but we must pull away from those who wish us harm and draw closer to those who truly support freedom. As the founders outlined in the Declaration of Independence, I will outline here the acts which support my feelings.

Members of Congress and the President have expressly broken the laws of process as put fourth in the Constitution of the United States.

They have convened in partisan, closed-door proceedings to deliberately stifle debate and obfuscate the public.

They have used bribery to coerce votes.

They have falsified findings and documents to erroneously support their efforts.

They have inveigled a once free press into reporting widely only what the government deems acceptable.

They have allowed into the governing process those with threatening beliefs and agendas.

They have supported the use of taxpayer funds to finance propaganda.

They have provided money and protection to organizations who blatantly ignore the law and oftentimes use physical and mental violence as methods of coercion.

They have overstepped their boundaries of commerce by injecting themselves into the private sector.

They have exploited misfortunes to emotionally manipulate the public.

They have slandered the reputation and names of their political foes and gone unpunished.

They have many times ignored the cries for assistance from our allies in order to appear more favorably to our enemies.

They have shown blazon disrespect for our history, our national symbols, and the memory of those who have died for our freedom.

Our outcry for accurate representation has fallen on deaf ears. Our pleas and demonstrations have been met with slander and injury. Our elected leader has exhibited all the traits that could be applied to a socialistic dictator and is in no way fit to represent the interests of a free people.

A revolution is upon us. Not a revolution of muskets and blood but of votes and knowledge. We know our enemy, their injustices have been displayed for us. We must rise up against our oppressors and take back our freedom!

Monday, March 22, 2010

The 3/22 Project

Today I feel much like I did on September 12th, 2001. I was terribly wounded, but filled with a renewed sense of patriotism. I was ready for a fight. Last night's vote on healthcare reform was an act of domestic terrorism. The Democrats abused every tactic they could to get their legislation passed. They ignored the cries of the American people and they ignored the Constitution. You see, we were of no consequence to them. They had an agenda, a goal, and nothing was going to stop them from achieving that goal.

From the smoldering ashes of our Constitution, we must rebuild. We must pick out the strong principles that were placed in our founding documents, principles that are impervious to the selfish fire of socialism. We will rebuild stronger and wiser. That building starts now.

You are very important. No matter who you are or what you do in life, you are important. Participation at all levels is key. We have to start at the bottom in our communities and go from there. If you can work for a campaign, do so. If you can only contribute a little money, do so. If you have a talent you think can get a message across, by all means, use it. Song, art, writing, blogging, anything.

And as important as you are, the next generation is more so. It is imperative that we teach our children about true freedom. They have to know the reward for hard work and the sacrifices we all must make. The greatest lesson we must teach before the liberals have a chance to indoctrinate them is that they are the only guardians of their prosperity. Freedom is up to them, success is up to them. No government promise can sustain their soul.

I am reminded of a scene in "An American Carol" where Michael Malone meets George Washington. The general speaks of freedom and how you cannot take such things for granted. As they walk through St. Paul's chapel, Malone asks why the place is so dusty. The doors open to reveal the source of the dust: the ruins of the World Trade Center. Washington says, "When you meet the almighty, only the truth will do." The truth is this: our country needs us now. Freedom needs us. If we allow our truths to remain silent, we will lose our freedom. Speak now, or forever hold no peace.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Silent Soldier: Our American Flag

Silent Soldier
original poem by x_1013_x

Through musket blast and canon roar,
the crash of bombs on foreign shore,
the flag has flown as it’s flown before;
glorious and tall.

Through hunger, cold, and haunting fear,
soldier’s loss, a mother’s tear,
it stands for all that we hold dear;
heeding freedom’s call.

Though history and years ahead,
what is silent and what is said,
purest blue, white, and red,
the flag will never fall.


Our current President seems to think very little of our flag. The flag was born of our battles for freedom. Without those battles, Obama wouldn't be president. Not just the struggles for racial equality, mind you, but the wars before America was founded and every battle since. After all, you can't be president of something that doesn't exist. He balks at wearing a pin, forgets to salute, and now seems ashamed enough of the stars and stripes that the U.S. military relief workers in Haiti have no colors under which to gather. Why he has this aversion to the flag is anyone's guess, but to me, the flag is everything it should be: a reminder that freedom must be cherished and the sacrifices made to gain that freedom should never be taken for granted.

Placing undue emphasis on the material things in life is rarely a good thing. Men have fought and died for less than cloth, that's for certain. But if someone can't have a little respect for something as storied and gallant as our flag, how can we expect them to respect our founding documents? No matter what happens in the coming months or years, the flag will stand true. It has seen us at our best and now, I fear, it's seeing us at our worst. But as long as there are those of us who remember what the flag symbolizes, there is genuine hope.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

A Smokescreen of Human Compassion

Fear mongering is a foreboding term. It is a tactic used by everyone, from your parents to world powers. Fear mongering is when you use someone's fear of something as a means to a result. For years now, the left has accused conservatives of fear mongering when it comes to matters of national security. Hey, if a heightened wariness of strange, shifty-looking people with suspicious packages keeps a suicide bomber from killing a group of people, I say it's doing a pretty good job. There's nothing wrong with a little fear and there's equally nothing wrong with using that fear to your advantage. God gave animals fear so they would know when to run from a predator, fear is good. What's wrong is when you abuse a different emotion: compassion.

The debate over health care has seen its supporters take to the mat with a disturbing tactic, using human misfortune as a bargaining chip. Congress and the President hide their socialistic agendas behind stories of cancer patients who can't pay for treatments and keep their home. The liberals put on a sad face as the camera chronicles the woes of sick children and people with life-threatening illnesses who just can't get the care they need because of a lack of insurance or the cost of said insurance. Instead of facing the real problems in health care, they hope you'll fall for this pity-party sleight of hand and let them do with health care what they please. And what they please will do nothing to stem the woes of these sick people. If anything, it will make matters much, much worse.

I've covered the issue of health care before, so I won't rehash what I've already said. I will only say this: if someone uses the misfortune of others as a means to manipulate opinion, what kind of person are they? If they hide behind a smoke screen of sick people, hoping you will somehow cave to their wishes, can you really trust them? The simple fact is, the horror stories of socialized medicine far outweigh those of what we have now in this country. And if you think sad stories won't occur if the Democrats get their way, think again. Though it's sad to say, life and death on this earth comes down to one thing: money. And having the government 'pay' your health care costs only means that some other poor American is footing your bill. When they run out of money, the burden will fall to someone else and eventually on you. Obamacare, though it sounds like rainbows and unicorns is the same old hell with the thermostat turned up 100 degrees. If that scares you, good. You can say I'm fear mongering, but you should be afraid.

Friday, March 12, 2010

To Thine Own Self Be True: Respecting Talent in Art

"...there is that quite numerous breed who would like to be artists—that is, long to be something more than to do something—and lacking the talent or the capacity for work and self-discipline exacted by traditional art, find in modernism the perfect answer to their prayers—an easy path to the attention they crave." Thomas Maitland Cleland, "Progress" in the Graphic Arts

God Bless America and Her Allies by T. M. Cleland

Cleland, known to most as T.M. Cleland, was an American graphic artist and publisher. He saw this country in the heyday of capitalism, shiny with promise. He began his work in the early 1900's and continued until his death in 1963. He was an opinionated man with an eccentric working style. But he knew talent when he saw it, talent and hard work. He knew that craftsmanship and art went hand-in-hand. The above passage, from his 1948 address in Chicago hints at what was to come in the art world and this country as a whole. The paradigm was shifting from hard work to high-brow play and entitlement. The right-wing world of blood, sweat, and tears was now a left-wing paradise of beatnicks, art-o-philes, and posers. Art was no longer a livelihood, art was a hobby, a cheap and easy way to 'express oneself.' Anyone with the courage to misrepresent their abilities was given acclaim, acclaim that should have belonged to the hardworking craftspeople.

Cleland was a perfectionist craftsman. He was a dealer in clean lines and geometric certainty. He saw modern art, especially modern design, as an aberration. Modern art was loose, messy, and lacked proof of genuine talent. His opinion was one of a laborer, someone who's livelihood depended on the respect his art could garner him. In a time when art was becoming more of a fad than a livelihood, he had every right to be protective.

People don't magically develop the ability to recite a long line of prime numbers or paint a perfectly accurate portrait unless they're the victim of some sort of horrid injury to the brain. A spin of the genetic roulette wheel imbues us
with certain abilities. If someone wants desperately to be a surgeon, they go to school, do the work, and find out whether they have the skill or not. They learn whether they're fit to be a surgeon hopefully before they get their hands on a live patient. Would you want someone messing around in your body cavities with a scalpel if they didn't have the talent or skill? No, you wouldn't. So why is it acceptable for people who can't draw, paint, design, or sculpt to use 'expression' and 'interpretation' as crutches to encroach on the respect owed to those who are naturally talented? Like it or not, aside from basic functions, humans are not all given the same talents.

From an early age, we learn to incorrectly define the term 'art.' Art can be anything, produced by anyone, even animals. It has been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even then, there are universally accepted 'fundamentals' of art that we should not ignore. As children, we scrawl poorly conceived representations of things and when we show off our 'masterpiece' we're met with standing ovations. The praise happens every time, no matter the quality. This reinforcement makes it easy for us to ignore the fundamentals. Why bother with something if it isn't necessary for success? Society's belief that self-esteem is better than self-realization tells us we can do anything, natural talent notwithstanding.

Author Andrew Klavan wrote in a blog post recently, "
sacking the Pantheon doesn’t turn barbarians into gods." Creating a mess and calling it art doesn't make the creator an artist. Screeching out of key and calling it a song doesn't make someone a real singer. The reality show American Idol sheds light on this theory by showing us the difference between real vocal talent and a weightless, animalistic need for attention. Though this is an accurate comparison to my argument, visual art remains a playground for just about anyone who wishes to play. Conversely to singing, visual art fosters the belief that the less talent you have, the more you thumb your nose at convention, the more success you will have.

The rift between craftsmanship and art grew wider as people began to lose their individuality and feel more entitled. The ability to express themselves in their own way withered and they searched for what they thought would be an easy way to stand out. The all-too-human desire to be 'noticed' crossed paths with the arts and usurped the trail. Art, being always viewed as subjective, had little chance of fighting back against those who would abuse it. People just shrugged off the
talentless examples as 'subjectively acceptable' and moved on. A craft which was once a way of simply making a living became a pretentious means of self-promotion and hollow praise.

I do not say any of this to be an elitist, rather, I speak as one who respects the niches in life to which we all belong. A poem I read as a child states, "If you is jes' a little tadpole / Don't try to be a frog, / If you is jes' the tail / Don't try and wag the dog."
Being an individual doesn't mean you seek out the laurels of others and snatch the crown from their heads. We all have things that make us special, things we are inherently blessed to accomplish. All subjectivism aside, there are those who will always execute their craft better than others. The true path to fulfillment is not in doing passably what others do best, it's doing what you do best exceptionally well.

"Art was once the business of artists and not of writers and was taught to artists by other artists and not professors; and it's rather wholesome definition seems to have been—before anything was said about "art for art's sake"—the doing of anything, from ploughing to painting especially well. Craftsmanship was not suspect or thought to be ruinous to individuality—or perhaps individualities were not so feeble then that they could not survive the rigors imposed by craftsmanship. I do not know when the term "fine art" was invented and the breach between it and craftsmanship began to widen, but I have come to believe that it was a sorry day for both. For then, it seems to me, the spirit of art departed from its body and the body began to decay and the spirit to wander aimlessly in space." —Thomas Maitland Cleland, "Progress" in the Graphic Arts

Monday, March 8, 2010

Of Ropeless Jumps and Scoreless Games

Like crude oil, self-esteem is a hot commodity; heady, pricey, and oftentimes untapped. Used correctly and responsibly, it can make things a lot better. But used unwisely or too liberally, it will cause trouble for yourself and everyone around you. Over the decades, we Americans have become just as obsessed with self-esteem as with the black gold that fuels our life. We cultivate it in ourselves and our children until it grows into a creature from "The Little Shop of Horrors," ready to devour everything in its path.

Cultivation of belligerent self-esteem starts with the belief that everyone should be equal. This socialistic mantra has trickled down from on high, causing us to do ridiculous things like jumping rope with no rope and not keeping score at childrens soccer games. After all, keeping score is harmful to the self-esteem of every child except the ones who score. We can't have little Timmy walk off the field crying because he didn't put the ball in the goal now can we? Parents extend their praise for just about everything from good behavior to scrawled crayon drawings far past the realm of realistic acclaim. Punishment is deferred in favor of bargaining, "If you promise to be good for an hour, I'll give you a treat!" To a developing mind, this fosters the belief that almost anything can be gained with the right amount of manipulation.

When I was a child, we jumped rope with real ropes. Some children weren't too good at it, some fell on their face, but having everyone be equal at jump rope wasn't really the goal. We kept score when we played games. There was disappointment, but that's the way life is. To lie about it would do more disservice to the child in the long run. When I misbehaved, there was no bargain. I wasn't lured with candy or toys to be a 'good girl' no, I was punished. And there is no better way to learn a lesson and learn it good than to have it taught by a swat on the behind. Conversely, I was praised when what I did was actually good. The talent which I rely on today to make a living was carefully monitored and encouraged by those around me, not by empty praise for every drawing, but by honest, constructive criticism. When I accomplished something exceptional, I was treated with exceptional praise, but if what I did was just okay, the response was just okay.

We're treading dangerous waters here. When children are coddled and propped up on undeserved laurels, when reward is given for nothing, those children grow up to be entitled adults. The trickling down that caused parents to over cultivate self-esteem is trickling up to curse our society with raging narcissists. They see themselves worthy of all sorts of things based on very little effort. Self-esteem is important, confidence is key to success, but such things can not be gotten by rights of breathing. We must stop lying to ourselves and to our children. We must know the limits of self-esteem just as oil has its limits. A child may be abysmal at jumping rope, but stellar in chemistry. This does not mean we let the child jump without a rope just to save their self-esteem. And certainly, we don't allow the other children to cheat off of this child's chemistry exam so they will feel just as apt in chemistry.

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had it right in his short story Harrison Bergeron. Humans are only equal in that we are all human. We were all meant to be something, to do something, and by unjustly shoring up our weaknesses, we tear down what makes us great. Self-esteem is best used conservatively and for its intended purpose. No one wants a vehicle to use too much fuel and when an engine uses too much oil, there's something terribly wrong. Humans have fought and died over oil and believe it or not, they've done the same due to self-esteem. In the long run, conservation of both is best.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Tea, Coffee, and Gunpowder

"Ideas quick-march into motion like battalions of a grand army to its legendary fighting ground, and the battle rages. Memories charge in, bright flags on high; the cavalry of metaphor deploys with a magnificent gallop; the artillery of logic rushes up with clattering wagons and cartridges; on imagination's orders, sharpshooters sight and fire; forms and shapes and characters rear up; the paper is spread with ink - for the nightly labor begins and ends with torrents of this black water, as a battle opens and concludes with black powder." -Honore de Balzac The Pleasures and Pains of Coffee

Tea or Taxed Enough Already Parties sprang up in this country in response to an overwhelming mistrust of the government and a desire to return to what made us great. Concerned Americans of all political backgrounds and ethnicities assembled to make their voices heard. They did so under a historical canopy, emulating the actions of the colonists who tossed a shipment of tea into Boston harbor. These men were sending a message too: no more tyranny. Never was the tea party about the actual drink. The tea party was a symbol and continues to be a symbol for the Americans who desire an end to government abuse of power and oppressive taxation.

After months of disrespectful and ignorant reporting from the liberal media and countless uses of a pornographic term to describe the people who attended the Tea Parties, the left decided to have their own party. Because, well, if someone has something they don't, they get their hipster knickers in a bunch. And in true liberal fashion, their 'party' is spiteful, condescending, and speaks volumes to their ignorance of history. The liberal antithesis of the Taxed Enough Already Parties: 'Coffee Parties.'

See what they've done there? The left-leaning brain theorized: "Tea parties?... tea is a drink... what other drink is like tea, but isn't tea? Oh yes, coffee!" I don't see this as the only reason. In the liberal psyche, there's an unconscious belief that coffee is intellectually superior to every other drink because of its culture. Coffee is a delicacy only befit the kings of screenplay writing at Starbucks. It is the drink that brought us the coffeehouse attitudes of the late 50s and 60s, though I have to add, coffee was rarely the actual drink of choice at those houses. 'Progressives' and 'visionaries' used coffee as a ruse to act foolish in black pencil pants and turtleneck sweaters. Any culture that requires applause be the snapping of one's fingers after a horrid torrent of drug-addled poetry is about as low as you can go on the creative scale. Even still, liberals see coffee as a symbolic gateway to the upper crust of thought. They gather around it like haughty cavemen in tweed coats, alienating everyone who has opinions that slightly differ from their own. Sure, coffee is a beverage of enlightenment, but they use coffee only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

This 'Coffee Party' movement and all the coffee-house progressives of times past has sullied the manna-like divinity of the drink. And to what end? What point have they made? They've only managed to behave like bratty children, screaming for something another child has. They covet the strength of the Tea Parties, the influence and power of ordinary, hard-working Americans banding together to make a difference. That 'banding together' is something a liberal mind can't comprehend. Even when they're in a 'party' setting, they're alone. They isolate themselves, hiding behind huge superiority complexes. They dwell in their own minds, where its safe and everyone agrees with them. People like that could never organize anything that shared any solid belief because their own beliefs are ever-shifting and far superior to the beliefs of their peers.

I'm not intimidated by this 'Coffee Party' movement because of the fact that liberals are incapable of true organization. In defense, they may argue they organized to elect this 'eloquent' and 'intellectual' president, but they really didn't. They serendipitously had the same hair-brained idea all at once and naturally, pretentious people are attracted to other
pretentious people if only to potentially engage in a 'winner takes all' superiority battle. Essentially, this movement is watered down and stale. It has all the validity of a day-old pot of joe made with expired pre-ground Folgers. There's no need for it and to recognize it, one would have to toss aside good sense and taste. All I know is, there's a holiness to coffee that cannot be destroyed by politics. Coffee is a gift; a source of energy, creativity, and spark. If the left thinks they can usurp those traits for their own purposes, they'll have a devil of a time. Coffee, like freedom and gunpowder, is volatile and best handled by those who respect it.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

The Burden of Duty

Who would Jesus bomb?

Isn't that a novel question? A veiled insult and self-righteous laurel wrapped up in a neat, condescending package. That sticker can be found on many a bumper these days, usually alongside a faded something about impeaching Bush or a belligerent rant on the environment. Oddly enough, those 'green' stickers are usually on old Volvo station wagons that rattle and belch oil clouds. But I digress. So what are we supposed to think of the statement: who would Jesus bomb? Outright, I think we're supposed to question the Christian validity of war. After that, we're supposed to question our own Christian validity. Because if we have ever had a human thought about taking care of what we love, we've failed. Our desires to be free and help others be free as well have upset Jesus.

I'm no stranger to religion. I was raised Baptist, attended both Methodist and Christian worship services, converted to Roman Catholic in college, and now work for a different protestant organization. I guess you could say I was washed in the blood... wrung out, washed again and again, and tumble dried. But when I see that sticker, the striking hubris of it, I don't think of religion at all. Not, at least, in the sense of real peace and love. No, the sticker takes my mind immediately to the military and the oftentimes thankless work they do. So many men and women have served, some given the ultimate sacrifice so that you and I could be here today. I think about the injustices and evil that have been deterred by the actions of the military. And though Jesus never actually said 'thou shalt not war' the bumper sticker makes the accusation that if you advocate for military actions or personally violent actions of any kind, you're going against the mandate of God. There is no gray area, no exceptions. Either you're Christ-like or you're not.

My father was in the army. He served in the European theater in WWII. He didn't talk a lot about the war, at least not by the time I was born, but he didn't have to. That experience was etched in every line on his face. I could see the horror in his eyes. And though my mother openly displayed the most vehement faith I've ever known of any human, my father possessed a quiet faith that spoke of the grim responsibility of humans. Just as it can be said to be truly satisfied, you must first go hungry; to know Heaven, you must first know Hell. There can be no more earthly hell than war. But, to deride another famous bumper sticker 'War is not the answer.' I say rather, war is the question. Why do we war? We war so there may be peace. We fight the hard battles so the oppressed can be free. We stare evil in the face, a gun in our trembling hands, knowing that by the Bible's standards we should not kill. But if we don't take some of the burden on our shoulders, evil will go on unchallenged. We are given a lot of responsibility and to whom much is given can be expected the most sacrifice.

A childhood friend of mine once asked my father, "Did you kill anyone?" Everything in the house went silent. My heart stopped as I searched my father's face. He took a deep breath, let it out slowly and answered, "Yes." He never said how many people he killed, but that didn't matter. This man, who kept his faith mostly to himself, had extinguished the life of another human being. I knew that, I wrestled with it, but I also knew in my heart that God forgives. When my father took the action to end the life of that German soldier, God was there. When the gas in the chambers at the concentration camps was turned on, God was there. When those camps were liberated, the emaciated prisoners set free, God was there. We cannot expect God to guide our hands and choices. All we can hope is that God is there with us, we are not alone. And though God can't 'bomb' our tormentors and set us free, there are corporeal beings who can.

There are many unsavory things in this world. War is only one. And if we are truly Christians, we know humans cannot be expected to be perfect. War is the question that asks not how we can be perfect but how we can be less imperfect. Humans are not divine like Jesus and to expect us all to forgo the means to peace in efforts to achieve divinity is bordering on heresy. God gave us all free will and a set of guidelines to best utilize that free will. But nothing is without caveats; if we ignore the calls to police our gift, we are derelict of duty.

Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone; the hypothetical is simply ridiculous. But we are not Jesus, we cannot be Jesus. We are but humans guided by God to be stewards of not just the environment, but of the people who live in it. So instead of asking who Jesus would bomb, ask who Jesus would set free. Who would Jesus feed? Who would Jesus heal? And perhaps the most important, who would Jesus stop? In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." Some believe this to mean that no one should ever be an aggressor, but I don't believe that. If someone who lives by the sword is meant to die by the sword, someone else must wield the weapon. No one assumes the weapon is carried lightly, but it must be carried nonetheless.