Be the Standard Bearer

It looks like a Peter Max tribute gone wrong. This is far from pleasing, with the blood-smear-like stripes and sheepish "O" with lines a bit too crisp to match the rest of the design. The colors are faded, like his posters and peeling bumper stickers. The thing is just ugly, but it's far more than that.

The U.S. flag code is usually ignored, save for the most patriotic and of course, the military. Most of it isn't even known to the average person. The code isn't punishable by law and thusly, viewed as more of a suggestion by most. Our flag code prohibits defacing of the flag, use of the flag on merchandise and even clothing. Olympians draping the flag on their shoulders has become accepted, but such things are discouraged by the code. What Obama's cronies have done here is not a 're-design' of our flag, as it has only 7 stripes and is the wrong colors, but rather a vague representation. That, in itself, isn't the issue as this is done quite often. The issue is the "O".

Anyone who argues in defense of Obama's throw-away campaign fund-raising poster is unlikely to get the offense. They see an 'inspirational' image much like Shepard Fairey's HOPE poster. They don't see the implications, the fact, much like this flag from earlier in the year, that Obama is the focus in an emblem of this country. Obama is the focus, the grounding element. This, dear reader, is huge.

Since his nationwide debut, Obama has been setting himself up as the leader of a political cult. He's 'branded' everything, put his creepy "O" on all he surveyed. Obama sees himself as the owner of his position, something only on privileged loan to him. He sees himself as appointed royalty when any political office is one of subservience to the American people (or it's supposed to be). To Obama and those around him, he is America. There is no need for the 'generic' patriotism of the past, Obama is here and we have a face to worship, a person to place above all others.

What's lost on Obama's acolytes is that the American flag is a symbol of all of us. It is a timeless banner of freedom and sacrifice. It affords everyone the opportunity for valor and independence. To place any one person in focus in reference to the flag is an assault on everyone. Venerating any one person or the idea of one person in a political sense is just a hop, skip, and stumble into dictatorship. The flag came first because freedom came first.

There may be some who believe America to be incapable of recovery. There are some who believe the cult of personality is too strong. I don't believe that. Though frightening in its implications, this 'flag' is a misguided stab at notoriety that won't last past November. It will be tossed out or end up at yard sales or thrift stores. The intention behind it, however, is a bit harder to sweep away. It's important for us, those who know what the flag truly means, to fight for those ideals. We cannot give up and run from the war. Since the founding of our great nation, standard bearers have carried our flag into battle. They have run headlong into the firefight and been cut down, but someone was always there to grab our banner from the mud and keep running. Be the standard bearer and hold her high; this fight is far from over.

Hope is Gone

I will preface this post by admitting honestly that some of this man's work was well done and interesting. He has a nice technique with most things and above all, he knows how to keep his name on the hit list. That being said, Shepard Fairey is a raging poser. He's a hack who uses the fickle liberal mob mentality to feather his nest and fuel his larger-than-life ego. His latest offering shows us that not only is he a shameless opportunist (something his audience should shun) but he's run out of ideas.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is no stranger to slogans and provocative imagery. Their crass posters, oftentimes confusing and nonsensical, are inescapable. They've adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from "V for Vendetta" as their stand against 'oppression' and trot it out as often as possible. Shepard Fairy saw an opening and he took it with this boring and predictable recycle of his insipid Obama 'Hope' poster.

This 'humble' street artist (as he continues to be called though he's no longer either) had done a different poster for OWS, something a little less forward, less recognizable. I suppose that's why the new one came about; the first one didn't get enough attention. In this article, he's called a 'west coast legend' and let's face it, a man with a head that big wasn't about to let the cash-cow and hero worship of OWS pass him by.

As I said before, he's not completely devoid of talent, but as a graphic artist myself, I know what goes into the things he does. I know what kind of work is involved and I know how easy it is to recycle. When the first poster (something predictable but not awful) didn't get the buzz he wanted, he opened an old file he had floating around on his expensive computer and did some editing. He kept the colors and the technique, just changed out a few things and added some words. He even kept the Obama 'O' in much the same fashion, just added some hackneyed 99% mumbo-jumbo. This Guy Fawkes incarnation of his easily and oft-imitated red and blue poster wasn't much work for him at all and yet the adoring art community and OWS roll out their tongues for him like a red carpet.

It's easy to think the road to artistic success lies on the open range of propaganda. Propaganda is a frightening mistress. The communists and socialists use art as a cog in the machine of oppression so it's not surprise Mr. Fairey seems eager to let himself be exploited. This piece from Big Hollywood in 2009 about former NEA Director of Communications Yosi Sergant sheds a light on just how far this administration and its champions are willing to go to get what they want. When you can't sway the people with facts and mere words, use an eye-catching image and slogan.

It's no sin to express your beliefs in any form at your disposal. It's fine to share those beliefs with others. But there's a fine line between expression and exploitation. Mr. Fairey isn't a victim and I would guess his desire for fame and fortune slightly outweighs his need to 'speak for the common man'. This latest move shows desperation. He, like many adamant Obama supporters, have seen their star brighten and fizzle. This revisit of his Hope poster is a return to a time of prosperity for him, a time when he was a hero. Fairey is a well-known 'art vigilante' and I suppose he always will be in some circles, but the 15 minutes of fame may be over and not a moment too soon.

Insult and Injury

Billy says he loves dogs. He tells people to be nice to dogs, advocates for the animals' humane treatment. In turn, people see Billy as a good person. Good people are on the side of kindness after all. You see, however, Billy has a bit of a temper. He seems to get into arguments almost daily, usually about politics. When Billy gets mad, his automatic response is to call his opponent a dog. He does this with malice in his voice, as if being a dog is the lowest thing on earth. This makes Billy look rather hypocritical doesn't it?

The above is a sampling of something I find especially troubling about the 'progressive' mentality. Many times, I have witnessed a scorned progressive use verbal abuse and name-calling as an acceptable debate tactic. While the childish and inappropriate behavior is troubling in itself, something stands out to me as being worse than petty name-calling. Many of these warriors on the left use one particular jibe to pry at their enemies; they call them gay. Now do you see what I was getting at with Billy and the dogs?

Progressives love to trumpet how accepting and loving they appear to be. They wear social causes on their sleeves like bright neon ribbons. Somehow, the self-serving belief that everyone should be allowed their individuality is cause enough to deem someone a saint these days. Progressives make a point to tinge everything with a social hue. I won't say everyone left of the center is a hypocrite and everyone to the right is not, but why use something like 'gay' to deliver a childish blow in a political discussion if being gay is nothing to be ashamed of? Why use an ivory bastion of the progressive agenda to bludgeon an enemy you clearly despise? Do these people associate fondly with their homosexual friends and proceed to hunker down in front of a keyboard to hurtle 'gay' as a curse without blinking?

Dogs know when someone isn't right. They can sense all sorts of things. People aren't always so astute. I know I would never call someone a friend who used an aspect of my individuality as an insult when they became angry. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine why using any kind of insult is appropriate for an adult. Behavior like theirs, those two-faced vigilantes, is in no way respectful. All creatures deserve respect until they do something that justifies revoking that respect. I don't care what color you are, what gender, what age, or what orientation; human is human. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone gave such respect openly and truthfully?

The Gravitation of Atlas

"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others." -Ayn Rand

With the advent of the Tea Party, there's been a lot of talk about Ayn Rand's work and Atlas Shrugged in particular. The first in a presumed three-part film series opens in theaters, appropriately on April 15th. With all the conservative and Tea Party buzz around Atlas and Rand, it stands to reason that some would be defensive of what they see as a co-opting of ideas they believe aren't rooted in conservatism. They site Rand's atheist beliefs and her focus on objectivism. Some call her a Libertarian, some say she was simply an individual. Others will readily tell you she had more in common with Margaret Sanger than she did with Sarah Palin. These people aren't wrong, they just fail to see the truth behind the conservative connection to individuality and works like Atlas.

The tax day opening of the film is an allusion to the theme that so many equate with the Tea Party; the belief that one should be able to keep their reward for hard work. So many Americans who see more and more of their tax dollars going to fund the comfort of those who simply refuse to work find solace in this theme. Many see it as glorification of selfishness, which taken on it's own, could certainly cause one to negate the importance of others. But this, like other sub-themes of Atlas, should not be the main focus. Respect for self and desire to be rewarded are outcomes of respect for the individual and must be kept in check.

No, individuality and flourishing potential is the true balm for the conservative heart, not the much maligned self-centered haughtiness, or the hand-over-fist monetary gain, or even the defiance of fat-cat government foes. Conservatives are drawn to and support the individual because they believe in exceptional innovation and drive. This is the fuel of the trail-blazing American spirit. These things lead to personal success, an idea that strikes terror into the liberal 'everyone is equal' mind. But what liberals fail to see is that personal success naturally leads to broad, culture-wide success. Without personal success and innovation, we wouldn't have any of the things that make us comfortable, happy, and safe today.

I don't believe Ayn Rand was anything other than what people say she was. I don't see her as a conservative and I don't see her work and beliefs as infallible. To do so would be to acknowledge her as some sort of deity, which would be foolish and illogical. Every story and every self-developed belief system is colored and poisoned by that person's life experiences. No one will ever have a life like Rand's, therefor her beliefs can never truly be shared fully by anyone else, not in a healthy way at least. Rand's abilities to paint success seem to have stopped at domination, selfish power grabs, and amassing of fortunes. This is unfortunate as it causes some to be instantly turned off from her work. But when approached with a level, objective mind, this can be put aside as a product of the writer's emotion.

A story, no matter how epic and sprawling, must be used only as a supplement to an ideal, not the complete framework for it. To believe everything someone writes or says to the letter is to completely negate one's individuality. Somehow, I don't think Ayn Rand would have liked that to happen. I don't know how she would feel to know her work is a rallying cry for the Tea Party and that being said, no one else can know for sure either. But as we individuals set our eyes on the horizon, we see the light of potential; knowing that in each of us is the power to make America exceptional once more. Denying the individual is what has quelled our pioneering fire. Imagine what we can do when we are allowed to flourish and do so together.

Artful Dodging

I have a close friend who is a career classical musician and teacher. She is, as many would expect, a professed liberal. She learned quickly upon meeting me as a student that I was conservative. In spite of this difference, we manage to have a great relationship. I credit some amazing folks I've met online with that fact. They taught me the correct way to handle political conversations; keeping it civil, staying calm and logical, and ending conversations when personal attacks begin. I'm thankful for their guidance, but that is a topic for another time.

My friend and I were discussing, as we do a lot lately, the state of arts in our city. The orchestra is yet again struggling with bankruptcy and the harsh possibility of job cuts. They seem to do this periodically. With donations down and interest in classical performances at a low, it's almost certain the orchestra will be changing, perhaps for the worse.

I sympathize with my friend and her sister, who is a full-time musician with the orchestra. I feel sorry for those who love what they do, have a passion for music, who now await what is likely a termination of their position. I've been there, I know how that feels. But our conversation soon turned to the happenings with NPR. We didn't go deeply into the subject, which was likely a good thing, but she mentioned a stereotype that I quickly had to refute; the belief that conservatives don't care about the arts.

It is a vast liberal stronghold, the thought they hold a monopoly on compassion, acceptance, and mercy. This monopoly consumed the arts in the 60's, when free expression and abstract thought became the norm. Art wasn't truly art unless it was difficult to understand and grotesquely provocative. Liberals fed on that resistance to 'the man' like a leech on the lifeblood of the creative. They manipulated artists and musicians into believing conservatives wished them squashed in the fiscal wheels of progress by donning condescending smiles and offering bribery in the form of government funds. The National Endowment for the Arts started in 1965, a way for Big Brother to subsidize what it saw fit for the insipid public to appreciate as art. A firm grasp on the reigns of expression would ensure the proper message came through. Politically backed art is one thing and one thing only: propaganda.

NPR and PBS are like the NEA. Their acceptance of public funds, no matter the percentage, make them susceptible to all kinds of whispered influence from D.C.. There are always strings attached, no matter what you're told. My friend seemed to believe the call for ceasing funds to NPR and PBS was an attack on the arts themselves and liberals want people to believe such rubbish. I had to set her straight by explaining this 'devil on their shoulder' concept. I also suggested she look deeply into the contributions made by private citizens and companies when it comes to the arts. I believe she would be surprised to find just how many conservatives there are on those lists.

I don't think conservatives hate the arts. Conservatives believe in things self-sustaining, work done the proper way. What better testament to freedom and ingenuity than an artist or arts organization succeeding on their own two feet? The truth may be that the arts have grown to hate conservatives. The lies have gone from backroom gossip to art-scene gospel. Conservatives love and support the arts as much as any self-righteous liberal. Stereotypes have trumped reality and it's time we started setting things straight. When opportunities arise, and they will, we must speak our minds, tell the truth, and be artists of grace. Only then will a more beautiful picture develop.

We Are All Socialists Now

"We Are All Socialists Now"
graphite on paper

"Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbor's supper - for his wife's operation - for his child's measles - for his mother's wheel chair - for his uncle's shirt - for his nephew's schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you - it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end ... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ..." - Chapter 10 'Sign of the Dollar' from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Last week, I read an article at Big Government about an art student at Pratt named Steve DeQuattro. This student is experiencing the huge double-standard in the arts world. Artist, musician, actor, dancer, it doesn't matter. If you hold conservative beliefs, you could be the next Michaelangelo and the 'elites' would treat you like dirt. The arts are awash with prejudices. There is plenty of room for art for art's sake, as long as it's the sake of liberal propaganda. A work can be positively confounding and devoid of all skill and still be hailed as a masterpiece if it's making a 'statement' the art community condones.

As an artist, I know the culture can be tough. A few years ago, I began doing some political pieces, but I didn't publicize them. Most of them don't even feature my real name. Now, I find I am doubly careful. I've been an unemployed graphic designer for almost a year through no fault of my own. I'm desperate to find work in a town drowning in recession and graphic design over-saturation. Though I feel compelled to share my emotions through my art, I'm scared that a potential employer may find it. There is simply very little respect for creative dissent when it falls to the right of the middle.

Perhaps that feeling of being trapped helped inspire this piece. Two people, bodies strong, but faces gaunt, are chained together. They're blindfolded because it's so easy to lead the blind. He holds a hammer; she carries a sickle. They both drag a broken and beaten Liberty by a metal noose. Everything is lit from underneath, as if they tread on a bridge above a river of flame. I returned to my non-digital roots for this piece because the graphite is so visceral.

As someone who struggles with the dichotomy of belief and need for employment in a field that rarely shares my belief, I know what it's like to work in chains. I spent years wearing a blindfold, simply participating in the daily grind, hoping to make it another day. I'm inspired by Mr. DeQuattro's courage. It's not easy to defy something that seems so insurmountable. And if I manage to find employment again, I hope I can continue to express myself in pieces like this and not fear for my livelihood. I do not have the courage quite yet to spread this around under my real name. It will never be in my portfolio. I share it now in cautious solidarity. If I'm found out, which is distinctly possible, I suppose it will be for the best. But you're not alone Steve. You were never alone.

Memorialized

When I was a senior in high school band, we lost one of our flute players in a tragic car accident. Our director came out of his office, pale as snow, to tell us the news. He broke down in a way I'd never seen from a grown person. His knees buckled and he fell to the ground, sobbing. My heart went out to the girl's family and to him, this troubled man with whom I'd recently had some disagreements. An hour or so later, though I'm not sure what was motivating my steps, I walked up to him and put my hand firmly on his shoulder. I'd lost my dad to cancer not long before. I looked this man in the eyes and said nothing. He knew I understood how he was feeling.

We suited up in our band uniforms and filed into an annexed room of the funeral home. We listened to the service over the p.a., sniffs and sobs to punctuate the solemn event. When the service concluded, we headed outside and lined either side of the drive. We were called to attention and we stood there, winter wind chilling our cheeks, as the family drove through followed by the hearse. I was the leader of the low brass section, a girl to corral the rough and rude boys. I was never more proud of their composure as I was that day.

When I look back on it now, I can't imagine a more fitting tribute. This girl was one of us and no one at that service was there for any other reason than to remember her. The stark black pavement flanked by regal band members in white-legged uniforms must have been almost military, giving her the sendoff she deserved.

The 'memorial' service that occurred last night in Tucson, Arizona was nothing like this. The crowd was unruly and loud, the roster of speakers a bit confounding, and they even passed out t-shirts for the event. Though President Obama's speech was something that pleased a number of people, it was nothing more than a seasoned speaker doing what he does best: reading. I felt no emotion from him, no connection whatsoever to what had happened. And why was that? Well, because he wasn't connected.

A memorial is just that, an event to remember something or someone who was dear to you. Though a great number of people didn't know the six victims personally, they could find ways to identify with them enough to properly memorialize them. A parent could immediately understand the grief of losing a young child. A grandchild could understand how painful it must be to say goodbye to a grandparent. A person with a close friend would know the separation of never seeing their friend again. But politics, there is no place for politics in this situation. I'm sure Obama has friends and I know he's a grandchild and parent, but he has an unnatural aura of politics that never leaves him. Politics knows no emotion save the use of it for manipulation.

Presidents have always made speeches in times of triumph and tragedy; that's nothing new. But in both triumph and tragedy, the attitude must not be one of personal gain or desire for the spotlight. In this case, I must say it was both of those things. This was no memorial, it was a political rally on the backs of the grieving. It was a show of support not for the families who had lost loved ones, but for a stumbling president. It was an excuse for a hollow orator to flex his speaking muscles; a trial-run for 2012.

In the aftermath of the Arizona shootings, one thing was clear: the left will stop at nothing, hold nothing sacred except the profane, to take down their enemies. In an ironic twist, Sarah Palin has seen an uptick in the death threats she receives. What better time to call for the murder of a political figure than immediately after the attempted murder of another. Strangely, the White House has been silent on these matters of accusation and 'blood libel'. Last night's shill held no relief.

After the burial of my bandmate, I visited the girl's home with my director. I had drawn a portrait of the girl, smiling and hopeful in her colorguard uniform. A local frame shop had mounted it in a stunning frame for free. I wasn't present when it was given to the family, but at the home, the girl's step-father (whom I had never met) walked up to me and hugged me tight. He thanked me through tears and I nodded with a comforting smile, happy to have brought a tiny bit of solace. I may not have known this girl as a close friend, but I knew the events of her memorial were about her, not me. I did what I could to comfort the family, to keep the focus on them as they grieved and attempted to heal. Had I not been able to do that, I would have removed myself from the situation. I feel this would have been the best route for Obama. He should have visited the grieving alone, said his peace, and left the circus for a more appropriate time and place.

My heart goes out to the victims and I hope they will heal from the pain. I hope they can eventually drown the echoes of whoops and yells from the rally last night with the memory of their loved ones laughter. God bless you Tucson, and God bless America.

You Don't Scare Me, Bully

Bullies are nasty things. Insecure individuals releasing their frustrations on the innocent has no basis in logic. When a child is bullied, our hearts go out to them. We see our own experiences reflected in their tear-filled eyes. But bullying is not quarantined to only the young. One has to ask oneself, what happens to child bullies when they grow up? For that answer, we don't have to look too far, especially right now.

The mainstream media, most liberals, and many other politicians exhibit the classic signs of being bullies in big-people clothes. Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kentucky, is someone you might expect to find holding another person's head in a toilet. That swirly victim at present is Rand Paul. Being the son of someone so polarizing like Ron Paul can't be easy, small physical stature aside. Rand isn't a stranger to bullying. He seems to be a seasoned pro when dealing with senseless slander, but why should we sit back and let this kind of thing continue? We profess to be a society that's sickened by undeserved violence. We condemn the actions of child bullies, yet when that undeserved violence is wielded by a liberal or a liberal-sympathizing member of the media, we accept it. We shake our heads, say 'tisk tisk' and let it remain. The memory of the event is quickly buried under memories of countless events like it every day.

The 2010 mid-term elections have seen some really sad bullying tactics. An angry male Democrat calls his female Republican opponent a 'whore'. The liberal machine, media in tow, exploits the distant and irrelevant history of an otherwise normal woman, Christine O'Donnell, in order to make sure her liberal opponent is sent to Washington. An angry elitist Democrat resorts to physical contact with his Republican opponent during a debate. Congressional fat cats send their significant others on heckling missions to rattle their opponents. If Washington and the road to Washington were the halls of an elementary school, these politicians would be spending a lot of time in the Principal's office. But if Barack Obama is considered the Principal, I guess that disciplinary trip won't do much good.

And so, it is up to us, the 'parents' of this nation. Our priorities need to be set right. After Rand Paul's first-and potentially only-debate with Jack Conway, he refused to shake Conway's hand. Conway's attack ad was just too grotesque, his methods far too mad. Though some may view this action as rude on Paul's part, I say it's about time. The reason bullies continue to wreak havoc is because the victims don't stand up for themselves. This isn't a case for marshal law, no. Rather, this is a case for common human decency. We're told we have to lead by example, but when the bully is blind, they can't see that example. The media, liberals, and many in the government are blind. They have lost any sense of right and wrong. It's time those of us who are willing to fight to suck it up and do so. The next time someone attacks your faith, your patriotism, your intelligence, or your freedom, give them a lesson in the truth. Bullies are bad, no matter their age, and we can't let their behavior continue.

Do Unto Others

Common decency isn't so common. Manners and kindness seem to have become things of the past. But why? Why don't people think of others anymore? With the rampant trend of 'touchy-feely' liberalism in this country, people should be more considerate; but in truth, it depends on what 'group' in which you belong. If you're in the right group, you get plenty of consideration. But that's not what the Golden Rule is about, now is it?

From simple, everyday things like not saying 'please' and 'thank you', to things like blatant discrimination, we've become heathens. We're all out for ourselves. Even when people show 'consideration' for others, it seems that consideration is out of fear or some kind of personal gain. There's nothing done simply out of kindness anymore. An example of where common decency has lapsed is the Ground Zero mosque.

This country boasts freedom of religion and as one of our founding freedoms, that religious openness is just fine by me. But what about equal respect for everyone and all religions? Favoritism to Muslims out of fear or anything else shouldn't take top-billing over the memory of the people killed on 9/11. This isn't simply a case of free worship, this is a case of Muslims wishing to build in a place they know for a fact will cause irritation and not caring at all about said irritation. And where is the outrage about the Muslim's disrespect? Of course, there's plenty of outrage by the 'public', but not enough where it counts.

We have laws that keep sex offenders away from schools. We have laws that take drivers licenses away from people who have caused deaths by drunk driving. But when it comes to the touchy subject of religion, unless you're Christian, you are allowed to have anything you wish. I say let them build elsewhere, as is their right, but please, if you want us to respect you, respect us as well. That is, after all, how the Golden Rule works. Do unto others...

Of Rocks and Sand: Words About Faith

"You know, sometimes, when you trade tradition for progress, you wind up with neither." -Rabbi Samuel Garfinkel from USA's In Plain Sight

Faith is one of those things which thrives well on tradition. Along with family and country, faith instills in us the comfort of a higher power, the conviviality of people who believe as we do. Faith gives us reasons for the things that happen and consolation for pain. But just like family and country, when faith is shaken by any force, our lives can be changed forever.

I used to be under the employ of a protestant denomination. I worked in their national headquarters for almost seven years. When I took the job, I wasn't terribly familiar with what made them different than the faiths I knew. I had been raised Baptist and converted to Catholicism in college. This denomination was somewhere in the middle. The longer I worked there, the more understanding I became as to why people referred to them as 'reformed'. Though Baptists and Catholics are far apart on the Christian spectrum, there's one thing that gives them staying power: unyielding tradition.

The area in which I worked wasn't terribly engrossed in the policy-making part of the church. Though I tried to know as little as possible about the political leanings and goings on within this church organization, I couldn't help but know some things. Most of the people were liberal, supporting everything from extreme 'green' legislation to openly condemning Israel for, what it seemed, the simple act of existing. Though some of this liberal bias was merely a preference for the people who worked and worshiped there, some of it had permeated the very structure of the church. Some traditions, carried on for decades, were cast aside like yesterday's biodegradable coffee cup. The next big liberal agenda was the next big church agenda. Doctrine seemed to change like the weather.

As the years went on, I unfortunately learned more and more about this auto-immune illness that had struck the denomination. Their churches were faltering, like many at the time, but when the trend died down in others, this particular sect did not recover. They tried to sugarcoat things, saying there were signs of progress and growth, but like the government's much-hailed 'economic recovery spurred by stimulus,' news of lifting fog could be traced back to a few strategic press releases tinted with rose-colored glasses. Church attendance could be called abysmal at times. Their faith base was aging; the most recent average age of people active within this denomination was listed at 60. The youth were turning away, so were young adults.

Explanations were abound. People in high places struggled to put a name to what was happening, all the while continuing on their progressive path. To a member of the faith, this was a crisis with no clear cause, one that could be allayed by the careful application of new rules or the dismissal of human failure. To me, an outsider looking in, I saw the biggest cause as plain as the sunrise. In their quest to change always with the times, they had abandoned the traditions and beliefs that brought them together as one in the first place. They had changed so often and so drastically in efforts to appease this group or that group, they had begun to appease no one.

In spite of some people's love for spontaneity and ever-changing atmospheres, some things should never change so quickly. Long-standing traditions and beliefs deserve the slow evolution intended by God and nature. Families change, countries change, faith, at it's core, should not change in this way. As Christians, we must take a cue from our grandfather in faith, Judaism. This time-tested, human-tested faith has stood strong for millennia. In the face of evil's attempts to eradicate them, they have remained faithful. To this day, the Jews, specifically of Israel, are the most devout and stalwart people on earth. This strength must come from a strength of tradition in the light of changing times. Small things may have changed, but the important things remain. God's mandates remain.

As membership declined in my employing denomination, the funds to keep the headquarters afloat declined. A massive amount of the blame was shifted to the down economy, which I can see as a partial contributor, but not the main cause. Downsizing had occurred in the years prior to my employ, but in the years since, the downsizing had become almost an annual ritual. I survived three of them before having my position eliminated this year. Some of you may attribute this post to bitterness, but I can promise you, I harbor only a small amount of bitterness. I pity them. I pity them for what they have brought upon themselves. I pity them for the ignorance that will undoubtedly be their downfall. I pity those people whom I grew to love who remain there and what may happen to their livelihood in the months and years to come.

No, this post was in response to something that happened recently with this denomination. I fear one of the cornerstone beliefs of this faith is in real jeopardy, something that if lost, would cause the ultimate loss of membership. Added to the already sparse membership of this church, a hit like this could be fatal. I am a Christian, regardless of my chosen denomination. I believe in God, in Christ, in the church. My faith sustains me and it gives me a sense of oneness with those who share my faith. But I know my faith is built on the rock of Christ, first and foremost. Humans, politics, policy, those things are ever shifting. Christ does not shift. A church bound to stand the test of time, must be careful where they choose to build. This denomination has succumbed to the intoxicating will of weak, attention-seeking human interests and taken their eyes away from the divine. I have heard, a house built on shifting sands cannot stand, something gleaned loosely from Matthew 7:24–27 (see below for complete passage). Divinity and nature dictate this to be true. No house, no family, no country, and certainly no faith can stand if left to ride the shifting sands of human failing.

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." -Matthew 7:24–27 (New International Version)

Dear Hollywood: Stop Bullying Me!

When my husband was in lower education, he was bullied quite a bit. He was overweight, wore glasses, and spent a lot of time in shop class. Through the eyes of a jock, he had the geek trifecta. The jocks called my husband names, they knocked his backpack off his shoulders, and one particular bully made a game out of running up behind my husband and knocking his hat off his head nearly every day with a rather violent slap. After months of this behavior, my husband had had enough. When he heard the footsteps behind him one afternoon, he steadied himself, turned, and punched the bully in the face. Shocked by the show of initiative from this 'freak' and nursing a bruised ego, the bully skulked away, never to speak of the incident or repeat the bullying again.

I like to hear that story. Aside from how it makes my husband look (quite manly), it makes me feel better about having stood up for myself over the years. Sure, it's wrong to resort to physical violence most of the time, but it's more wrong to needlessly bully someone. In recent years, people have become more vigilant about bullying. We've all seen PSAs on the subject, from the 'old-fashioned' kind, to the cyber kind. Bullying can do a great deal of damage to a child. But what about adults? What about groups of people? What does bullying do to them?

The liberal media machine is excellent at the art of bullying. No one seems to know better how to sucker punch conservatives and their values. They will do and say almost anything to paint a sad, stupid, or evil picture of the people who oppose their opinions. If it isn't a crime show plot about a right-wing Christian with a sex addiction who abuses children, it's constant one-liner jabs about how stupid Sarah Palin is and how people who like her have to be equally as inept. Of late, the Fox hit Glee amplified its stance on conservatism by blatantly smearing Palin and making veiled jokes about Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. It wasn't enough they had already blasted conservative principles on numerous occasions. They even went as far as to suggest the stereotypically stuffy, obviously well-off white Christian parents of a teen mother would kick her out of the home for the shameful sin of pre-marital sex. I don't know any Christians who would do such a thing.

Glee is supposed to be about the struggles of outcasts. These are geeks, freaks, and pariahs with issues ranging from dowdiness to obesity to homosexuality. These kids are the epitome of bully fodder, but yet the show continues to senselessly pelt its viewers with hate. Perhaps its the pressure to be 'cool' or the need to 'fit in,' but I find it rather sad. How on earth are you supposed to teach individuality and strength when you go out of your way to run with the crowd?

You'd think as an informed society we would be more opposed to overt bullying. Perhaps it's that trembling child in all of us who takes the punches, just waiting for the beating to subside so we can run away. But I think it's time for us to turn around and face the bullies. It's time to make a statement. If you see something in film or on television that upsets you, complain! If it's bad enough, talk to your friends about it, and stop watching. My husband and I gave up on Family Guy a long time ago. No amount of Star Wars jokes were worth the hate directed at what I believed and who I respected. Though I enjoy a lot about Glee, I'm growing weary of the taunting. It's truly a shame when bullying becomes so strong that an attack on an idea can be as painful as a slap to the head, but I am ready to fight back.

Sowing Seeds of Self Love

"The biggest problem we have in the world is lack of self love. Every cruelty comes from those who don't understand what they're worth!" -Jim Carrey

Mr. Carrey posted this on twitter recently, smearing his pompous ignorance on the computer and iPhone screens of millions of fans. With these two sentences, he proves he actually does know how to tell a joke. This joke is on him and all those who somehow find sense in his logic. Indeed, self love is the biggest problem we have, but a lack would only be the solution. Theodore Dalrymple on Self-Esteem versus Self-Respect states: "Self-esteem, it appears, is like money or health: you can't have too much of it." I think this is one of the reasons the 'self love' Mr. Carrey speaks of is such a pox on our society. Just like lusting after money, we have a need, an addiction to self-esteem. We crave prop-ups and pedestals, we thirst for mere ounces of praise and when we get them, we thirst for gallons. As the gallons come, we search for easier and easier ways to get more. Like Narcissus and his reflection, we've become unable to tear ourselves away... from ourselves.

Years of liberal indoctrination and preoccupation with 'self love' has seen to the formation of the 'entitlement gene'. This gene is passed from one self-esteem drunken moocher to the next by way of crippling stereotypes and baseless buzzwords. If you break down a great deal of the activism in our society today, you will always find overblown narcissism hiding under a rock in the background. Let's look at some examples.

• ACORN and other community-activist-type groups grew from the notion that by rights of ethnicity or degree of laziness, people are entitled to homes and sneaky tax breaks. We know now the lengths these people would go to in order to get their agenda across. The offenses range from advising a pimp on how to make his 'business' appear legitimate to the US government to registering dead and imaginary voters as default votes for Obama. There was nothing humble about ACORN. Everyone involved saw their cause justly because it's what they would want from the world. Why would they advise law-breaking prostitution-peddlers to clean up their act when they themselves live on the stolen rewards of other people's hard work? Why would they be equal in their voter canvasing when they know the 'other guy' makes no promises where entitlement is concerned? Every decision, every bit of advice, came from their darkened heart of self-adoration.

• Feminist organizations come from the same stock. Most believe women deserve certain things just for being women. If a woman and man were up for the same job, the woman should automatically get the job even though the man may be more qualified. And why would someone believe that? Simple. These women know that's what they would want. They know genuine respect comes from genuine hard work and frankly, they're not ready to do that hard work. They look in the mirror and hear the oft-whispered mantras "women are special, things are harder for women so the world must make consolations, women deserve to this respect because they're women." Humility teaches that in order to surmount obstacles, you must work harder. Vanity uses non-issues as crutches to hop undeservedly into the 'special' line.

• Anti-war fanatics, aside from being grossly undereducated in history and civics, are usually the kind of people who wish nothing more than to rule as dictators over their own life and the lives of those around them. Their crusade against war is a surrogate for the battle they are afraid to wage against their own insecurity. Facing up to the truth of the world would mean facing up to the possible lies they live by and that's just not easy for people who think the world tips on them as an axis. War is a mirror and these people prefer only the mirror that tells them they're the fairest in the land.

Communists, socialists, and entitlement junkies everywhere are little more than vain children. How else could you explain someone's belief that the spoils of hard work and dedication of someone like Bill Gates belongs to them when they've done nothing to deserve it? When I think of entitlement, I recall the folk tale 'The Little Red Hen.' The hen works at planting wheat, cultivating it, harvesting it, and baking to produce a loaf of bread. From the planting stages to the work of baking, she asks for help from her farm friends who all simply say "Not I." When the bread has been baked, the friends are more than happy to help the hen eat it. She, in efforts to teach her friends the errors of their selfish and lazy ways, refuses to share her bread.

Our society today is so poisoned by entitlement it's hard to imagine a future without it. But we must soldier on. Peace, charity, hard work, all of these things have a requirement so many refuse to fulfill: humility. On the hard-labor-bended backs and in the blister-peppered hands of those before us, our country has been carried in humility. Wars have raged, tensions abroad and at home have waxed and waned, tragedies, both man-made and natural have tested us, and we have remained. We must now concoct an anecdote to the self-love epidemic that ails us. We must replace selfish esteem with self respect. You reap what you sow, not what others sow for you. The entitlement gene is pushing the American ideal into extinction. Now is the time to sow humility and accountability before all that remains is ashes and dust.

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.

Socialism: Now Brewing

Original graphic art by x_1013_x
Insipration: Coffee Parties

Click here to read my thoughts on the coffee parties.

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.

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.