A Response

I received this comment on my last post:


balcony39 has left a new comment on your post "Okay. I'm About To Intimidate A Windmill. Again":
As a foreigner, tho' frequent visitor to the USA when I first started to read this I seriously thought the Gov of Arizona had it in for illegal aliens (from Mars etc.) You guys and your politicians are so wacked it seemed utterly feasible. Then I read on and I saw the raw ugly all pervasive face of rising hard right Neo Nazism. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly!!! Think on In Xanadu. Read a bit of history and see how the little stuff, and such a nasty bill is not a small thing, leads to the total erosion of human rights. Good luck!

I thought the observations from balcony 39 deserved more than simply being buried in the comments section of my post.

First of all, I sincerely apologize for the appearance of having “wacked” politicians. The United States of America is a republic, and republics constantly evolve, and sometimes it’s not pretty. If you read our history, you will note that regardless of whatever direction we lurch, eventually – and it could take years – the will of all the people dominates.

To compare the Arizona law to Neo Nazism is to focus on the wrong period of history. (And, respectfully, it’s condescending of you not to look deeper.) Unlike Nazi Germany, this is not a national law, it is a state law, and every civil rights organization in the country is lining up to take a shot at it. They are doing this because they can do this. On the national level, our President has people examining it – closely. Already parts of this law have been revised, and this is before it even goes into effect. This is literally the will of the people in action.

The real problem here is one of attitude. The “aliens” of today are regarded the same way African Americans were regarded in the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. I suspect that earning respect and equality today will be every bit as difficult as it was 60 tears ago.

But you have to start somewhere.

j

Okay. I'm About To Intimidate A Windmill. Again

A couple of days ago I was staring at a blank computer screen (“You are getting sleepy, sleepy …”) and in the background the Governor of Arizona was signing a declaration of war against illegal aliens.

I was intrigued.

In the first place, the Governor of Arizona looks like the product of bad casting.


(“No no,” you would cry, “She’s not the Governor. She’s the Governor’s ex wife’s obnoxious Aunt Florence who is the first one eaten by the pod people... in the swamp … on Mars”)

In the second place, I was attracted by the obvious and loud opposition to the law the Governor was signing.

“Illegal aliens and the crimes they bring in are overrunning the state,” the Governor says. “They have to be stopped.”

I’m not sure why, but this seemed to many to be a radical concept.

“Sanctuary,” I know of one alien claiming. “Give me sanctuary.” And this person was taken into a church, housed, fed, and encouraged to resist deportation.

Would the church be as willing to take in a bicycle thief?

What’s the difference?

By best estimates, there are millions of illegal aliens in this country. Not thousands, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands – millions. I can’t even fathom that many people.

And, being illegal, they don’t pay taxes on anything.

They don’t pay for fire departments, road repairs, or city lights, yet they use these services every day.

These millions of people also get health care. Free.

The children of illegal aliens attend our already over filled public schools. Again, there is not even a beginning of financial support from their parents.

There used to be a rational that “they are filling jobs nobody else wants.” With unemployment standing at about ten per cent, I don’t think that excuse still works.

The one cry I hear from opponents to this law is that of racial profiling. Aliens must carry identification when they are out in public. This strikes me as funny. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t carry identification with them.

It isn’t that I don’t feel sympathy for suffering people – I do. But breaking the law and stealing from the government is not a good way to start a relationship. I’m beginning to feel like I’m being pushed – and worse, secretly scorned and laughed at.

And that is a mistake.

They have attracted my attention

The last I knew, laws were still being enacted and enforced in this country by the majority.

And the last I knew, that was still me ... and the Governor of Arizona ... and one or two other people..

Comments?


j

COMMUNICATIONS

Whatever happened to communicating?

Blame the phlegmatics. (That's a temperament, not the country south of Sweden.)

They invented movies so they wouldn't have to go to a play. They invented TV so they wouldn't have to go to the movies.

They invented blogging, which is a form of journaling. (Journaling is a form of autobiographical rambling which is of interest to no one, and blogging allows this egomaniac drivel to be shared with the world.)

And I was okay with that. (Blogging is "Art." Okay?)

So ... I am now on facebook. I didn't want to be. I didn't plan to be. However, since the majority of my friends are actors (and that should tell you something.) and actors love to talk about themselves, if I wish to occasionally wade in the shallow end of the gene pool, Facebook is the perfect place to go.

All this I mostly understand. All this is a form of communicating without being forced to actually talk to anybody.

Now we get to the part I don't understand.

I don't like cell phones. People stand beside me and talk to relatives they don't talk to when they are together.

And now they are sending text messages on their phones. Excuse me, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a telephone in the first place? I'm really confused here.

What's next?

I long for the old days, when everything was simple. I'm ready, Scotty, you can beam me up anytime you want.

LOL

jb

Now Here's A Good One ...

So I got this little notice on my computer - "Upgrade your security system," followed by the magic word "free."

So naturally I did. Free is good. Cookies are better, but free is still good.

So I upgraded. In the process, some interesting buttons appeared on my computer.

One of them was a map of my house. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the button. Sure enough, there was my house. Beside it, a car I no longer own, and in the back yard I saw - me! No extra charge. I always wondered what the top of my head looked like.

Another button said "suggested sites," indicating places I'd like to go. One was my mail, another was a free dictionary site (excuse me, aren't they all free?), and the last was the very site you're reading at the moment. I must admit I was disappointed with this button. At the top of "places I'd like to go" should have been the beach on Pango-Pango, and it didn't even make the top five!

The last button was/is by far the most interesting. It's labeled "Answers." With trembling fingers I touched this magic button. Imagine - answers!

And there they were;

(1) Yes.
(2) 3.14159265358979323846
(3) LaOtto Indiana
(4) Fish breath
(5) To get to the other side.

Uh-huh. Gotta be some kind of code. I mean, if answers were for just ANYBODY, then ... then ... well, you know ... everybody would have ... answers ... and where would we be then?

I'll get back to you later on this - after my sudden headache goes away ...

There's one more button. It says "Add more buttons."

Should I?

jb


And how was your day?

The Case For Leni Riefenstahl, PART TWO

A postscript of sorts ...

In regard to Leni Riefenstahl, in my mind it comes down to "what did she know, and when did she know it?" It seems pretty obvious the bulk of her important work was completed long before the Nazi atrocities were widely known. It seems to me that she was taking advantage of being in a position very few 34-year-old women could even dream about.

Hitler had brought Germany out of a monumental depression, gave work to people by building a roadway system that became the envy of Europe. He ordered the creation of the Volkswagen (laid the cornerstone at the factory), restored the military, the economy, and national pride. On the other hand - at the time - a small percentage of the population (the Jews) were beginning to be profiled as being responsible for most of the problems in the country.

Is this too high of a price to pay for national peace of mind?

We know what came next.

(1) The invasion of countries that were perceived as a threat to natural security.
(2) The imprisonment of people with no real charges or trial
(3) Allowing and/or encouraging the suspicion of people, based solely on religious differences.
(4) Torture
(5) Taking away of citizen rights and privacy.
(6) A government where the leadership was not held accountable for actions.

Should we judge Leni for not reacting when she saw these things happen?

Yes! Absolutely!

So ... Should we judge any less harshly the people in any country where these things occur?

JB


And how was your day?

Pondering A Decision Here.

I’ve been a playwright for something like, umm, almost 40 years now. (But you know that. If you cross my blog path on any sort of regular basis, I talk about this stuff all the time.)

And – by my own standards – I’ve had a decent career. With the exception of one play (which I’ve never offered to anyone) all my work has been produced. Somewhere. I’ve had plays produced as far west as Palm Springs, California, as far east as Pittsburgh, and a whole bunch of places in between. The best compliment I received was in being informed that one of my plays had been pirated and produced without my knowledge in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Wow. Somebody thought enough of one of my plays to steal it. How ‘bout that?!)

I never had a play produced on or off Broadway. This was never something that held any interest to me at all. At a time when I needed it, I had an agent (in Florida!) and made a respectable second income.

I enjoy writing plays. I’ve had a smattering of experience as a drama critic, and recently I’ve co-authored a book, and even more tentatively I’ve submitted articles to a handful of magazines. And a dear and talented friend has made overtures about the two of us working together to write a movie. And I just might. (Other than this, she seems quite sane,)

But I’m most comfortable writing plays. A play is the only form of literature that does NOT go through an editor. I like that. I like placing words on paper and having someone immediately recite them back to me. I like giving a concept to a group of performers, and watching (sometimes in amazement) as that concept is expanded.

I’ve purposely avoided what most people would consider success in this career, because that usually means stress, deadlines, antagonism, and all the other pressures that appear to define and repress creativity by today’s standards.

And I was happy. Write a play, send it somewhere. That was the pattern. And I’ve been lucky. Word of mouth has meant that SOMETHING of mine has constantly been on somebody’s schedule ever since I started writing.

But lately I’ve been a member of a couple of writing groups, and several people I admire are in the process of taking, what for me, would have been the next step. I wished them well. I was still not convinced this could or should be the next step for me – if, indeed, I was even looking for a next step.

And yesterday, while I was trying to find the synopsis of a play I’d never heard of, I came across a website listing maybe a hundred agents specializing in playwrights. Intrigued, I discovered I more than qualify to be considered as a client.

So-o-o … suddenly … I’m considering sending something to a bunch of suit types. Do I really want to do this? I’ve given you all my reasons for NOT doing this in the past. What do you think? Should I pick an agent with many clients? Or should I pick an agent with only one or two clients? (My agent in Florida only had three clients, including myself. She worked like a mad woman on my behalf.)

I know, I know, ultimately it’s my decision. But this is a new think for me, and I’d appreciate some thoughts.


JB

And how was your day?

Maybe I'll Run For President

So … maybe I’ll run for President.

I could do that.

Secretly, I’ve always wanted to be President ever since I learned that in the White House there’s a chef on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Think about it. If I wanted a hot fudge Sundae at 3:30 in the morning, it’s only a phone call away.

“Say, George, are there any Secret Service down there?” (If I was the President, I would know that Secret Service always hang around the kitchen.)

“Good, good,” I’d continue. “I’d like a hot fudge Sundae, George. Would you send someone up with one? Thank you so much. Oh, and … George, are you still there?” (I knew he would be.) “Would you make it the way the day chef does? You know, I like the hot fudge at 81 degrees, not that tepid 75 degrees that you sent up for me last time. Will you do that for me? Thank you very much.”

I hang up, satisfied. Yesterday I ordered a limburger and onion sandwich on Moravian
Olive bread and tomorrow I’ll likely order a ham sandwich slathered in Yak butter.

But tonight I’ll be happy with my hot fudge Sundae. Being President is a good thing.

Oh – and if I wanted to go somewhere? Would you believe this – I have my VERY OWN airplane. (Sort of) No waiting in lines. No luggage to check in. Good snacks, and they don’t cost extra. And I could smoke if I wanted to. (I don’t smoke, but I could if I wanted to.) In fact I wouldn’t even bother to fly anywhere. We could just taxi the big thing around town. Who’s gonna stop me? I’m the president.

And see – now I know what you are thinking. What kind of President would I be? Well, I’ll tell you. I’d be a great President. I have a secret. I’d go into the White House and hide for 4 years. I wouldn’t go out, I wouldn’t answer the phone – nothing. So how would that make me a great President? I’ll tell ya. Truthfully, at the end of 4 years the country would be no better off than it was when I took office. BUT … on the other hand, by doing nothing, the country would be no worse than it was before I became President. So how about that, huh? Think about it. How many other Presidents can make that claim, huh? Hm-m-m. Maybe I’ll use that as my campaign slogan – “No worse than we were before.” (Hey. Don’t scoff at the idea. It worked for Eisenhower.)

Now here’s the REAL secret. The important thing is not BEING President. What’s important is having BEEN President. Where else can you work for 4 years and then retire on a government pension? With full medical? And the Secret Service is still there, in case you need a babysitter or a hot fudge Sundae in the middle of the night. And people will actually pay you good money to come speak at the PTA or Little League banquet.

And here’s the best part. What are the qualifications to become President? Would you believe it, THERE AREN’T ANY! None. Zip. All you really need is an obnoxious campaign manager and a plastic flag pin to wear in your lapel. Works for me. I have the pin, and I know lots of obnoxious people.

Oh. That reminds me – I need a Vice President. So … you doin’ anything for the next few years? The way I see it, you will do even less than I do, and it’s SUPPOSED to be that way. And maybe … maybe maybe maybe … if you do the job well (and don’t shoot anybody while you’re in office), then you could be the NEXT President.

Wouldn’t that be fun?

So think about it. I think we still have a month or two. And if you need incentive, think hot fudge Sundae. I have it on very good authority that Sundaes consumed while in office are not fattening.

JB

Should Women Be Ordained Pastors?

I came across a site (led by a woman) that implied that women should not hold positions of church leadership; specifically, that a woman pastor, by simply holding that position, is in sin.

The large majority of comments that followed this post agreed with the woman’s train of thought, stating that (1) it was a shame women were entering ministry, (2) that they were “sneaking” in where they don’t belong, and (3) God is strongly opposed to women as Church leaders. Two commentators went so far as to admit that “yes, one or two women may be inspired and preach the word of God, but they are by far in the minority.”

In jest I quoted Shakespeare at them – “I am ashamed that women are so simple … when they are bound to love, serve, and obey.”

Not only did they miss my jab, they agreed with Shakespeare, and suggested that the Bible offers “proof” to back-up Shakespeare’s statements. (No humor at all in this bunch.)

I couldn’t believe what I was reading.. I hate it when the Bible is quoted out of context. I answered by saying that any man would be an idiot if he ignores sound Biblical doctrine simply because it comes from a woman. And finally, I asked for their Bible verses that would support these statements.

Since the majority of people who go there are already biased in a specific direction, descent is a waste of time – certainly not encouraged. I received no Bible verses. Too bad. We have no basis for discussion. Instead, I was banned from making any more comments on this site. (In the context above, I used the word “idiot.” Apparently in the context above, I must have used the word better than I thought.)

Good-bye, LuLu. I will miss you. Julie, you were right.

The question remains – should women become ordained as Ministers and Pastors? I admit that I have an opinion here – a strong one.

On the other hand, I’m sincere in wanting to know how others feel about this, and why. What does the Bible tell you on this subject?

Thanks,

JB

Does Lincoln Haunt The White House?

I got in a discussion the other day … This man I know just returned from a vacation in Washington D.C.



On their last day there, this man and his family managed to be included in a tour of the White House. While they were taking the tour, their guide “casually” mentioned that for many years the ghost of Abraham Lincoln had been seen wandering up and down the halls he knew so well and – of course – had been seen in the famous Lincoln bedroom.

The man told me all this in hushed tones, apparently not wanting others to share in this little knowledge which is a dangerous thing..

Matching the intensity of his disclosure, I informed the man that there was not one hall in the White House that Lincoln today would have recognized, that in fact the former President had never even been IN the Lincoln bedroom, and that my acquaintance, although well traveled, and certainly interesting as a conversationalist, was gullible, naive, and apparently dumb as a stick.

He asked me to substantiate my claim (regarding Lincoln, I presume.)

Here ‘tis.

The White House was built – more or less – by the year 1800. It was partially burned by the British, repaired, and remained the home of U.S. Presidents for the next 150 years.

When Harry Truman became president, the 150-year-old wooden structure was literally condemned. Several smaller floors had buckled, and the entire building was in danger of collapse.
President Truman was never a man to do things half way. By 1950 he had the White House gutted – not remodeled, but the ENTIRE interior was removed, and the rotting wood supports were replaced with steel.

Outside, the building looked like this.

Inside, the building looked like this. The Lincoln bedroom, by the way, is on the top row of windows to the right.

So … can anyone point out to me which of these hallways Lincoln was known to frequent?

But … I’m really trying to be fair here. Maybe the ghost of our 16th president IS trying to revisit the floors and walls he knew so well. Anybody hear stories about a tall man with a beard hovering around any landfills in Arlington, Virginia?

And how was your day?

Saw An Interesting Thing on TV

I think it was CNN. (All these reports seem to run together, don’t they?) One of the supposed experts predicted that gasoline would reach $5.00 a gallon by the 4th of July.

At that time it was suggested that there was now a frantic need for alternative sources of energy.

Then it was announced that sales of trucks and other vehicles that get two or three gallons to the mile weren’t selling well … duh …

At that time it was suggested that there was now a frantic search for alternative sources of energy.

This was followed by the Arabs considering increasing oil production – thus lowering prices – so that other countries wouldn’t be so eager to develop alternate sources of energy.

(See? Somebody was paying attention.)

I later heard that someone running for president suggested that we build 47 (actual) nuclear reactors to produce electricity. (What a forward thinking idea. You won’t need lights at night if your state glows in the dark. Why didn’t anybody think of this before?)

At that time it was suggested that there was now an interested search for alternative sources of energy.

I also heard that since there were now fewer cars on the highway, the high cost of oil was actually being beneficial to the environment. (This was said by someone on CBS News. I haven’t liked CBS News since Walter Cronkite left, so I kept waiting for the newscaster’s nose to grow, but it didn’t. I was disappointed.)

There is now a great push toward offshore drilling, and for massive oil drilling in Alaska. Today I heard that “if Alaska could be opened for drilling now, we wouldn’t have to search for alternative sources of energy for another 40 years.”

WHAT??!!

Excuse me, but, uh … if ya wait another 40 years to start looking for this alternative energy stuff … who’s gonna be here to use it?

An Interesting History

There’s an article making the rounds of the email circuit, called “An Interesting History.” I've received it twice,now. The first time was from an old buddy who sends me every bit of trivia available. The second time, I received it from someone who takes this sort of thing much more seriously. This time I read it much more carefully. It’s an interesting article in that it’s my impression that it doesn't at all say what it wants you to believe it is saying.

What do you think? I’m including the entire article here – censorship isn’t fair. On the other hand, I AM interjecting my own comments from time to time, where I question the actual direction this thing is taking. I'm passing it along so that if you stumble over it somewhere else, you won't be fooled by what it appears to say.

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

(So here the author suggests that this article is about the inevitable decline of democracy. It’s important to keep this theme in mind, to see what proofs are presented to substantiate that claim.)

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

(This statement may or may not be debatable. At face value, however, is the thought that Professor Tyler must have been smoking too much unrefined hemp. He’s applying the characteristics of a democracy to a republic. Not the same thing at all. And, in case we forget, the form of government in the United States is not a democracy – it’s a Republic! You remember this one, don’t you? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic …

For the record, enough enquiries were received by the University of Edinburgh that, while they confirm that Alexander Tyler once taught there, they have no record whatsoever that he ever wrote a treatise on the Athenian form of government, Republic or otherwise.)

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’

(If I understand the implication here, the writer is suggesting that because this country is going through a economically difficult time, this is a “proof” that we are a democracy in decline. If I have voted myself a “generous gift from the public treasury,” it must have been delivered to the wrong address. My impression of our present misfortune is that we elected the wrong people to lead us. But that’s just my impression.)

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

(And what does that assertion have to do with any civilization being either a republic or a democracy? Absolutely nothing. From here on we are going on several rabbit trails, appealing to emotion rather than logic.

Even with that knowledge, I can’t resist an answer to the suggestion that no great civilization has lasted more than 200 years. I suppose you could say that statement could be true if you don’t count the British, who had been around as a monarchy for 700 years. Japan had 800 years, China about the same. Rome ruled for 700 years, Israel more-or-less the same. Egypt was under the same rule of government for almost 2,000 years. Hmmm … maybe if we don’t call any of these civilizations GREAT …)

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'

(Now this IS interesting. In theory we are still quoting an 18th century college professor living in Edinburgh. Professor Tyler – for the record, please define bondage, spiritual faith, liberty, abundance, complacency, apathy, and dependence. Are you SURE you are living in 1787?)

(It doesn’t matter. We’re about to lurch in a whole new direction.)

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

(Now read this next section VERY carefully.)

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'

(Did you read the same thing here that I did? With one inane swipe Olson lists "proofs" that Republicans were responsible - maybe ideal - citizens, and Democrats were ... uh ... somewhere below that level. Why? Is the author trying to sway 2008 voters in some direction? In the 2000 Presidential election, unless I'm mistaken, the Republican won. I guess it depends on your viewpoint how well THAT turned out.

As a point of interest, I made an effort to check out Joseph Olson and Hemline University on the internet. I could only find one in connection with the other, and both in regard to the comments made above. When I checked through accredited Universities of Minnesota, Hemline University wasn’t listed. It’s probably just me, but I’m beginning to detect a pattern …)

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. (In other words, Democrats. Boy, am I gonna have fun talking to a few friends of mine who think they are respectable! Love it!)

(And while we’re at it, let’s throw in one more black fear which doesn’t apply to the premise.)

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

(Of course! The very first thing “criminal invaders” want to do is change this country into a carbon copy of the depressed areas they just escaped from! Everybody knows that!)

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

(Brave what?)

JB

And how was your day?

In Response To Your Comments

I posted excerpts from nine plays. Comments on and off the blog expressed the most interest in my one work in progress, THE TEAPOT COLLECTOR. Thank you. I’m encouraged to pick up where I left off almost a year ago.

I posted a lighthearted jab at Hillary’s image … Nicki responded by saying that the story of Barack Obama would make a great musical. I agree. (In fact I’ll be greatly surprised if there aren’t several dramatizations eventually produced.) Not ten minutes ago I saw an interview with Mister Obama, who stated that Will Smith has already volunteered to play the role.

I posted a question (and later deleted it) in which I solicited advice. Most of the responses were thoughtful and intelligent. Thank you. Only one response was from someone who used the name “Anonymous” instead of the far more appropriate name of “Pond Scum.” Ah well. Be careful what you ask for.

OKAY FRED,

First it was Julie (103 things you may not know about me.) I survived that one. Several of us survived that one, come to think of it. Maybe more than several.

SHEEP! That’s what we are – sheep sheep sheep!

Anyway … (heavy breathing aside) … I thought as long as I stayed off the Internet, I’d be just fine.

And then along came Fred. (Hmmm. “Along Came Fred.” Sounds like a 1960’s beach movie, doesn’t it?)

This was emailed to me today. The request was to fill in the information, send it to everybody I know blah blah blah.

Why me, Fred? What have I ever done to you? Uh … never mind, don’t answer that.

Anyway, here’s what I received:

Four, Four, Four, Four...
A) Four places I go to over and over:
B) Four people who e-mail me regularly:
C) Four of my favorite places to eat:
D) Four places I would rather be right now:
E) Four people I think will respond:
F) Four TV shows I watch all the time:

And I started to answer, when it occurred to me that the questions were far more interesting than the answers.

SO; here are my answers, Fred. Here are also my questions ABOUT the questions.

Four, Four, Four, Four...

A) Four places I go to over and over: (Please define “go to over and over.” “The bathroom” is the first place that comes to mind. Maybe “the kitchen” would be the second place. “The bedroom” and “back to the bathroom” would complete my answer to that question. Then again, do you mean OUTSIDE the house? In that case, my answers would be “to Wendy’s,” “to church,” “to seed,” and “to pieces.”)

B) Four people who e-mail me regularly: (The salesperson who tells me I just won a new computer, anonymous, a man wanting to know if I can tell him where my ex-wife is presently living, and – oh yeah – Fred.

C) Four of my favorite places to eat: (That one’s easy – laying down, sitting up, standing, anyplace in between.)

D) Four places I would rather be right now: Los Angeles, Moscow, Toronto, asleep – but not necessarily in that order.)

E) Four people I think will respond: (Before I answer that question, please answer this one. Respond to what?)

F) Four TV shows I watch all the time: (Four? You’re telling me there are four now?)


There. I’ve answered your questions. Now – Julie, Birdie, Lorie, Q, LuLu, Nicki, Fay, Dan – I invite all of you to join in. It’s fun!

(Do you maybe get the very slight impression that if I’m going down, I wanna take as many of you with me as I can?)

If so …


BLAME FRED!

A question of Innocence

On her blog, One Lap Around The Sun, Julie Morrison posed the question, “What is innocence?” I thought this was a good question – had, in fact, worked through this issue a few years ago, and without a satisfactory answer.

Here’s what I thought at the time, and a few of the pitfalls I encountered. Maybe, with your help, together we can at least point this question in a better direction.

Let’s start with our old friend, Noah Webster. He defines innocence as following; “(a) a freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil: (b) chastity: (c) freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime: (d) freedom from guile or cunning: (e) lack of knowledge.”

So, okay, that all looks good. But one thing is left out of the equation, and that’s perception. Webster says innocence is “being unacquainted with evil.” (Point a). But isn’t the perception of evil subjective? For example, we consider slavery to be evil, but we didn’t always feel that way. Were the founding fathers of this country evil?

Here’s another question regarding perception. A few years ago there was a backlash by Christians against the Harry Potter books. Many people argued that these were occult in nature. (And several of these same people argued that Halloween falls under the same heading.) At the time I was interested in these questions, and read every article and book I could find which addressed these issues. Here was the (general) conclusion. The Harry Potter books are evil if you think they are evil. In other words, if you read something that in your mind you consider as evil, then it is evil. (Point e) Although I thought this response was simplistic, there was a grain of truth here.

Here’s another way to look at it; a person who is naked is regarded as anywhere from pornographic to embarrassing, at any rate lacking in chastity. (Point b) But a nude person is considered to be Art. You could say I’m arguing semantics here, but I’m not. I’m arguing perception.

In this same regard, you can’t even use the Bible as a reference point. (Point c). In Matthew 5 it says that “everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court …” In other words, our debate here is seemingly moot – no one is innocent.

And that, my friend, is as far as I got. Where innocence is concerned, my vague and unsatisfactory conclusion is that this quicksilver quality is largely illusion. A specific society in a specific country at a specific time determines what or who is innocent within the framework of that society, at and in that time and place. And this society as a whole is made up of cell groups – perhaps a large number of them. In turn, each cell is membered by individuals, each with personality scarred by both heritage and experience.

Is innocence, then, like beauty, determined in the eye of the beholder?

What do you think?

Who should read the Bible?

The question has been raised regarding who should read the Bible. One response was that only those with understanding should read it, and only those with extensive training should be allowed to interpret it. And finally, it was suggested that without this understanding and training, reading the Bible can actually be harmful.

I'd love lots of comments on this.

JB