...And Then Jesus Removed the Thorn from the Dinosaur's Paw.

Another reply - cum - topic for discussion!

The relevant posting I've replied is found here. My comment's waiting for moderation - and I think I'm more moderate than I have been in recent days.

==
Hi Mike!

I have two simple questions, stemming from your material above, from one of your particular points:

m[ike]: when sin-without-jesus-leads-to-eternity-in-flames is the doctrine, none of the other doctrines - none of the “good parts of the gospel” - really matter anymore, do they?

ben: Who wouldn’t want a religion that requires no sacrifice and requires little more of its adherents than positive thinking?

Alrighty - for one thing, who determines the good parts of the God-Spell? Oops, I mean, Gospel.

Second of all, Christianity/the Bible is not entirely clear about what constitutes Sacrifice, and what kind of sacrifices are required. It seemed to me that the "Good News" of the Gospel was a free gift (I'm sure that's what I heard Billy preaching on the night I saw him in Philly), a priori from my temporal point of view, and that there was a "Once and for all" involved - until I discovered the same writer telling me that I had to "die" to this world to live with Jesus. Hm! Turns out the libertarians who cry "TANSTAAFL" have a more consistent truth than the Bible, from a certain point of view!!

Paul is one very peculiar, Non Divine and recognized "human authority" who was no more of a christian than you are, but one that every one of you turn to for "truth", sooner or later, recorded in a book. He is NOT Jesus, and never physically met Jesus, but who spent a good portion of his career trying to say, "This makes no difference, this is the same Gospel God gave unto me, himself!"

So then, how about I take another tack with you - I'll posit that recognizing "non-consistency" or "contradiction" does not equal "two aspects of the same truth" and I'll cite a biblical source for my observation: Jesus.

But first, let's put up some other biblical sources for context, since you'd provided them:
m[ike]: who says religion has to be this way? it was the pharisees that had put such a religious burden upon the people that jesus himself railed against. jesus said, “take my yoke upon you because my burden is *light*.”

ben: [D]on’t confuse “simple” for “easy”. Jesus said, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7) Jesus says true religion requires sacrifice. (Matthew 16:24)

Matthew 12 - The Elephant In The Room
Jesus said, in Matthew 12: (context, verses 1 - 7)
6-"But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
7-"But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

Here, Jesus is talking to Pharisees, who've condemned his disciples for picking and eating grain on the Sabbath. I don't see any reference to "true religion" at all, only "Compassion, instead of a necessary sacrifice to atone for something". And HOW does Compassion relate to "True Religion"? :P

But, in a strange and serendipitous arrangement, we have MORE in this chapter to look at.

Verses 24 - 29, Matthew 12:
24-But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."
25-And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26-"If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?
27-"If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.
28-"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29-"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

What's Jesus Saying to YOU here? I think he's trying to say that "a house cannot be divided against itself and stand", a "universal truth" from the horse's mouth, that doesn't even have an associated Old Testament scriptural basis. I think he's saying that division and schism leads to destruction.

But Wait! There's More
That's right! For, after Jesus puts the stinky ol' Pharisees in their place, he switches gears on us, and starts talking Damnation!

The Unpardonable Sin
30-"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

Cosmic balance? Yin, and Yang? Nope... Good Righteous, and Evil; True, and False; Dichotomous States, Aspects only of opposing Values.

31-"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32-"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

And there's the Big Rub, of all of them. Here, we're given a Dire Warning, not to dare question that which has been revealed directly By The Spirit Of God... or face eternal punishment. And who, Praytell, Mr. Jesus, says when "the Spirit of God is Talking"? Will it be a Self Evident Thing (Actual Physical Miracles Happening In Front Of Your Eyes, like Jesus supposedly Did, but we don't see anymore), or will it be largely a matter of opinion, or will it be delivered from "On High" and revealed pretty much out of the blue, a "sign" without a "sign"?

A song occurs to me - "Trust and obey - for there's NO other way." If you sing that to yourself enough times.......

Words Reveal Character
33-"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34-"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."

Jesus wasn't a psychologist - but yet he shows remarkable skill in describing human nature, from his relatively high horse. I think he illustrates, well, that people reveal the desires of their heart when they speak to something - how else could he "have known" about the Pharisees? see verse 25 again!

And yet - we have more than "a heart", as humans... I mean to say, we don't use "the heart" to figure out our tax returns, for example, and that same rationality we use to figure out mathematics we can apply to a written document, or a speech we have to deliver. No heart required, sometimes - although a little "heart" generally makes things more enjoyable to read!

Jesus didn't need to use his heart, OR the spirit of god to know what the Pharisees were up to, simply from what they were saying about him.

35-"The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36-"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37-"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Yin, and yang? I don't know, but I find it awful funny that now I can go to hell for what I didn't do, per se; only what I did or didn't say will make a difference now, which is a damn sight different than doing anything!

But Let's Not Take Matthew Alone!
Heck no! It's not like Matthew's alone in finding cosmic significance in this exchange! Let's see what Mark adds to it!

Mark 3:
22-The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
23-And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
24-"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25-"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26-"If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
27-"But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
28-"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29-but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--
30-because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

Oh No! Mark actually gives a reason for why being eternally damned is required!! You can only be damned in eternity when you are *really* speaking against the True Spirit of God, since then you'd be calling an undeniably 'clean' spirit 'unclean' - and for that, you should roast in hell, according to Jesus. Forget all about all the truly terrible things you've done in life - they don't matter, all sins have been forgiven, but JUST CALL GOD'S SPIRIT UNCLEAN, and poof! He'll make sure his house stays United.

So! If you'd like a Yin and Yang, would you please explain to me: if I'm supposed to be joyful of being "free" of the wages of Sin, a Free Gift of the Gospel, why ought I to feel ANY fear of Hell? Could it be that my "freedom" is an elaborate hoax, like "You're free to wander the halls, but don't go into that particular room"? Could it be that *we're strong men* who've been Bound, for a reason?

Why Wishing For A God Doesn't Work...

Here's a comment that I've posted to another blog. Read the full text of this dude's post here.

I'm also going to preface this, here, by saying that there's no excuse for willful ignorance. Stupidity, we make allowances for all the time.

==
Bill Gnade wrote:
"FOR FUN: THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOUR EXISTENCE

Let me note this: If the speed of light is finite, and yet it is the fastest thing in the universe, then it follows that there is no present; there is no present tense. Every perception MUST be delayed; we only know the past. From object to eyeball, from fingertip to glass, there is a delay. Hence, we only know a present by inference; but such an inference is rooted in faith."

Let's check those premises. If:
A) Speed of light is finite.
Resolved as Yes: It's been measured by experiment, repeatedly, and we generally use the rough estimation of 3x10^8 m/s as it's speed. Strangely enough, you're asking that we proceed from this independent, observable fact.

AND B) Light is the fastest thing in the universe.
Oh my... loose words. Light's the fastest thing we have observed in the universe, and it's Einstein who lately predicted that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

What Follows:
C) The delay incurred by the passage of light from "Event A" happening and "Observer B" observing it means we can never know what is true "Now" and instead, must infer things by "Faith"...

Let's take this properly - by it's conclusion "Never know what is true 'Now'" and after first addressing the appended Straw Man.

Particularly, you've used the word "Faith" in the middle of a perfectly rational thought experiment, dragging it from the realm of logic, and into the land of pseudo-science. You're literally trying to prove that rational thought (science, atheism, etc) has no basis for asserting any reality, especially uncomfortable realities that deny you a comfortable rut, but we'll leave that for just a little later.

The inconvenient truth for you is this: thanking Einstein, who agrees with (A) and who also postulated (B), I'd like to take the rest of his theory into account. For starters, he believed in an objective, real universe that was observable from various (ie. Relative inertial) frames of reference; and it was strange observations about the speed of light that made it necessary for him to create the concept of a malleable "spacetime", in order to preserve the most fundamental aspect: the Speed Of Light Remains Constant Regardless Of The Observer's Frame of Reference. A piddling matter, you gripe? Think again!

Prior to that, we had Newton asserting Time would eventually run out, you see- but Einstein changed that with the concept of "spacetime", and his theory accurately predicts things like time dilation, a necessary understanding for our current state of the art when it comes to GPS satellites, among other things.

All of this, incidentally, has little or no bearing on the Observer in Einsteinian thought experiments, other than noting that regardless of how fast he is travelling, he'll continue to observe light at the speed he's used to observing it; which is to say, his perception of "reality" within his frame of reference will continue to be "causal, objective reality".

Hold on!! That means, according to Einstein, we know a "present/Now" by DIRECT OBSERVATION OF IT, and then, we use a scientific method to logically infer the reality of the observed, by Induction (Cause + Effect => Rule), and Deduction (Rule + Cause => Effect); and Abduction (Rule + Effect => Cause) is the realm of Faith and theory, in which we can assert a truth (a Cause) we EXPECT to find, based on rules we know, and observed phenomena. Abductive reasoning is choosing a hypothesis (A) that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence (B), and allowing it's Causes to stand in the place of the unobserved Cause we're seeking. Science makes use of theoretical concerns like this by experimentation , in order to move from Abduction to Deduction, and then to Induction.

This very pattern of growth, from bare hypothesis to near-inductive rule is exhibited particularly well by the concept of evolution, as it happens: once, it was a bare theory that made predictions about what we could expect to find; as recently evidenced in the US Supreme Court, it's since become something foundational to our understanding of the spectrum of human existence, with *direct observational data* supporting it time and time again.

How fitting your choice of battleground, since we're talking about cosmically old light on fantastic timescales, and the "actual reality" of what the light represents now is conveniently distant from our frame of reference: it is so removed, in fact, that many people will never ever consider to reflect that the stars shining in the night sky represent a snapshot of a particular time and place that was VERY real, and very far away. It doesn't matter to our day to day lives, so we easily abstract it, or forget about it, rather than even attempting to bend our minds around concepts for which we have no convenient image, or any curious desire to understand. Now that we have a good image for something so distant as to have next to no bearing on us, a reliable comparison for how to regard god, let's proceed.

The problem with Adbuction is that we are prevented, sometimes, from Direct Observation of the Cause - which you must admit, would be awfully nice in this case. **We only have Faith when we cannot (or will not) observe something** (and if you don't believe me, check how Paul defined it...) and that means, Abduction clearly the weakest of the types of Inference to an objective realist, because it potentially shrouds the "Unknowable" Causes behind pseudo- or out-of-context premises. I believe it's intellectually dishonest (at best; at worst, someone will shame you) when one doesn't check one's premises. To Wit:

I'm writing this "Now"; I'm writing in the present tense; not every perception is delayed, for sometimes I can act with certain knowledge that things will proceed as they always have, and anticipate outcomes with certainty. This differs from Prayer, say, which only works a percentage of the time, despite god being so good, smart, omnipotent and omnipresent, and all that jazz. It strongly resembles magic, when viewed from certain external frames of reference.

I'd also like to add: free will is a bitch; get over it, Calvinists.
==
"Let me go with this further. If the speed of light is finite, then know that when you look at the stars in the night sky over Wisconsin none of those stars exists. Only their light "exists." Every single one of them may be gone. We CANNOT know they are there."

Well, Make Your Mind Up! Which is it? "None of the stars exist" or, "they MAY exist, or MAY NOT exist, any longer"... but we can most assuredly know that they WERE there (the light they threw an arbitrary length of time ago is undeniably here, observable and measurable, now) unless you subscribe to a Prankster God who arbitrarily sets up contradictions, mysteries, and celestial circle jerks for the benefit of keeping atheists and philsophers annoyed: the kind of god, say, who puts dinosaur bones with apparent ages in the millions of years in worlds that are only 7,000 years old.
==
"Now, go with me even further. All your life light has been bouncing off of you, traveling about the earth. Imagine for a moment that the light from your skin travels out from the earth and into space. Assuming that you are only about 40-years-old, then you are, in a very real sense, 40-light-years old, too. What does this mean? It means at least this: to the overwhelming majority of the universe, YOU DO NOT EXIST! Anyone 100 light years away CANNOT know you exist. But, and here's the rub -- YOU DO EXIST!"

That's enough of that. You didn't know I existed until I wrote you back, so just "like the vast majority of the universe" I, actor and observer, wasn't CONCEIVED of by YOU. My being is independent, corporeal, active, and capable of rational thought, which means that in comparison to god I'm up on four counts. Why don't you check YOUR premises? god is any or all four of those things? With the strength and courage of your convictions, check *your* premises by asking, "What have I directly observed?" rather than being afraid of "What if there's no god?"

==

"What does this say about our sense of knowledge? What does this say about our demands for proofs for the existence of God? For if you exist and yet the universe cannot and does not know it, then perhaps God exists and you cannot know it -- or do not know it -- yet!"

And perhaps, that's got no basis in reality! Unless you propose a means of exhibiting god's existence, you've got yourself into a bit of a pickle here. You're just asking to be left alone.

"They who have put out
the peoples eyes
reproach them
of their blindness"
-John Milton, 1642.

Everything In It's Season...

Let's hear it for Ha! Ha!'s today!

Lemme see - can YOU see the difference?
(Source)

All jokes aside... there IS no difference. They're called "Political Animals" :P


















And this one....

Got My Own Thing Now

Well! Here's a funny little post to start my day off, right.

Incidentally, I have wisely chosen to listen to the Squirrel Nut Zippers for this session; the album is Hot! and you can buy it here.

Interestingly, the first track gets my frame of mind; the next, my Topic.

Put A Lid On It.
One of the most fascinating things I have realized in the last while is that there can be all kinds of lines in the sand, in our lifetimes. Sometimes, we know those lines to be just markers- a hump in the hill, easily spotted from a distance, with a flag nearby to attract your attention. Sometimes, it takes a great deal of effort to reach the hump, and keep going. And then, you look up, and there's another damn marker.

Sometimes, you get a big marker when you don't expect one... and it takes more of you, the longer you delay just getting over the hump. You can't stand on the hill forever, and forget that you had a hump to get over. Its an deceptively easy choice, friends, to want to just stop, and wait, and forget about the problem because it'll take care of itself.

The choice I made once was alcohol; easily made, not without its dangers, but keeping a low profile among social drinkers isn't too difficult, if you don't attract attention. You see the others who suffer, sometimes; and yet, you have a mirror behind the bar for a reason, I guess. I tried it that way; I've since tried it another, and I got rid of the crutch at my first opportunity, and here's where I talk about it.

In the depths of my cups, I chanced to meet a very old, and dear, friend of mine, by the name of Mark. I'd been on George Street for a while, that night; I'd been evicted from one bar for stealing tips from the overworked barmaids (which, I can tell you, is possibly my moment of greatest shame, if the truth be told) and then, here's this lovely old friend of mine.

One bar, a couple rounds, and the next thing I know, I'm ready for a fight. For the second time in my life, I'm actually looking for a fight, without having considered "Am I willing to commit to the path I chose?" The thing that got me here was my loud mouth, and damned stubborn ignorance. The drug that brought me there was alcohol. Here's one of my oldest, best friends willing to stand me down, for my own good, and I'll be a damned drunk, instead. Damn.

When I was a young man, I remember reading things like Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken with a certain wonder at his ability to inspire me to take one road, over another. This is an essential choice to the character of my being, and I am a curious man, who is most often surprised at what he finds. I also like to laugh.

I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that marijuana is a more effective medication for certain types of depression, and especially for people who have anxieties, and related disorders. The release you get from what is intolerable, day to day bullshit, is astounding if you're also a naturally motivated type of person. That this is a drug that is widely and commonly found WORLDWIDE doesn't astonish me, not in the slightest. That it is far more effective than anything that the pharmaceutical companies might offer (side effects? You're hungry... or maybe horny. A finely balanced energy equation if you combine the two) and, as is so often the case, is so freely available that... my god, is it possible that it couldn't possibly be controlled by the full force of the law (as in tobacco or alcohol) unless that same government taxed it all to HELL and gone to make it "worth their while", to pay for the cost of enforcement?

This is the other kind of line in the sand- THIS is the one where your freedom is at stake, if there is something that you want (and you're better for having) that makes your day to day bullshit OK on the OTHER side of that line, you must cross it, and take the risks that come with going over the line. At least, I Must. I cannot live with myself, as I am, unless I do. I refuse to acknowledge the cosmic joke of my own life without a direct pat on the back by the Joker; this is intolerable to me. With pot, I'm able to cross that line. Without pot, I can still cross the line, now, anyhow. I see the road and I know what it's worth to me.

But if I compare pot to alcohol, based on my own wide experience with both, I'd have to say the lesser of two evils is definitely the pot. If I compared pot to other substances (most of which, I haven't tried), I'd be doing so based on my experiences with other people, with lives of their own, and their own reasons for doing it to themselves. I would not tolerate some of the crutches I have seen; the mirror is a powerful tool, friends.

I think being motivated is something you can learn, to some degree, as well. I can show you that, if you like. I'd also like to mention here, in this place for loose thoughts for specific folks, that I would highly recommend treating pot (the image you have for it, in your head, literally, hold that a sec) as you would a fine blend of tobacco, perhaps one that you'd heard about but never SMOKED. Several of the varieties beyond my current capacity (notably, those from Middle Earth, included) to procure only lead me to look for better tobaccos in general. There are, likewise, varieties of pot that have different effects, so if you don't like being logy... find some different smoke. It's easier for some people that others, that I can tell you.

That I once chose the road WELL traveled is no longer my shame; I had the sense to stop and turn around, no matter how far down the road I was. That there is a shortcut with risks of its own is a tolerable enough fate for me; for (Ezekiel 25:17) the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. (I been sayin' that shit for years, too!)

What I truly believe now, friends, is that the fineness of the line in the sand doesn't mean that it isn't there. Its precisely because I can point to the line, and it can be seen, that separates it from a miracle and a matter of trust. I believe that we routinely ignore the beauty of our situation, and I can show you that line too, if you like.

I might also add, Put A Lid On It is a decent campaign slogan.

Look at the time!! :P

Interesting TV

A column for the electronically dependent.

I recently watched a neat show called "Horizons", from Great Britain, where they ultimately discussed the implications of the 11th dimension, as it pertains to grand unifying theories for spacetime. And, as it turns out, the answer leads them to something similar, to this:

If I were to describe how I differentiate between my Head (rational thought) and my Heart (the emotions, and instinctual side) I would have normally tapped my head thrice, and then pounded my chest, perhaps. It occurs to me, now, that I had misplaced my faith, in where my Heart IS. Putting it where it belongs, is what I do, here.

My Head is the left side of my brain. My Heart, is my right. Somewhere in between them, in a confusing clutter (sometimes) of daily events, Big Life Decisions, and just plain moment-to-moment boredom, there is a meeting place where both my bickering voices meet and chat, and therein lies my still, small voice.

It is a painful thing, to go through life with two loud voices in your head. To learn to be rid of the clutter, and meet often, would be a Good Thing... and I can attest to the power of putting your faith THERE. That could easily be mistaken for God, in more ways than you can imagine- for OTHER people have this place, too.

I realized this while musing, or praying, the only way I know how; with a cigarette in one hand, and the moon in my eyes. I'd just started listening to Eminence Front by the Who.

If you can wrap your brains around the SCALE of the cosmic joke of it, it'll give you chills, maybe. :D

Trying to find the link for the specific show. Maybe it's not up on their website yet. If you'd like a peek at the show, drop me an email.

Practical Realities

FYI: I just started a new set of evening gigs at a great venue (and I say that with only a little of my tongue firmly planted in my cheek- the boss is great, the staff is great, and the clients are outstandingly supportive, although maybe ready for a little shakin' up!). The venue is Tols' Time Out Lounge in Mt. Pearl, and here's the schedule:

Thursdays: 12-3 AM, DJ music by request by yours truly.
Saturdays: 6-9:30 PM, Karaoke with yours truly, hosting.
And, the piece de resistance:
Tuesdays: 9 PM - 1 AM, a free-for-all open mic and karaoke experience, again with yours truly. The show's dubbed "Tuesday Night Tunes at Tols' " and it's my baby!

Now, for those of you who've never REALLY been to a karaoke night, I'm extending a warm welcome (and a taste or two of karaoke courage, as they call it) for you to check out a Tuesday sometime. It'll be less heavy on the corny karaoke than you'd think, and I'm actively encouraging all the musicians I can muster to take a peek in sometime and consider spurning the canned music altogether for something far more organic, like a decent open jam. Bring your own instrument and necessary cords; the house system's sweet.

In case that's just not enough to tempt you on a sultry, summer Tuesday evening, I'll also remind you that Tols' holds a regular sit-n-go Hold'Em tourney every Tuesday at about 7 PM; I'll be aiming to attend that first, and starting the show early with a few chosen songs on the guitar. Anyone curious what a few extra years of practice can do to a guitarist?? :P

AND in case karaoke don't float yer boat (or open mic, for that matter), every 4th week will be something much different- a totally new type of bar entertainment for this province, and one which I'm excited to start offering anywhere. That show's particulars will be explained further at the venue; after we run that first show, I'll write more about it here. I can only say that you would be well advised to bring a couple of friends, and preferably ones who are music aficianados.

And, being Tols', I can assure you there's no lack in the SWAG department, by any means. Prizes all over the place (I have to find a good way of GIVING it ALL away... first few weeks will be something like "You sing, here's your prize!" ).

To borrow something from Open Space...

The Law Of Two Feet (or in some cases, The Law of Personal Mobility):
It says simply that you, and only you, know where you can learn and contribute the most to the work that must take place today. It demands that you use your two feet to go where you need to go and do what you need to do. If at any time today, you find that you are not learning or contributing, you have the right and the responsibility to move... find another breakout session, visit the food table, take a walk in the sunshine, make a phone call -- but DO NOT waste time.
(borrowed from http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?WorkingInOpenSpace )

No time like the present, friends :D

June 29, 2007.

Franklin: A Middle English term from the feudal system indicating a free, land-owning gentleman.
Leif: from Norse, "Beloved, descendant."
Benjamin: from Hebrew, "son of my right hand."

Additionally, do you see what happens when you think about a name too much??

I give much thought to the happiness of my children, and what I should do in any number of situations, to do right by them; and then, I dare to dream that they would value the love of their father above all else, as a result! In Frankie's case, an honest oversight leads to a double-whammy of happiness, when he's older enough to understand it, and if that's his gig, baby!

I saw him this morning, his first year on earth having been completed! He woke up, stood up, saw me, smiled, and spoke with effort, if not ability! And then held up his arms to me, to claim his due!! I was the first thing I wanted him to see, on this particular day of the year, 2 years running.

He sprawled onto the bed, between me and his big sister, and we softly sung happy birthday to him while we tickled his nose, made funny faces, and other tomfoolery suitable of a birthday party. He loves to laugh. He laid on my arm in a way Abigail never did... but never wanted to, either. He sprawled on me; he was totally comfortable, and started to snooze back to sleep. He throws his arm up sometimes; and when he does, I am reminded of my own father, dozing in bed on a sunday morning.

Moving with confidence; mimicking behaviour and showing a taste for rythym!! I don't care about the age he is... its my SON!! If it takes him 20 years to play any instrument well, I'd be there every day to help him become that which he wants to be, or I'd leave him alone as alone would do, if that's his gig, baby.

How great a day could a man ask for? How much more can he give to his son, on his birthday, but that he wished their moments together would be remembered in eternity? How about a secret, deep, burning passion to communicate to "my son, I love you"; so deep that I will bury the meaning in his name, for him to discover and to KNOW it to be true, because his father always showed him.

And I, foolishly being surprised that having always showed him, as I always wanted to do, that he loves me for it, even at 1; and me, betting on him "getting it" about his name, is a pretty safe bet.

Pictures on the way.

I Wonder if Leech and Lechery are somehow related...?

I am willing to go on the record and say that I think Chuck Bursell (Watch 100 Huntley Street, if you dare... MWAHAHAHA) is an ass beyond comprehension. I regard him as I would regard a mosquito with pretensions of spiritual powers; that he dare open his mouth and speak in direct contradiction of himself, to browbeat people like you and I into accepting whatever it is he has to say, is intolerable to me. We mildly call this a "guilt trip"; This man extorts you, and when he succeeds he makes you agree with him.

He looks like Walter Matthau- but yesterday he sounded like Hitler. I cannot be certain of the last part of his couple of minutes; after he blasted Dr. Spock, he proceeded to denounce self-expression and self-determination as the ultimate evil values of all time, and then... I just kinda... shrugged. In the face of eternity, what's 60 seconds of this guy's hot air, hey?

"Oh well... its PAID TV programming, who am I to stop it, really... and Gee, I wonder who paid for it?" At the time, Iggy Pop was just saying, "Well, that's like hyp-no-tizin' chickens...", in my ears, at 90 decibels.

Seriously; just becuz this guy's got the balls to be that bold-faced a bluffer, it's a small comfort: his pants are down... and he's the mosquito.

Just In Time

Here's an opportune moment, deserving of a goodly squeeze of the proverbial, 2-thumbed fist.

On the left-hand side at present is the following news article. It won't be visible there (perhaps) by the time you read this, but click that link and follow.

Understand me, now; I cannot begin to explain to any of you (who read this) what this story means to me, although not perhaps in the way that many of you are perhaps wondering with all this setup. I am not gay- but I am intimately aware of this issue, and how long it has been going on in the good ol' C-o-E. There was a time (12 years!) that I took the podium (May, 1995) before that same General Synod, and spoke with conviction against the same motion, one of many participants in a lengthy debate.

To simply say that I would do differently, now, knowing what I do, believing what I do, understanding what I do, isn't even close to sufficient; but maybe not in the way that you think I mean, either.

I am unreservedly admitting that my whole answer to this, and other problems in the Anglican Church of Canada (or worldwide), was a whole-hearted SHRUG... what does it matter? (If there ever was a time I identified with John Galt, holy shit, it's now!)

I believe now (and I believed it then, the truth be told; I didn't realize the implications) that there's an awfully big contradiction somewhere, and over time I began to see why I believed it so strongly; for starters, I didn't think it was appropriate, somehow, for fear and intimidation to be the motivating factor behind any action (especially, one would think, in a CHURCH) but yet the only recourse for either side of the issue was ... lobbying. $$$ means hearts, hearts mean votes. Fear doesn't appeal to your intellect. Or does it??

I find it morally reprehensible, telling people what they should believe- and don't think about it, because its for your own good, or else. But yet, that's the solution for the divided church, isn't it? Allow me to point out to you- read those words again and understand, I recognized that whatever it was that I found reprehensible about the other side, my own side was just as guilty of it.

But that is just the beginning.... isn't that the problem of the church, this last century or so?? Such is your fate when you have nagging doubt, and an inquisitive mind, condemned to find out where your faulty premises are. Dry humor, yes; true for me? YES. Am I happier now, knowing it? Hell Ya!

From time to time, I dare to hope and dream that I will be part of a generation which will be remembered as more than a footnote in the pages of history. The youngest of our generation, those (now) young adults who were young kids when Pearl Jam released "Ten".... they're the ones who tell you, when confronted with an obvious flashly, promise the moon advertisement, "That's just marketing!" (and, here's a funny co-inky-dink, I heard that claimed by Terry O'Reilly, and THEN it happened to me, this past week).

Damn right it is, kids!! Damned, if its not! They already know when they're being fleeced, or fattened!!

Critical thinkers, emerging as if by chance; "we" were named "Generation-X" for recognizing no future, having no vision, being nihilistic and so forth... and brother, if you were to ask me what THAT (roll your eyes, like you're 60) means, I'd say, you'd better start reading Stranger In A Strange Land.