During the years of the Bush administration, we've heard a lot about "faith based initiatives" --- in other words, private charities, created and sponsored by churches and other religious groups, where the primary or sole emphasis is on social services for people with various material needs, as well as intangible needs such as the need for rehabilitation related to substance abuse.
Now, I'm all in favor of making it easier for faith-based charitable organizations to do their work. However, I'm also in favor of continuing to offer secular, government services to the needy. After all, when it comes to such services, unbelievers benefit from such services just as much as believers. Wealthy unbelievers have social responsibilities, too. Obviously, such unbelievers rarely contribute significant amounts of money to churches, so the continuation of governmental social programs helps to insure that such people bear at least some of the burden of helping needy people. One can be a political conservative, as I am, and still understand this principle.
In any event, even when one takes both religious and governmental social services into account, there are still numerous unmet needs in our society. One of the reasons for that fact is that many people, having been made aware of the existence of various programs for the poor, tend to assume that the various programs, when put together, are quite adequate for the purpose of meeting all legitimate needs.
That might be the case, if the various programs were structured in a sufficiently flexible manner that they could accommodate all crisis situations and needs. But that's rarely the case.
Those who administer such programs, whether faith-based or otherwise, are often forced to add all kinds of requirements and exclusions in order to placate taxpayers and supporters who fear that their funds might be used for the purpose of supporting indolent, irresponsible people. While such fears might be understandable to some extent, the end result is that people who are in need for legitimate reasons must often jump through all kinds of hoops in order to qualify for help; and even then, success is far from guaranteed.
For some reason, there seems to be a disproportionate emphasis on food in this country when helping the poor. There are numerous programs, both public and private, for feeding the poor. But the Bible states, correctly, that man does not live by bread alone. In addition to spiritual needs, people have numerous material needs which have nothing at all to do with food.
The most obvious need is for adequate housing. If you look at the amount of money the average family spends on basic needs, the money which is spent on rent or mortgage payments is often higher than any other expense, unless that family happens to have one or more members with serious illnesses which require extraordinary medical expenditures.
But whereas food stamps are offered in some form in virtually every state, housing assistance sufficient to prevent eviction in the event of extended periods of unemployment, where people have either exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or been denied such benefits, is often woefully inadequate or nonexistent.
Without adequate housing, food stamps and canned food donations are almost pointless. What's the point of going grocery shopping, if one has no place to store such groceries or to prepare meals?
I make these observations as someone who is currently facing the possibility of eviction.
I spoke with a friend yesterday, and he suggested that I look into the possibility of supplemental income. But the only types of supplemental income I can seem to find are those in the following categories:
General Assistance (GA) from IDHS (Illinois Department of Human Services): This is the only IDHS cash assistance for which I might conceivably be qualified, because I am single (so I don't qualify for TANF) and I don't qualify as "aged, blind or disabled", so I don't qualify for AABD assistance. Moreover, when I read the IDHS requirements for GA, I discover that they have to decide that an applicant is "not employable" in order to grant GA to an applicant. The only thing I can see on their list which gives me hope that they might decide in my favor is that I regularly take a number of medicines in order to control hypertension. (I only started doing that last year, interestingly enough. I'd never had high blood pressure before, to my knowledge, but it was through the roof when I saw an optometrist last summer to get some new glasses.)
Even if one can get it (and that isn't certain), GA is limited to $100 a month (which is unlikely to satisfy the judge when I appear before him in eviction court). But every little bit helps, I suppose.
One correction: I just noticed that they have another program, called Earnfare, which could add another $294 a month to my overall income. As I read the requirements, it would seem that participation in that program would require that I work (at minimum wage) for the food stamp benefits which I currently get without working. But hey, $294 would make a substantial difference in my overall income, and might prevent me from falling further behind on my rent, if combined with a monthly payment which I receive from another source.
One problem: Earnfare and General Assistance would seem to be mutually exclusive. GA requires that they declare that you're unemployable. By definition, if you can work at one of their Earnfare jobs, then you're employable.
If forced to choose between the two, I'd obviously rather have the $294 than the $100. But $294 isn't very much. Such a monthly income would help to keep me from falling further behind on my rent, but it wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of catching up on the rent which the Lawson House YMCA claims that I owe.
SSI and SSDI: Both of these forms of assistance can be substantial, but I've already explored this option. SSI and SSDI benefits are basically for disabled people. The only way I could persuade the IDHS folks that I was disabled would be to persuade them that depression over my prolonged period of unemployment was serious enough to prevent me from being able to work. I have in fact experienced depression in connection with that fact, to the extent that I sought counseling and antidepressants from Northwestern Memorial Hospital during the months from September 2008 until very recently.
On the advice of a friend, and also on the advice of my general physician, I applied for such benefits last Fall, thinking that the receipt of the same might possibly solve my immediate financial problems. But I'd heard that disability benefits connected with depression could be very difficult to obtain. Sure enough, after a long period of deliberation, the case adjudicator contacted me and informed me that my petition had been denied. As I see it, I have received very few tangible benefits in connection with the "treatment" I have received at Northwestern, and it's even arguable that the substantial time I've spent going to the various appointments they've scheduled me to attend has made matters worse for me, since time spent in such pursuits has substantially reduced the amount of time available to me for the purpose of seeking employment. I could appeal the adjudicator's decision, but even if the appeal went in my favor (which seems somewhat unlikely), it's unlikely that such a reversal would happen soon enough to prevent eviction from my apartment.
Yesterday, my friend (Joseph Hollingsworth) suggested that I look into the funds which might be available as a result of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. That sounded promising to me, so I looked up more information on the Web to see what I could find. (Joseph didn't know the exact name of the program when he spoke with me, so it took a little bit of digging on my part.) Unfortunately, I once again ran up against a situation where the government had built certain exclusions into the program. Specifically, in order to benefit from the program, applicants must have earned at least $3,000 during 2007. Since I lost my job in January 2007, I wasn't working long enough to have made that much money while working for my last employer. (I'll have to look at my tax forms to confirm that such is the case.)
Of course, I did receive unemployment insurance payments during 2007, and I know that the IRS considers such payments to be taxable income, so it's possible that having received such payments will mean that I'm qualified to receive the ESA benefit. I definitely plan to explore that option, because every little bit helps. Unfortunately, in this case, the word "bit" would seem to be appropriate. My friend thought that single people making less than a certain amount were eligible for a benefit of $700. He may have been thinking of people with children, because my own reading of the text suggests to me that the most I'll be able to get from the ESA is $300 even if I'm qualified.
It isn't clear how long one would have to wait before getting such benefits, and it isn't clear as to whether or not my landlord would be willing to wait that long.
Another potentially big problem: While I was working in early 2007, I was paying taxes via payroll deductions. But I don't think I had taxes deducted from my unemployment insurance benefits when I was receiving them in 2007. (I thought that surely I would have gotten a job before now, after all.) If I'm correct in thinking that that's the case, then I may actually owe income taxes to the IRS. That could potentially prevent me from getting any tax refund, and it could even cancel out part or all of the ESA benefits! I hope not, but I have to consider that possibility.
Obviously, I need to pull out my tax forms and sit down to figure out my taxes ASAP so that I have a better idea how I stand in that regard.
The point of all of this is that I am trying to leave no stone unturned when it comes to finding a way to satisfy my landlord so that I can avoid eviction. But it may not be enough.
If it's not enough, I can only pray that one or more kindhearted Christians will help me in tangible ways (such as temporary lodging in a spare room, if necessary), so that I can pursue the ministry vision which I firmly believe the Lord has given to me.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that my skills as a financial manager leave something to be desired, but if you will take the time to read the various previous entries on this blog, and if you'll visit ArtisticChristians.com to check out that site, I think you'll have to agree that I do not in any way, shape or form fit the "profile" of a typical homeless person. I am not addicted to substances of any kind (other than food, oxygen and the other things to which all people have "addictions"). I have very few problems which would not be cured or substantially reduced by furnishing me with an adequate income. I am not perfect, but I should not be allowed to fall through the cracks. I should not have to abandon my dreams.
Mark W. Pettigrew
30 W. Chicago Avenue
Room 1212
Chicago, IL 60610
(773) 509-8126
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Without Faith
There's a verse in the Bible which says that it's impossible to please God without faith.
Cynical people might say, "Well, sure. It's impossible to please God no matter what you do, so why try?" Sometimes, I must confess that I've felt that way, particularly when going through hard times which have felt extremely unfair to me.
But even though it might feel that way sometimes, it contradicts the evidence which can be found in the scriptures. God doesn't expect perfection. Abraham pleased God. Moses pleased God. David pleased God. John the Baptist pleased God. None of them was perfect. None of them pleased God all of the time. But they managed to please God more often than most of us do. And there have been millions of others who have pleased God, to greater or lesser degrees, throughout the centuries. They pleased God because they had faith.
What is faith? It's the evidence of things hoped for but not yet seen. Faith, by definition, requires that one choose to believe that things will get better, even though such a belief seems to defy the circumstantial evidence in front of one's eyes.
Some would say that faith is inherently irrational. I think that's untrue. It isn't so much a matter of whether or not one is rational, as it is a matter of what evidence most influences one's attitudes.
For a person who lacks faith, external circumstances trump the evidence of God's character, as demonstrated throughout history in the form of God's dealings with people. For a person who has faith, it's the other way around. There's evidence to support both points of view, so it's a question of deciding which evidence matters the most to you. It isn't easy to ignore circumstantial evidence and focus on God's character instead, but it can be done.
Reading the Old Testament, I am struck by how often God put the nation of Israel into a position of disadvantage precisely so that they would be forced, when they prevailed in spite of such circumstances, to acknowledge that they could not have prevailed solely by relying on their own strength. "'Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' saith the Lord." The scriptures say that His strength is made perfect in our weakness. God does not despise the weak, God welcomes the weak. The ones God despises are those who foolishly and incorrectly think that they don't need Him.
It doesn't take faith to sing songs of praise to God when everything is going great. Any fool can do that. Faith is continuing to sing songs of praise even when one is locked up in prison and all hope seems gone.
Some modern preachers misrepresent faith in such a way as to cause great disappointment among those who are deceived by their messages. Faith is presented as some type of magical formula for success or some type of foolproof self-help program. Such a presentation can lead to false expectations, and that can lead people to fall away from true faith.
Did the Christian martyrs who died in the Roman colosseums lack faith in Christ? On the contrary, it was their faith which enabled them to stand fast for Christ, even to the very moments of their deaths. Their faith did not guarantee that they would be spared from suffering or pain.
If God had promised carefree lives to all of those who put their faith in Him, we would be justified in losing faith when things didn't go our way. But He never made such a promise. On the contrary, Jesus promised that those who chose to follow Him would suffer as He had suffered. He promised that we would have troubles in this world, but He also told us to be cheered by the realization that He had overcome this world.
As I write this blog post, I am facing a frightening situation in my life. Specifically, I am facing the possibility of eviction from my home. Such an eviction would be devastating in some respects, particularly with regard to goals I've set in my life.
I like to think that those goals were inspired by God. I'd like to succeed as a Christian artist, musician and writer. I'd like to launch an ambitious Christian ministry of the arts which would make a huge positive difference in our culture. And I believe that I have the ability to do those things, if given the opportunity.
But even assuming that I'm correct in thinking that those goals were inspired by the Holy Spirit, none of those accomplishments would count for anything if I didn't have faith, because it's impossible for a person who has no faith to please God.
Do you understand? On Judgment Day, God will not be impressed with my accomplishments or with yours. He will only want to know a few things. Did we have genuine faith in Him? Did we love Him with our whole hearts? Did we love our neighbors as ourselves? Did we make the most of the resources and abilities which were given to us? Did we do our best to abstain from doing evil, and to make the world a better place by obeying Him? Did we endure to the end, even when faced with pain and suffering which would have caused others to abandon their faith in God?
If we can answer "yes" to those simple questions, we need not fear that God will despise or reject us.
But I'm not pretending that it's easy. I'm not claiming that I've arrived when it comes to perfect faith. I am seriously struggling at this point in my life. So I earnestly solicit your prayers. And I wouldn't have any objections if you were to offer tangible help as well, so that I could achieve my full potential and help others to increase their own faith in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Mark Pettigrew
30 W. Chicago Avenue
Room 1212
Chicago, IL 60610
(773) 509-8126
Cynical people might say, "Well, sure. It's impossible to please God no matter what you do, so why try?" Sometimes, I must confess that I've felt that way, particularly when going through hard times which have felt extremely unfair to me.
But even though it might feel that way sometimes, it contradicts the evidence which can be found in the scriptures. God doesn't expect perfection. Abraham pleased God. Moses pleased God. David pleased God. John the Baptist pleased God. None of them was perfect. None of them pleased God all of the time. But they managed to please God more often than most of us do. And there have been millions of others who have pleased God, to greater or lesser degrees, throughout the centuries. They pleased God because they had faith.
What is faith? It's the evidence of things hoped for but not yet seen. Faith, by definition, requires that one choose to believe that things will get better, even though such a belief seems to defy the circumstantial evidence in front of one's eyes.
Some would say that faith is inherently irrational. I think that's untrue. It isn't so much a matter of whether or not one is rational, as it is a matter of what evidence most influences one's attitudes.
For a person who lacks faith, external circumstances trump the evidence of God's character, as demonstrated throughout history in the form of God's dealings with people. For a person who has faith, it's the other way around. There's evidence to support both points of view, so it's a question of deciding which evidence matters the most to you. It isn't easy to ignore circumstantial evidence and focus on God's character instead, but it can be done.
Reading the Old Testament, I am struck by how often God put the nation of Israel into a position of disadvantage precisely so that they would be forced, when they prevailed in spite of such circumstances, to acknowledge that they could not have prevailed solely by relying on their own strength. "'Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' saith the Lord." The scriptures say that His strength is made perfect in our weakness. God does not despise the weak, God welcomes the weak. The ones God despises are those who foolishly and incorrectly think that they don't need Him.
It doesn't take faith to sing songs of praise to God when everything is going great. Any fool can do that. Faith is continuing to sing songs of praise even when one is locked up in prison and all hope seems gone.
Some modern preachers misrepresent faith in such a way as to cause great disappointment among those who are deceived by their messages. Faith is presented as some type of magical formula for success or some type of foolproof self-help program. Such a presentation can lead to false expectations, and that can lead people to fall away from true faith.
Did the Christian martyrs who died in the Roman colosseums lack faith in Christ? On the contrary, it was their faith which enabled them to stand fast for Christ, even to the very moments of their deaths. Their faith did not guarantee that they would be spared from suffering or pain.
If God had promised carefree lives to all of those who put their faith in Him, we would be justified in losing faith when things didn't go our way. But He never made such a promise. On the contrary, Jesus promised that those who chose to follow Him would suffer as He had suffered. He promised that we would have troubles in this world, but He also told us to be cheered by the realization that He had overcome this world.
As I write this blog post, I am facing a frightening situation in my life. Specifically, I am facing the possibility of eviction from my home. Such an eviction would be devastating in some respects, particularly with regard to goals I've set in my life.
I like to think that those goals were inspired by God. I'd like to succeed as a Christian artist, musician and writer. I'd like to launch an ambitious Christian ministry of the arts which would make a huge positive difference in our culture. And I believe that I have the ability to do those things, if given the opportunity.
But even assuming that I'm correct in thinking that those goals were inspired by the Holy Spirit, none of those accomplishments would count for anything if I didn't have faith, because it's impossible for a person who has no faith to please God.
Do you understand? On Judgment Day, God will not be impressed with my accomplishments or with yours. He will only want to know a few things. Did we have genuine faith in Him? Did we love Him with our whole hearts? Did we love our neighbors as ourselves? Did we make the most of the resources and abilities which were given to us? Did we do our best to abstain from doing evil, and to make the world a better place by obeying Him? Did we endure to the end, even when faced with pain and suffering which would have caused others to abandon their faith in God?
If we can answer "yes" to those simple questions, we need not fear that God will despise or reject us.
But I'm not pretending that it's easy. I'm not claiming that I've arrived when it comes to perfect faith. I am seriously struggling at this point in my life. So I earnestly solicit your prayers. And I wouldn't have any objections if you were to offer tangible help as well, so that I could achieve my full potential and help others to increase their own faith in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Mark Pettigrew
30 W. Chicago Avenue
Room 1212
Chicago, IL 60610
(773) 509-8126
Monday, February 18, 2008
Thoughts About Britney Spears
The latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine features a cover story about how messed up Britney Spears' life has become. I read part of the article, but I couldn't finish reading it. It was boring, it was depressing, and worst of all, it was completely useless when it came to understanding what had caused Britney's tragicomic downward spiral.
I'd like to see an article which would examine the alienating, dehumanizing psychological effects of the type of attention Britney has gotten from the tabloid press for virtually all of her adult life. But of course, we'll never see that article, because it would require humility and introspection on the part of the journalist writing the article.
None of this is to deny that Britney has serious problems. Yes, she's psycho. Yes, she's a pathetic excuse for a mother and a wife. Yes, she's a mere shadow of the innocent and sweet teenage Britney Speers America once knew (or thought it knew). Yes, she's ultimately responsible for her own actions. But I'd like to meet the person who wouldn't crack under the pressure to which she's been subjected on a regular basis.
The tabloid journalists who specialize in stalking her and exposing her every flaw to the public in the name of the public's "right to know" are scum-sucking exploiters of pain, and it's highly likely that the aberrant behavior which we have seen from Britney in recent years is her response to abusive treatment from such so-called journalists. Maybe they need to stop and think about how they would feel if someone treated their sisters or daughters the way that they regularly treat Britney.
The Golden Rule is not suspended in the case of celebrities. On Judgment Day, God will remember what journalists have done to Britney in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
What Britney needs is a whole lot of prayer. It also couldn't hurt for her to take a very long vacation in some remote location where she will not be subjected to the daily indignities of the paparazzi. Preferably in the care of someone who is unimpressed with her celebrity status, and whose only interest in her is to help her to achieve healing, both emotionally and spiritually.
Otherwise, I fear that we will soon be reading about her tragic death. And then the tabloid journalists will find someone else to harass and exploit.
I'd like to see an article which would examine the alienating, dehumanizing psychological effects of the type of attention Britney has gotten from the tabloid press for virtually all of her adult life. But of course, we'll never see that article, because it would require humility and introspection on the part of the journalist writing the article.
None of this is to deny that Britney has serious problems. Yes, she's psycho. Yes, she's a pathetic excuse for a mother and a wife. Yes, she's a mere shadow of the innocent and sweet teenage Britney Speers America once knew (or thought it knew). Yes, she's ultimately responsible for her own actions. But I'd like to meet the person who wouldn't crack under the pressure to which she's been subjected on a regular basis.
The tabloid journalists who specialize in stalking her and exposing her every flaw to the public in the name of the public's "right to know" are scum-sucking exploiters of pain, and it's highly likely that the aberrant behavior which we have seen from Britney in recent years is her response to abusive treatment from such so-called journalists. Maybe they need to stop and think about how they would feel if someone treated their sisters or daughters the way that they regularly treat Britney.
The Golden Rule is not suspended in the case of celebrities. On Judgment Day, God will remember what journalists have done to Britney in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
What Britney needs is a whole lot of prayer. It also couldn't hurt for her to take a very long vacation in some remote location where she will not be subjected to the daily indignities of the paparazzi. Preferably in the care of someone who is unimpressed with her celebrity status, and whose only interest in her is to help her to achieve healing, both emotionally and spiritually.
Otherwise, I fear that we will soon be reading about her tragic death. And then the tabloid journalists will find someone else to harass and exploit.
Beards Are Back. Real Men Don't Care.
When I was in high school, I grew my first beard.
My father had decided to grow his beard out during a trip to Yellowstone Park, and I thought it looked pretty good on him. I suspect that that was what influenced me to try it out for myself, a year or two later.
Also, a lot of the Jesus People I hung out with had beards or moustaches, during the early seventies. That was a strong influence on me, not because I felt that I had to look like them in order to fit in, but because I strongly admired those men, and I sought a way to express my admiration.
Unfortunately, men of my father's generation didn't think that beards made men look "professional," so Dad shaved his off a mere two weeks after he'd first started growing it --- just when it was starting to look good. To my recollection, that was Dad's first and last beard.
Fortunately, I was not constrained by such considerations. I soon learned that I had "beard-friendly" genetics. I had a pretty impressive beard by the time when I graduated from high school in 1974. It wasn't as thick or impressive as it would become in later years, but it was still pretty impressive, considering my age.
I soon decided that I really liked the look. It felt as if it fit me like a glove. But there were times when I shaved it off, even though I would have preferred to keep it. Usually, the reason had something to do with the need to find a job. Given a choice between beardlessness or penury, I chose beardlessness. Even so, I admit that I felt a certain amount of resentment when I had to do so. I could not for the life of me figure out why folks felt that facial hair or the lack thereof had anything to do with how qualified I was to do particular jobs. Frankly, I still can't.
When I was a student at College of The Ozarks from January of 1976 to December of 1977, the school had a dress code which prohibited beards. But one clever student figured out a way around the policy, at least for a short time. He persuaded them to sponsor a "Bicentennial Beard Contest". The objective, ostensibly, was to pay homage to the past by striving to grow a beard which most closely resembled a historical figure (such as a president) chosen by the contestant. Contestants could abstain from shaving, but only if they wore buttons identifying themselves as contestants whenever they walked around on campus!
Silly, right? But kind of fun, too. I took second place in the contest, right behind a guy who ostensibly had tried to grow a beard which looked like Lincoln's beard. (He looked nothing like Lincoln, in my opinion.) In my case, I just went through a book showing photos of U.S. presidents, and selected a president whose beard was the biggest, thickest beard I could find. I seem to recall that Garfield was the president I chose to emulate.
During the 80's, I lived in the Boston area and worked at the Harvard Cooperative Society for 5 years. During that time, my employer allowed me to grow a very long and thick beard. One time I was walking down the street in Harvard Square, and someone shouted, "ZZ Top" at me. I didn't mind that so much. Another time, a guy driving by in a pickup truck shouted, "Get yourself a real job." I did mind that, since I was working two different jobs at the time.
I also grew an extremely long and thick beard during the four years when I worked as a database specialist for YMCA Child Welfare from 1996 to 2000 here in Chicago. The hippie era was but a distant memory, so no one could claim that I was especially fashionable. But I didn't care. I liked the look, and I had never been much of a slave to fashion anyway.
Why am I reminiscing about my history vis-a-vis beards? Because I've recently seen a number of articles proclaiming that "the beard is back," in publications such as Time magazine, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
It's kind of ironic, because even though I much prefer the bearded look, I happen to be "clean shaven" at the moment, on account of the fact that I don't want to do anything which could make it even more difficult for me to find employment.
A number of the people who have discussed the latest trend have talked about how growing a beard is a way for a man to assert his manliness and his unwillingness to be a conformist.
Both of those things are probably true; but it seems to me that a person who feels a need to assert his manliness is, by definition, not particularly manly. And a person who feels a need to assert that he or she isn't a conformist is, in a strange way, just as subservient to societal demands and expectations as anyone else.
Real men don't follow the trends. Real men make the trends or ignore them altogether.
True nonconformists don't feel a need to make public "statements" about their conformity or lack thereof. And nothing could be more conformist than adopting a particular manner of dress because everyone else is suddenly doing the same thing.
In short, the people who will grow beards because beards have become trendy are, in general, insecure people who allow other people to do their thinking for them. So even though I think it's kind of nice that the current trends happen to favor my own stylistic preferences, the truth of the matter is that I will continue to make stylistic decisions in a manner which is relatively independent of what others may think or say.
Just don't be surprised if I choose to grow a beard as soon as I find a job where employees are allowed to do so!
My father had decided to grow his beard out during a trip to Yellowstone Park, and I thought it looked pretty good on him. I suspect that that was what influenced me to try it out for myself, a year or two later.
Also, a lot of the Jesus People I hung out with had beards or moustaches, during the early seventies. That was a strong influence on me, not because I felt that I had to look like them in order to fit in, but because I strongly admired those men, and I sought a way to express my admiration.
Unfortunately, men of my father's generation didn't think that beards made men look "professional," so Dad shaved his off a mere two weeks after he'd first started growing it --- just when it was starting to look good. To my recollection, that was Dad's first and last beard.
Fortunately, I was not constrained by such considerations. I soon learned that I had "beard-friendly" genetics. I had a pretty impressive beard by the time when I graduated from high school in 1974. It wasn't as thick or impressive as it would become in later years, but it was still pretty impressive, considering my age.
I soon decided that I really liked the look. It felt as if it fit me like a glove. But there were times when I shaved it off, even though I would have preferred to keep it. Usually, the reason had something to do with the need to find a job. Given a choice between beardlessness or penury, I chose beardlessness. Even so, I admit that I felt a certain amount of resentment when I had to do so. I could not for the life of me figure out why folks felt that facial hair or the lack thereof had anything to do with how qualified I was to do particular jobs. Frankly, I still can't.
When I was a student at College of The Ozarks from January of 1976 to December of 1977, the school had a dress code which prohibited beards. But one clever student figured out a way around the policy, at least for a short time. He persuaded them to sponsor a "Bicentennial Beard Contest". The objective, ostensibly, was to pay homage to the past by striving to grow a beard which most closely resembled a historical figure (such as a president) chosen by the contestant. Contestants could abstain from shaving, but only if they wore buttons identifying themselves as contestants whenever they walked around on campus!
Silly, right? But kind of fun, too. I took second place in the contest, right behind a guy who ostensibly had tried to grow a beard which looked like Lincoln's beard. (He looked nothing like Lincoln, in my opinion.) In my case, I just went through a book showing photos of U.S. presidents, and selected a president whose beard was the biggest, thickest beard I could find. I seem to recall that Garfield was the president I chose to emulate.
During the 80's, I lived in the Boston area and worked at the Harvard Cooperative Society for 5 years. During that time, my employer allowed me to grow a very long and thick beard. One time I was walking down the street in Harvard Square, and someone shouted, "ZZ Top" at me. I didn't mind that so much. Another time, a guy driving by in a pickup truck shouted, "Get yourself a real job." I did mind that, since I was working two different jobs at the time.
I also grew an extremely long and thick beard during the four years when I worked as a database specialist for YMCA Child Welfare from 1996 to 2000 here in Chicago. The hippie era was but a distant memory, so no one could claim that I was especially fashionable. But I didn't care. I liked the look, and I had never been much of a slave to fashion anyway.
Why am I reminiscing about my history vis-a-vis beards? Because I've recently seen a number of articles proclaiming that "the beard is back," in publications such as Time magazine, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
It's kind of ironic, because even though I much prefer the bearded look, I happen to be "clean shaven" at the moment, on account of the fact that I don't want to do anything which could make it even more difficult for me to find employment.
A number of the people who have discussed the latest trend have talked about how growing a beard is a way for a man to assert his manliness and his unwillingness to be a conformist.
Both of those things are probably true; but it seems to me that a person who feels a need to assert his manliness is, by definition, not particularly manly. And a person who feels a need to assert that he or she isn't a conformist is, in a strange way, just as subservient to societal demands and expectations as anyone else.
Real men don't follow the trends. Real men make the trends or ignore them altogether.
True nonconformists don't feel a need to make public "statements" about their conformity or lack thereof. And nothing could be more conformist than adopting a particular manner of dress because everyone else is suddenly doing the same thing.
In short, the people who will grow beards because beards have become trendy are, in general, insecure people who allow other people to do their thinking for them. So even though I think it's kind of nice that the current trends happen to favor my own stylistic preferences, the truth of the matter is that I will continue to make stylistic decisions in a manner which is relatively independent of what others may think or say.
Just don't be surprised if I choose to grow a beard as soon as I find a job where employees are allowed to do so!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Infamous Methodists
I was baptized and raised in the Methodist church. My father was a Methodist lay minister. My grandfather was the Methodist chaplain at one of the largest hospitals in Missouri.
At one time in my life, I was proud to call myself a Methodist. But the Methodist church began to deteriorate in the seventies after merging with another denomination to become the United Methodist Church. It seemed as if the denomination was becoming more and more liberal (and spineless), both theologically and politically. Eventually, I stopped attending that church except to visit on very rare occasions.
Looking back, I have to say that I'm glad I made that decision, especially when I consider some of the people the Methodist church has contributed to our culture in recent years.
Let's consider a few of the figures who occupy the hall of Methodist infamy:
Sarah Weddington
Thanks to the industrious work of this illustrious attorney from Texas, abortion was legalized in 1973 in the case known as Roe v. Wade. So far, roughly 50 million human beings have been killed legally as the result of her efforts.
Incidentally, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey, has long since repudiated her own role in the matter. The significance of that fact apparently eludes Weddington, since she has not repented of her own role in that national tragedy.
Hugh Hefner
Yes, the man most responsible for popularizing porn and adultery in America also came from the Methodist church, which he claimed was "repressive".
If the leaders in the Methodist church had done a better job of presenting biblical sexuality in a manner which had helped Hefner to understand the difference between freedom and licentiousness, contemporary American culture might be profoundly different. And a lot of people such as myself might not have come from broken homes.
Hillary Clinton
That's right, Hillary Clinton --- who was recently quoted by the Chicago Free Press as having said that she would be the first president, if elected, to march in a Gay Pride parade --- is also a "lifelong, devout Methodist".
Perhaps President Hillary will appear on the float along with the woman who recently appeared topless (with "pasties") at the Gay Pride parade in Chicago. Gosh, won't that photo op please Bill immensely!
Or maybe Hillary will join arms with the young lady I saw at the Fullerton CTA stop, a few years ago when the parade was being held. The girl had a T-shirt which said "Taste The Rainbow," along with a big arrow pointing straight at her crotch. Yummy! (That's sarcasm, for those of you who are incapable of discerning the obvious.)
Gregory Dell
Dell is a United Methodist minister from Chicago. He achieved his notoriety by performing weddings between gay couples, in spite of the United Methodist policy forbidding such weddings. (Well, at least there are some Methodists who have some moral backbone.)
Walter Coleman
The pastor of the tiny Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood, Walter Coleman's main contribution to culture in this nation of ours has been to undermine the idea that new immigrants to our country have an obligation to obey our immigration laws. His willingness to harbor Elvira Arellano and Flor Crisostomo, both of whom sought "refuge" in Coleman's church, ought to embarrass the United Methodist Church immensely.
George Bush
O.K., the Methodist church isn't completely corrupt yet. George is a flawed man, no doubt about it, but I'm still glad that I voted for him, when I consider who his opponents were at the time.
There are other good (albeit fallible) people in the Methodist church as well.
If you're one of the good Methodists who are trying your hardest to help undo the damage caused by those who have given the United Methodist Church a bad name, then I salute you.
As for me, I no longer identify myself as a Methodist. I no longer identify exclusively with any particular denomination. I just call myself a Christian. I think that's the way Christ would want it.
At one time in my life, I was proud to call myself a Methodist. But the Methodist church began to deteriorate in the seventies after merging with another denomination to become the United Methodist Church. It seemed as if the denomination was becoming more and more liberal (and spineless), both theologically and politically. Eventually, I stopped attending that church except to visit on very rare occasions.
Looking back, I have to say that I'm glad I made that decision, especially when I consider some of the people the Methodist church has contributed to our culture in recent years.
Let's consider a few of the figures who occupy the hall of Methodist infamy:
Sarah Weddington
Thanks to the industrious work of this illustrious attorney from Texas, abortion was legalized in 1973 in the case known as Roe v. Wade. So far, roughly 50 million human beings have been killed legally as the result of her efforts.
Incidentally, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey, has long since repudiated her own role in the matter. The significance of that fact apparently eludes Weddington, since she has not repented of her own role in that national tragedy.
Hugh Hefner
Yes, the man most responsible for popularizing porn and adultery in America also came from the Methodist church, which he claimed was "repressive".
If the leaders in the Methodist church had done a better job of presenting biblical sexuality in a manner which had helped Hefner to understand the difference between freedom and licentiousness, contemporary American culture might be profoundly different. And a lot of people such as myself might not have come from broken homes.
Hillary Clinton
That's right, Hillary Clinton --- who was recently quoted by the Chicago Free Press as having said that she would be the first president, if elected, to march in a Gay Pride parade --- is also a "lifelong, devout Methodist".
Perhaps President Hillary will appear on the float along with the woman who recently appeared topless (with "pasties") at the Gay Pride parade in Chicago. Gosh, won't that photo op please Bill immensely!
Or maybe Hillary will join arms with the young lady I saw at the Fullerton CTA stop, a few years ago when the parade was being held. The girl had a T-shirt which said "Taste The Rainbow," along with a big arrow pointing straight at her crotch. Yummy! (That's sarcasm, for those of you who are incapable of discerning the obvious.)
Gregory Dell
Dell is a United Methodist minister from Chicago. He achieved his notoriety by performing weddings between gay couples, in spite of the United Methodist policy forbidding such weddings. (Well, at least there are some Methodists who have some moral backbone.)
Walter Coleman
The pastor of the tiny Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago's Humboldt Park neighborhood, Walter Coleman's main contribution to culture in this nation of ours has been to undermine the idea that new immigrants to our country have an obligation to obey our immigration laws. His willingness to harbor Elvira Arellano and Flor Crisostomo, both of whom sought "refuge" in Coleman's church, ought to embarrass the United Methodist Church immensely.
George Bush
O.K., the Methodist church isn't completely corrupt yet. George is a flawed man, no doubt about it, but I'm still glad that I voted for him, when I consider who his opponents were at the time.
There are other good (albeit fallible) people in the Methodist church as well.
If you're one of the good Methodists who are trying your hardest to help undo the damage caused by those who have given the United Methodist Church a bad name, then I salute you.
As for me, I no longer identify myself as a Methodist. I no longer identify exclusively with any particular denomination. I just call myself a Christian. I think that's the way Christ would want it.
School Shootings: A Fascinating Timeline
Just now, I decided to do a search online to see if my previous blog post was available via Google yet. It was. That pleased me. But I was even more pleased to find a forum post which made my point very well, even though that wasn't the intent of the person who made the post.
Here's the link to the forum. The particular post (by someone known as "tker") contained the following list, which was ostensibly evidence that the "right to bear arms" was trumped by the need to protect people from mass shootings:
-----------------------------------------------------------University of Texas at Austin massacre Austin, Texas, United States August 1, 1966
Orangeburg Massacre Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States February 8, 1968
Kent State shootings Kent, Ohio, United States May 4, 1970
Jackson State killings Jackson, Mississippi, United States May 14-15, 1970
California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre Fullerton, California, United States July 12, 1976
Cleveland Elementary School shooting San Diego, California, United States January 29, 1979
Parkway South Junior High School shooting Saint Louis, Missouri, United States January 20, 1983
Stockton massacre Stockton, California, United States January 17, 1989
University of Iowa shooting Iowa City, Iowa, United States November 1, 1991
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States December 14, 1992
Lindhurst High School shooting Marysville, California, United States May 1, 1992
East Carter High School shooting Grayson, Kentucky, United States January 18, 1993
Richland High School shooting Lynnville, Tennessee, United States November 15, 1995
Frontier Junior High shooting Moses Lake, Washington, United States February 2, 1996
Bethel High School shooting Bethel, Alaska, United States February 19, 1997
Pearl High School shooting Pearl, Mississippi, United States October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting West Paducah, Kentucky United States December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States March 24, 1998
Parker Middle School Shooting Edinboro, Pennsylvania April 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting Springfield, Oregon, United States May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre Littleton, Colorado, United States April 20, 1999
Heritage High School shooting Conyers, Georgia, United States May 20, 1999
Buell Elementary School shooting Mount Morris Township, Michigan, United States February 29, 2000
Santana High School shooting Santee, California, United States March 5, 2001
Granite Hills High School shooting El Cajon, California March 22, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting Grundy, Virginia, United States January 16, 2002
John McDonogh High School Shooting New Orleans, LA, United States April 14, 2003
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States April 24, 2003
Rocori High School shootings Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States September 24, 2003
Red Lake High School massacre Red Lake, Minnesota, United States March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School shooting Jacksboro, Tennessee November 8, 2005
Pine Middle School shooting Reno, Nevada, United States March 14, 2006
Platte Canyon High School shooting Bailey, Colorado, United States September 27, 2006
Weston High School shooting Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Amish school shooting Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States October 2, 2006
Virginia Tech massacre Blacksburg, Virginia, United States April 16, 2007
Delaware State University shooting Dover, Delaware, United States September 21, 2007
SuccessTech Academy shooting Cleveland, Ohio, United States October 10, 2007
Notre Dame Elementary shooting Portsmouth, Ohio, United States February 7, 2008
Louisiana Technical College shooting Baton Rouge, LA, United States February 8, 2008
Mitchell High School shooting Memphis, TN, United States February 11, 2008
E.O. Green Junior High School shooting Oxnard, CA, United States February 12, 2008
McNair High School shooting Atlanta, GA, United States February 12, 2008
Northern Illinois University shooting DeKalb, Illinois, United States February 14, 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's funny how two people can see the same statistics and draw altogether different conclusions. For instance, "tker" sees the preceding list as proof that this country needs more restrictive gun control laws. But I don't see it that way.
What I see when I look at the preceding list is the dates. Specifically, I see the fact that only 4 of the 44 events (less than 10%) occurred before January of 1973, when abortion was legalized. After abortion was legalized, there was a dramatic increase in such events.
Growing up in the sixties, I remember seeing print ads for .22 rifles, in magazines marketed mainly to kids --- specifically, in the magazine Boy's Life, which was marketed to Boy Scouts. But you know, I don't remember regularly reading news stories about schoolyard shootings. So it seems rather specious to me to say that the problem is the result of increased availability of guns. It's much harder to get a gun now than it was back in the 60's, but gun control has been a dismal failure when it comes to preventing such massacres.
On the other hand, it seems entirely plausible to argue that the easy availability of abortion has effectively taught our young people that innocent human life is cheap and expendable.
Of course, it would be simplistic to blame legal abortion alone. Other factors have also contributed to the decline in respect for human life. Violent video games, for example, have caused many young people to see killing as one big and harmless game. In the name of "realism" or "harmless catharsis," death metal music, rap music and hip hop music have saturated our culture with violent and profane messages which have caused people to become inured to the destructive effects of violence.
Nevertheless, when it comes to affecting people's attitudes, real violence trumps simulated violence every time. The violence in video games and movies and popular music is (usually) simulated. The violence that takes place in your friendly neighborhood abortuary is all too real. If you don't believe me, ask them for permission to examine the contents of their trash dumpsters at the end of every working day.
If viewing the mutilated, dismembered bodies of unborn children isn't enough to make you retch, then your stomach is stronger than mine.
Massacre at NIU. "How could this happen?" Here's a clue.
Well, here we go again. Another disgruntled gunman has gone onto a college campus and killed numerous students in what many people will call a "senseless" act of violence.
Senseless? Yes. But not difficult to understand in light of our nation's ongoing refusal to take a principled stand with regard to the intrinsic value of human life.
As horrendous as these campus slayings have been, they are numerically insignificant in comparison with the number of abortions which have taken place here in the United States subsequent to Roe v. Wade in 1973. An issue of the Chicago Tribune's free RedEye publication recently reported that the number of legal abortions was roughly 50 million. That number boggles my mind. Compared with that number, the number of people killed by Hitler during WWII was relatively small.
The young students at schools such as Columbine High School and Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have never known a world in which human life was treated by the legal system, from conception until natural death, as if it was intrinsically precious. We should not be surprised, therefore, when such people exhibit behavior which demonstrates a callous disregard for the right to life. Our entire culture has become a culture of death.
What can we do to turn things around? Well, first of all, we ought to seek to be individuals who seek in every way to affirm the value of human life, whether that means refusing to take the (relatively) easy way out when faced with "problem pregnancies" of our own or helping others who have become pregnant as the result of bad choices. It also means affirming the value of human life in other ways, such as feeding the hungry, offering emergency housing to people in need of such housing, paying employees a just wage so that they need not choose between abortion and starvation, and so forth. Without personal integrity, political action is useless.
Nevertheless, politics are sometimes necessary as well.
It ought to be pretty clear that voting for candidates who claim to be pro-life isn't necessarily the same thing as voting for candidates who actually act with integrity on their convictions. But is that any excuse for voting for candidates who openly espouse the killing of unborn children, using such euphemistic terms as "choice" to disguise the horror of what actually happens in abortion clinics? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "NO"!
In the final analysis, I'm not responsible for what politicians do after making their promises (which, let's face it, are often false and hollow). But I am responsible for voting in accordance with the principles in which I believe. And while I acknowledge that the abortion issue is not the only important issue facing this country, I still believe passionately that it is the most important issue we currently face. When someone can present me with persuasive evidence to the effect that the other issues facing our nation involve the deliberate destruction of more than a million human beings every year, then I may rethink that position; but I haven't seen such evidence yet.
Without the right to life, all other rights lose their meaning. What good is it for you to have the right to free speech or to freedom of religion or to freedom of assembly, if I am free to murder you? You can't exercise any of your other human rights if you're dead!!!
Obviously, the right to life is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable human rights are built. Therefore, politicians who claim to care about human rights, while simultaneously advocating pro-abortion policies which undermine the most fundamental of all human rights, are utterly lacking in credibility. When it comes to solving the problem of campus violence (which is ultimately a manifestation of our culture's lack of respect for the intrinsic value of human life), such politicians aren't part of the solution. They're a major part of the problem.
UPDATE:
Be sure to read my most recent post on this same subject, since it offers what I consider to be some fairly objective evidence that my thesis is valid.
Senseless? Yes. But not difficult to understand in light of our nation's ongoing refusal to take a principled stand with regard to the intrinsic value of human life.
As horrendous as these campus slayings have been, they are numerically insignificant in comparison with the number of abortions which have taken place here in the United States subsequent to Roe v. Wade in 1973. An issue of the Chicago Tribune's free RedEye publication recently reported that the number of legal abortions was roughly 50 million. That number boggles my mind. Compared with that number, the number of people killed by Hitler during WWII was relatively small.
The young students at schools such as Columbine High School and Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have never known a world in which human life was treated by the legal system, from conception until natural death, as if it was intrinsically precious. We should not be surprised, therefore, when such people exhibit behavior which demonstrates a callous disregard for the right to life. Our entire culture has become a culture of death.
What can we do to turn things around? Well, first of all, we ought to seek to be individuals who seek in every way to affirm the value of human life, whether that means refusing to take the (relatively) easy way out when faced with "problem pregnancies" of our own or helping others who have become pregnant as the result of bad choices. It also means affirming the value of human life in other ways, such as feeding the hungry, offering emergency housing to people in need of such housing, paying employees a just wage so that they need not choose between abortion and starvation, and so forth. Without personal integrity, political action is useless.
Nevertheless, politics are sometimes necessary as well.
It ought to be pretty clear that voting for candidates who claim to be pro-life isn't necessarily the same thing as voting for candidates who actually act with integrity on their convictions. But is that any excuse for voting for candidates who openly espouse the killing of unborn children, using such euphemistic terms as "choice" to disguise the horror of what actually happens in abortion clinics? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "NO"!
In the final analysis, I'm not responsible for what politicians do after making their promises (which, let's face it, are often false and hollow). But I am responsible for voting in accordance with the principles in which I believe. And while I acknowledge that the abortion issue is not the only important issue facing this country, I still believe passionately that it is the most important issue we currently face. When someone can present me with persuasive evidence to the effect that the other issues facing our nation involve the deliberate destruction of more than a million human beings every year, then I may rethink that position; but I haven't seen such evidence yet.
Without the right to life, all other rights lose their meaning. What good is it for you to have the right to free speech or to freedom of religion or to freedom of assembly, if I am free to murder you? You can't exercise any of your other human rights if you're dead!!!
Obviously, the right to life is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable human rights are built. Therefore, politicians who claim to care about human rights, while simultaneously advocating pro-abortion policies which undermine the most fundamental of all human rights, are utterly lacking in credibility. When it comes to solving the problem of campus violence (which is ultimately a manifestation of our culture's lack of respect for the intrinsic value of human life), such politicians aren't part of the solution. They're a major part of the problem.
UPDATE:
Be sure to read my most recent post on this same subject, since it offers what I consider to be some fairly objective evidence that my thesis is valid.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Wood Engraving and Digital Art
The public domain image shown here is a beautiful wood engraving by Thomas Bewick.During the 19th Century (and previous centuries), wood engraving was one of the most common methods of creating high-quality relief prints which could be affordably printed in large quantities and distributed in books and magazines.
Gustave Dore is another artist known for his wood engravings (including numerous scenes from the Bible). Albrecht Durer, who was perhaps the greatest printmaker of the Renaissance, also created numerous wood engravings, although they are often erroneously described as woodcuts. Durer's "Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse" (which illustrates a scene from the biblical book of Revelations) is considered by many experts to have been one of his greatest prints.
Handheld tools such as "burins" and "gravers" have traditionally been used to engrave images into wood engraving blocks, but I have long wondered if it would be possible to use laser engraving machines for the purpose of engraving photos and various works of digital art into end grain wood blocks which could be used for the purpose of making such prints. Personally, I don't see why it ought not to be possible. If it was possible, it would make it significantly easier to carve highly realistic images into the wood engraving blocks. Of course, the images would first need to be converted into line art, possibly with software designed to digitally screen continuous tone images using various screens such as halftone screens, mezzotint screens (sometimes known as "diffusion dither"), aquatint screens and so forth. Andromeda Software makes a program (known as the Cutline filter) which can screen images so that they look like traditional linocut or woodcut prints.
Strangely, most companies offering laser engraving services seem to have little knowledge about wood engraving as a printmaking process. Such companies usually use their machines in order to produce more mundane products such as decorative plaques, or other products where the engraved piece is the final work of art rather than being an intermediate step (as all printmaking plates and blocks are) used for the production of art using traditional techniques.
As I see it, one benefit of using laser engraving machines for the purpose of preparing wood blocks for traditional relief printing techniques would be that one could accurately and truthfully describe the final prints as "wood engravings," without feeling compelled to mention the fact that hand held tools were not used for the purpose of cutting the wood. Consequently, unlike giclee printing using printers such as the Epson 9880, such print production methods would enable photographers and digital artists to circumvent the biases of the people in the fine art community who still regard digital art with suspicion. (In particular, there are some fine art fairs and competitions which still do not accept digital art.) Hopefully, such anti-digital bigotry will eventually fade away; but meanwhile, it's worthwhile to consider possible strategies for overcoming the bigotry.
Since wood engraving prints made in such a manner would use the same inks as wood engravings made with blocks which had been cut with hand tools, no one could plausibly claim that the prints were not archival. Wood engravings made by Albrecht Durer and others have lasted for many centuries.
Traditionally, the wood blocks used for making wood engraving prints have been quite small. But I recently contacted a company known as Art Boards, and while 9"x12" is the largest standard size they offer, they told me (via voice mail) that they could produce wood engraving blocks in custom sizes as large as 24"x30", which is considerably larger than the largest wood engraving Albrecht Durer ever produced.
When using laser engraving machines for the purpose of preparing relief printing blocks, my guess is that one would need to experiment in order to find the best settings to use in terms of engraving depths. Probably the best way to do this would be to engrave multiple blocks using the same image with different depth settings. An engraving depth which was sufficient for display purposes might not be deep enough if the objective was to make prints from the engraved blocks.
It also seems likely that the viscosity and type of printing inks would play a role. Ink which was too thick might not be capable of printing fine details. Again, experimentation would probably be necessary.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Mourning The Golden Era of Rock Album Cover Design
Back in 1981, I began a gig working full-time for the Harvard Cooperative Society (a/k/a "The Coop") in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I worked there for five years altogether. My job title was "Merchandise Transfer Clerk," and I worked in their Record Department, in the main store in Harvard Square.
All shipments from distribution companies were sent to the main store. There were three smaller Coop stores which also had their own record departments. (Those stores were located in downtown Boston, and near M.I.T. and the Harvard Medical School.) The buyers for the three smaller Coop stores would call me and read off a list of record titles they wanted to order in specified quantities. Sometimes they'd also come to the main store and pick up the records they wanted and load them onto a rolling cart; but in either event, I was responsible for counting all of the records and summing them up according to prices (e.g., 10 records at $10.99, etc.) and then processing the paperwork needed in order to effect the transfer from the Harvard store to the other stores. And of course, I had to box them all up and take them up to the shipping department. The tape gun was one of my most frequently used tools. A computer, unfortunately, was not. I had the benefit of a small printing calculator, but that was it.
During the time when I worked for the Coop, I was probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the store when it came to the totality of what types of albums were available at the time. Some of the store clerks there specialized in just one style (such as rock), but I had to be familiar with everything, from rock to country to classical to world music to comedy and spoken word. And I loved to spend my free time going through the racks, making mental notes about things such as the album cover design ideas I saw on those album covers.
When I first started working at the Coop, digital Compact Discs had not yet been introduced. Those products were introduced during the time when I was working there. In my view, CDs were (and are) marvelous in many respects. No more pops and clicks. No more hiss whenever one got a little dust on the surface of the discs. No more hassles with expensive cleaning solutions and brushes. No more accidents in which a record was ruined because one inadvertently dropped the tonearm onto the vinyl LP, causing it to careen across the disc and to emit a cacophony of sound reminiscent of fingernails on a blackboard. (This didn't happen to me often, but once is once too often!)
In many respects, the smaller size of CDs was also a blessing. With CDs, it was a lot easier to take a box containing one's entire library of favorite recordings, put it into one's car and take it over to a friend's house.
But there was one drawback: The graphics got smaller. Sadly (and unnecessarily), that spelled the beginning of the end for what I now consider to have been the golden era of album cover illustrations.
In the late 70's, I remember buying a book by Roger Dean, entitled "The Album Cover Album". Roger was the artist who illustrated a number of classic album covers by the group Yes. His book (published by Paper Tiger) was a beautifully printed survey of album cover illustrations spanning several decades. It showed how album cover designs had gone from being merely functional graphics to works of art in their own right. A few of the cover designs in the book were sleazy and sexually explicit, but there were enough good designs to keep me occupied for many hours, brainstorming about ways I could use similar concepts to express Christian ideas.
The Beatles and other music artists who were active during the hippie era were probably the most influential people when it came to changing the types of art seen on album covers. The creation of epic rock operas and concept albums demanded a new kind of packaging which visually complemented the music itself, rather than merely portraying the musicians on the cover. "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was one example. Progressive rock groups such as ELP, Kansas and Yes likewise found the traditional album cover design paradigm to be inadequate for their needs. Psychedelia, from bands such as the Grateful Dead, led to some pretty bizarre album covers. R&B groups and jazz fusion groups likewise felt the influence. For example, in terms of jazz, album covers by people and bands such as Chick Corea and the John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra were considerably more creative than the somewhat generic stylized album covers created by labels such as Blue Note for older jazz musicians playing in styles such as bebop.
Some bands gained a substantial part of their identities by creating visually attractive logos which were repeated from one album cover to the next. The band Chicago was particularly noteworthy (and creative) in this respect, but Yes, The Carpenters, Journey and numerous others followed suit.
Double-fold album covers with slick lyric sheet inserts and even booklets replaced the cheap covers of the early sixties. Designers began paying as much attention to the backs of the album covers as they paid to the fronts. The results were covers which were much more thoughtfully constructed.
Painting styles often featured slick and futuristic tools such as the airbrush, which had previously been used mostly as a tool for photo retouching and for hobby work such as painting model airplanes. Charles White III, Alton Kelly, Stanley Mouse, Drew Struzan, Doug Johnson and numerous other illustrators found the airbrush to be indispensable, especially when it was desirable to minimize the appearance of brushstrokes in favor of an industrialized or futuristic style of painting featuring lots of chrome, plastic and vinyl, liquids, young female skin and other smooth surfaces.
Magazines such as Airbrush Action came into being in order to celebrate the new breed of airbrush illustrators. Eventually, illustrators switched in large numbers to computers, finding programs such as Photoshop and Corel Painter and Adobe Illustrator to be much easier to use than mechanically finicky airbrushes and noisy compressors. (Plus, there really wasn't anything an airbrush could do in terms of 4-color illustration art that couldn't be done just as easily or more easily with a computer. Today, there are still a few holdouts, but airbrushes are mostly used now for applications, such as painting the fuel tanks on motorcycles, for which digital tools are still poorly suited.)
The trends in album cover design did not go unnoticed in the world of contemporary Christian music. A number of Christian album cover designs during that era (by people such as Andrae Crouch, Love Song, the Sweet Comfort Band and the Resurrection Band) were beautiful works of art in their own right.
Sadly, that era is now mostly a distant memory. Walk into most Christian bookstores today, and you will see that almost all of the CD covers feature photos of the musicians. Now, I like portraiture as much as the next guy, but when that's just about the only kind of image being used on CD cover designs, it's incredibly BORING!!! I'm not saying that there aren't any exceptions, but such exceptions are far too rare.
Come on, folks. Enough with the stupid cookie cutter designs. It's time to get creatively busy once again.
5"x5" is admittedly a smaller space than the 12"x12" album covers of old, but it's still more than enough space for high quality CD cover designs which show some real creativity.
Even if your primary method of selling your music is via iTunes and other music download sites, you can still create suitably small graphic images with enormous visual appeal and relevance to the primary message you're trying to proclaim or image you're trying to project for your music business or ministry. There are more tools with which to work than ever before, so you have no excuse for lazily copying other artists and graphic designers.
All shipments from distribution companies were sent to the main store. There were three smaller Coop stores which also had their own record departments. (Those stores were located in downtown Boston, and near M.I.T. and the Harvard Medical School.) The buyers for the three smaller Coop stores would call me and read off a list of record titles they wanted to order in specified quantities. Sometimes they'd also come to the main store and pick up the records they wanted and load them onto a rolling cart; but in either event, I was responsible for counting all of the records and summing them up according to prices (e.g., 10 records at $10.99, etc.) and then processing the paperwork needed in order to effect the transfer from the Harvard store to the other stores. And of course, I had to box them all up and take them up to the shipping department. The tape gun was one of my most frequently used tools. A computer, unfortunately, was not. I had the benefit of a small printing calculator, but that was it.
During the time when I worked for the Coop, I was probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the store when it came to the totality of what types of albums were available at the time. Some of the store clerks there specialized in just one style (such as rock), but I had to be familiar with everything, from rock to country to classical to world music to comedy and spoken word. And I loved to spend my free time going through the racks, making mental notes about things such as the album cover design ideas I saw on those album covers.
When I first started working at the Coop, digital Compact Discs had not yet been introduced. Those products were introduced during the time when I was working there. In my view, CDs were (and are) marvelous in many respects. No more pops and clicks. No more hiss whenever one got a little dust on the surface of the discs. No more hassles with expensive cleaning solutions and brushes. No more accidents in which a record was ruined because one inadvertently dropped the tonearm onto the vinyl LP, causing it to careen across the disc and to emit a cacophony of sound reminiscent of fingernails on a blackboard. (This didn't happen to me often, but once is once too often!)
In many respects, the smaller size of CDs was also a blessing. With CDs, it was a lot easier to take a box containing one's entire library of favorite recordings, put it into one's car and take it over to a friend's house.
But there was one drawback: The graphics got smaller. Sadly (and unnecessarily), that spelled the beginning of the end for what I now consider to have been the golden era of album cover illustrations.
In the late 70's, I remember buying a book by Roger Dean, entitled "The Album Cover Album". Roger was the artist who illustrated a number of classic album covers by the group Yes. His book (published by Paper Tiger) was a beautifully printed survey of album cover illustrations spanning several decades. It showed how album cover designs had gone from being merely functional graphics to works of art in their own right. A few of the cover designs in the book were sleazy and sexually explicit, but there were enough good designs to keep me occupied for many hours, brainstorming about ways I could use similar concepts to express Christian ideas.
The Beatles and other music artists who were active during the hippie era were probably the most influential people when it came to changing the types of art seen on album covers. The creation of epic rock operas and concept albums demanded a new kind of packaging which visually complemented the music itself, rather than merely portraying the musicians on the cover. "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was one example. Progressive rock groups such as ELP, Kansas and Yes likewise found the traditional album cover design paradigm to be inadequate for their needs. Psychedelia, from bands such as the Grateful Dead, led to some pretty bizarre album covers. R&B groups and jazz fusion groups likewise felt the influence. For example, in terms of jazz, album covers by people and bands such as Chick Corea and the John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra were considerably more creative than the somewhat generic stylized album covers created by labels such as Blue Note for older jazz musicians playing in styles such as bebop.
Some bands gained a substantial part of their identities by creating visually attractive logos which were repeated from one album cover to the next. The band Chicago was particularly noteworthy (and creative) in this respect, but Yes, The Carpenters, Journey and numerous others followed suit.
Double-fold album covers with slick lyric sheet inserts and even booklets replaced the cheap covers of the early sixties. Designers began paying as much attention to the backs of the album covers as they paid to the fronts. The results were covers which were much more thoughtfully constructed.
Painting styles often featured slick and futuristic tools such as the airbrush, which had previously been used mostly as a tool for photo retouching and for hobby work such as painting model airplanes. Charles White III, Alton Kelly, Stanley Mouse, Drew Struzan, Doug Johnson and numerous other illustrators found the airbrush to be indispensable, especially when it was desirable to minimize the appearance of brushstrokes in favor of an industrialized or futuristic style of painting featuring lots of chrome, plastic and vinyl, liquids, young female skin and other smooth surfaces.
Magazines such as Airbrush Action came into being in order to celebrate the new breed of airbrush illustrators. Eventually, illustrators switched in large numbers to computers, finding programs such as Photoshop and Corel Painter and Adobe Illustrator to be much easier to use than mechanically finicky airbrushes and noisy compressors. (Plus, there really wasn't anything an airbrush could do in terms of 4-color illustration art that couldn't be done just as easily or more easily with a computer. Today, there are still a few holdouts, but airbrushes are mostly used now for applications, such as painting the fuel tanks on motorcycles, for which digital tools are still poorly suited.)
The trends in album cover design did not go unnoticed in the world of contemporary Christian music. A number of Christian album cover designs during that era (by people such as Andrae Crouch, Love Song, the Sweet Comfort Band and the Resurrection Band) were beautiful works of art in their own right.
Sadly, that era is now mostly a distant memory. Walk into most Christian bookstores today, and you will see that almost all of the CD covers feature photos of the musicians. Now, I like portraiture as much as the next guy, but when that's just about the only kind of image being used on CD cover designs, it's incredibly BORING!!! I'm not saying that there aren't any exceptions, but such exceptions are far too rare.
Come on, folks. Enough with the stupid cookie cutter designs. It's time to get creatively busy once again.
5"x5" is admittedly a smaller space than the 12"x12" album covers of old, but it's still more than enough space for high quality CD cover designs which show some real creativity.
Even if your primary method of selling your music is via iTunes and other music download sites, you can still create suitably small graphic images with enormous visual appeal and relevance to the primary message you're trying to proclaim or image you're trying to project for your music business or ministry. There are more tools with which to work than ever before, so you have no excuse for lazily copying other artists and graphic designers.
Wasted Resources
A minute ago, I walked into the Apple Store on Michigan Avenue in order to check my email and attend to other matters. In front of the store, there were two fire trucks pulled up in front of the bus shelter. I saw no signs that anything was on fire, so I figured that the fire trucks must be responding to a call for medical assistance. Sure enough, there were about eight guys all standing in the shelter, talking with a woman, presumably about some health crisis she'd just experienced. I say "presumably," because she seemed to be fully cognizant. She was not laid out on a stretcher, nor were there any other obvious signs that she was experiencing any medical crisis.
Now, I'm all in favor of furnishing the good citizens of Chicago with prompt medical aid whenever we are in need of such aid. Even so, I couldn't help wondering why two fire trucks would be needed for that purpose. Wouldn't a well-equipped ambulance have been more appropriate? When was the last time ladders and fire hoses were needed in order to treat anyone's medical problems? Didn't they know what kind of crisis they were responding to before they rolled out of the station?
And most importantly: What happens if a real fire breaks out while they're wasting taxpayers' resources using gas guzzling vehicles for purposes for which those vehicles were not designed?
Now, I'm all in favor of furnishing the good citizens of Chicago with prompt medical aid whenever we are in need of such aid. Even so, I couldn't help wondering why two fire trucks would be needed for that purpose. Wouldn't a well-equipped ambulance have been more appropriate? When was the last time ladders and fire hoses were needed in order to treat anyone's medical problems? Didn't they know what kind of crisis they were responding to before they rolled out of the station?
And most importantly: What happens if a real fire breaks out while they're wasting taxpayers' resources using gas guzzling vehicles for purposes for which those vehicles were not designed?
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Feet of The Disciples
On January 23, I wrote a new poem, which I thought I'd share with you via this blog. (I've already emailed the poem to a number of people, and they seemed to enjoy it.)
--------------------------------
When in the future I sit at the feet
of Matthew and Andrew and Thomas and Pete,
I'll ask them what it was like to be
disciples of Jesus of Galilee.
In three short years, Christ did so much
with His healing voice and His gentle touch.
It must have been something for them to behold,
like stumbling onto a treasure of gold.
Yet in the garden, when He was arrested,
they all failed the test when their faith was tested.
How sad and sobering it must have been
to be made aware of the depth of their sin.
They stood at a distance and watched as He died,
and listened to Jesus as loudly He cried,
"Father, how could you forsake your own Son?
Nevertheless, please forgive what they've done."
They waited and wondered until the third day, and
then found the stone at the tomb rolled away.
No words could describe all the joy that they felt,
as down at the feet of their Master they knelt.
They soon spread the message through all of the land,
and when they were challenged, they took a strong stand.
The blood of the martyrs attests to the fact
that when you've met Jesus, there's no turning back.
--------------------------------
I took a bit of "poetic license" by using Peter's informal nickname in order to enable me to rhyme the first two lines of the poem. I don't think he'd mind. Saint Peter always struck me as a humble, down-to-earth guy when I read about him in the Bible.
--------------------------------
"The Feet of The Disciples"
(c) Mark Pettigrew
(c) Mark Pettigrew
When in the future I sit at the feet
of Matthew and Andrew and Thomas and Pete,
I'll ask them what it was like to be
disciples of Jesus of Galilee.
In three short years, Christ did so much
with His healing voice and His gentle touch.
It must have been something for them to behold,
like stumbling onto a treasure of gold.
Yet in the garden, when He was arrested,
they all failed the test when their faith was tested.
How sad and sobering it must have been
to be made aware of the depth of their sin.
They stood at a distance and watched as He died,
and listened to Jesus as loudly He cried,
"Father, how could you forsake your own Son?
Nevertheless, please forgive what they've done."
They waited and wondered until the third day, and
then found the stone at the tomb rolled away.
No words could describe all the joy that they felt,
as down at the feet of their Master they knelt.
They soon spread the message through all of the land,
and when they were challenged, they took a strong stand.
The blood of the martyrs attests to the fact
that when you've met Jesus, there's no turning back.
--------------------------------
I took a bit of "poetic license" by using Peter's informal nickname in order to enable me to rhyme the first two lines of the poem. I don't think he'd mind. Saint Peter always struck me as a humble, down-to-earth guy when I read about him in the Bible.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Walter Coleman Is A Disgrace
Well, he's at it again. According to today's issue of RedEye (published by the Chicago Tribune), the "esteemed" Rev. Walter Coleman, from Adalberto United Methodist Church in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, is harboring yet another Mexican "undocumented worker" in his church. After U.S. authorities shipped Elvira Arellano's lawbreaking behind back to Mexico, Coleman apparently failed to get a clue. He went looking for another opportunity to thumb his nose at the millions of Americans who believed, as I do, that a nation without enforceable borders is no nation at all. He found such an opportunity in a woman named Flor Crisostomo.
Coleman and others like him seem to be incapable of recognizing the distinction between their lawless acts and genuine civil disobedience, so let me spell it out for them: Breaking a legitimate and constitutionally defensible law is not civil disobedience. Unlike the racially discriminatory Jim Crow laws which once existed in many southern states, there is nothing inherently unjust about our immigration laws. All people who would wish to immigrate to our nation in order to take advantage of our opportunities are held to the same standards, and those standards have existed for many, many years. Our immigration laws (which are a necessity if we are to have anything resembling protection against terrorists) are not somehow rendered invalid by the declining state of the Mexican economy, no matter what Coleman and his allies might claim.
I am particularly appalled that a United Methodist church is being used to promote this nonsense. I was raised in the United Methodist church. My grandfather, George Bowles, was a United Methodist hospital chaplain until the day of his death in the summer of 1970. My father, Don Pettigrew, was a United Methodist lay minister.
My father was steadfastly opposed to racially discriminatory practices, and in fact, he served as the Chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights in my hometown, out of a desire to fight genuine racism. In some respects, my father was a very flawed man. But I cannot imagine that he would ever have abused his position with the United Methodist church in order to advocate lawlessness or shelter lawbreakers.
Having said that, I should also say that I'm not completely surprised by Reverend Coleman's acts. I left the United Methodist church many years ago, because I sensed that that denomination was growing less and less interested in adhering to the beliefs and principles which had guided John Wesley, who founded the Methodist church. During the late sixties and early seventies, moral relativism replaced moral certainty, and social activism replaced the straightforward preaching of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am not opposed to immigration per se, nor do I have any innate bias against Hispanic people. I think that we ought to welcome immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, provided that they abide by our laws and provided that they make a strong effort to learn the English language so that their presence here will not impose a burden on people who were born in this country and who have lived here all of their lives. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the Hispanic community currently consists of people who are unwilling to do the things they need to do in order to deserve to be welcomed to this country. That's their choice, but they need to understand that such choices have consequences.
One article on the subject of Elvira Arellano cited scriptures which stated that God's people had an obligation to welcome foreigners and aliens and to provide hospitality. Well, I don't disagree with that premise. We certainly ought to welcome such people --- as visitors whose presence is heavily monitored so that we can fulfill our biblical responsibilities to such people without compromising the security of our own people in the process. It is not inhospitable to hold would-be permanent or semi-permanent residents to a different standard than the standard to which we hold mere visitors. Somehow, visitors and immigrants from most countries seem to understand that. For some reason, substantial numbers of people from Mexico and other Latino countries can't quite get it through their heads that there's a substantial difference between hospitality and stupidity.
I have nothing against social activism when it is consistent with the scriptures. In fact, I believe that the Christian Church has a moral responsibility to stand against genuine instances of social injustice. But the acts of Rev. Coleman do not fit that description. Instead, his form of self-aggrandizing activism is nothing less than spittle in the eye of every decent American, regardless of ethnicity, who believes in obeying our nation's laws and playing by the rules.
Coleman and others like him seem to be incapable of recognizing the distinction between their lawless acts and genuine civil disobedience, so let me spell it out for them: Breaking a legitimate and constitutionally defensible law is not civil disobedience. Unlike the racially discriminatory Jim Crow laws which once existed in many southern states, there is nothing inherently unjust about our immigration laws. All people who would wish to immigrate to our nation in order to take advantage of our opportunities are held to the same standards, and those standards have existed for many, many years. Our immigration laws (which are a necessity if we are to have anything resembling protection against terrorists) are not somehow rendered invalid by the declining state of the Mexican economy, no matter what Coleman and his allies might claim.
I am particularly appalled that a United Methodist church is being used to promote this nonsense. I was raised in the United Methodist church. My grandfather, George Bowles, was a United Methodist hospital chaplain until the day of his death in the summer of 1970. My father, Don Pettigrew, was a United Methodist lay minister.
My father was steadfastly opposed to racially discriminatory practices, and in fact, he served as the Chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights in my hometown, out of a desire to fight genuine racism. In some respects, my father was a very flawed man. But I cannot imagine that he would ever have abused his position with the United Methodist church in order to advocate lawlessness or shelter lawbreakers.
Having said that, I should also say that I'm not completely surprised by Reverend Coleman's acts. I left the United Methodist church many years ago, because I sensed that that denomination was growing less and less interested in adhering to the beliefs and principles which had guided John Wesley, who founded the Methodist church. During the late sixties and early seventies, moral relativism replaced moral certainty, and social activism replaced the straightforward preaching of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am not opposed to immigration per se, nor do I have any innate bias against Hispanic people. I think that we ought to welcome immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, provided that they abide by our laws and provided that they make a strong effort to learn the English language so that their presence here will not impose a burden on people who were born in this country and who have lived here all of their lives. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the Hispanic community currently consists of people who are unwilling to do the things they need to do in order to deserve to be welcomed to this country. That's their choice, but they need to understand that such choices have consequences.
One article on the subject of Elvira Arellano cited scriptures which stated that God's people had an obligation to welcome foreigners and aliens and to provide hospitality. Well, I don't disagree with that premise. We certainly ought to welcome such people --- as visitors whose presence is heavily monitored so that we can fulfill our biblical responsibilities to such people without compromising the security of our own people in the process. It is not inhospitable to hold would-be permanent or semi-permanent residents to a different standard than the standard to which we hold mere visitors. Somehow, visitors and immigrants from most countries seem to understand that. For some reason, substantial numbers of people from Mexico and other Latino countries can't quite get it through their heads that there's a substantial difference between hospitality and stupidity.
I have nothing against social activism when it is consistent with the scriptures. In fact, I believe that the Christian Church has a moral responsibility to stand against genuine instances of social injustice. But the acts of Rev. Coleman do not fit that description. Instead, his form of self-aggrandizing activism is nothing less than spittle in the eye of every decent American, regardless of ethnicity, who believes in obeying our nation's laws and playing by the rules.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Annoying Problems with Blogger and Mac Computers
As I write this, I'm at the large Apple computer store on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, just a couple of blocks south of Chicago Avenue. I'm trying to edit an earlier post, but every time I go to the Edit Posts page, the Safari browser program crashes. That's happened when working on more than one Apple computer in the store.
Don't tell me the computers aren't configured properly. If the folks at the Apple store in Chicago don't know how to set up Mac computers, no one does.
As you can see, I'm able to enter new posts just fine. So it's clearly a problem at Google's end, from what I can see.
I've never had this particular problem when working on a Windows computer. I'm not sure if it's a problem pertaining to the Mac platform, or just a temporary aberration which has nothing to do with the platform.
I'll really be glad when I get my own (Windows) computer up and running again. But right now, I just don't have the money to get it repaired.
By the way, another serious annoyance (which I've experienced before in Blogger) is that my paragraph returns aren't handled properly when I rely on Blogger to set up the returns. Blogger seems to use CSS to do so. That would be fine, if it worked properly, but it doesn't. I finally got the paragraphs to format properly by returning to good old HTML code, using paragraph codes at the beginning of every new paragraph.
UPDATE: I discovered, after speaking with one of the sales people at the Apple store, that the problem I was having with the computer crashing whenever I tried to edit my Blogger posts was being caused by some type of coding error pertaining to the Safari browser. Switching to Firefox solved the problem. Unfortunately, they have a standard configuration for each computer at the Apple store, and they return each computer to that configuration every night before the store closes. Understandable, but it means that whenever I come in and want to use their computers to edit blog posts, I have to download Firefox again on that particular day. Fortunately, they do have a fast connection, so that doesn't take a huge amount of time.Wednesday, November 14, 2007
There's Sentience and There's Sentience
Earlier tonight, I had an interesting discussion with a guy who was standing out on the corner, just north of the Harold Washington Library. He was handing out nicely printed brochures advocating a vegan lifestyle and talking about the horrible injustices and cruelties allegedly inflicted on animals by the meat industry. I remembered that brochure, because I'd received a copy a few years ago from another activist who was doing volunteer work on Chicago Avenue.
The guy I spoke with tonight was named Wayne Hsiung. He told me that he was an attorney, and his father was a scientist. He handed me a business card, bearing the slogan "big ears, bigger mouth". The slogan was apt.
To his credit, Wayne did listen to me, and he seemed to be a guy who thought for himself to some extent. Even though he was handing out vegan pamphlets, he wasn't afraid to admit that he sometimes disagreed strongly with other vegan philosophers and leaders about particular issues.
However, he also made it clear to me that he was an atheist who regarded all religions with suspicion and distrust, believing them to be unscientific, irrational and oppressive. So when I tried to explain that I believed that there were fundamental differences between people and animals, due to my belief that people were uniquely created in the image of God (as stated in the book of Genesis), Wayne made it clear that he thought that I was the victim of what a scientist named Richard Dawkins recently described as "the God delusion".
Wayne and I talked about the abortion issue as it related to the issue of animal rights. I brought up the subject of abortion, because philosophies espoused by Peter Singer had led to the perception that it was "speciesist" to suggest that there was anything unique or special about the race of homo sapiens.
Peter Singer is an animal rights leader and Princeton philosophy professor whose name was mentioned in the vegan brochure Wayne was distributing. Professor Singer had infamously concluded that there were times when it would be morally wrong to kill a pig, and times when it would be morally acceptable to kill a human infant --- and, of course, a human unborn child as well. So it seemed to me that the connection between abortion and the vegan lifestyle was worthy of discussion.
Peter Singer is an animal rights leader and Princeton philosophy professor whose name was mentioned in the vegan brochure Wayne was distributing. Professor Singer had infamously concluded that there were times when it would be morally wrong to kill a pig, and times when it would be morally acceptable to kill a human infant --- and, of course, a human unborn child as well. So it seemed to me that the connection between abortion and the vegan lifestyle was worthy of discussion.
Given the fact that nearly 50 million or more unborn children had been legally killed in U.S. abortion clinics subsequent to Roe v. Wade, I couldn't help thinking that worrying about what happened to cows and pigs was a case of misplaced priorities, to put things mildly.
To me, it's common sense to conclude that there's a huge gap between the societal value of a human being and the societal value of a cow, a pig or a chicken. If you're driving down the road and you see a dead animal on the road (commonly known as "road kill"), it's likely that you call animal control (if you're in a town or city) or ignore the sight altogether (if you're on a major highway). If on the other hand it's a human baby that you see, you are likely to exhibit an altogether different response. Hopefully, you will call the police as soon as you can find a phone with which to do so. I would also like to think that you would stop, get out of the car, and attempt to save the person's life (if such a thing is possible) or, at the very least, stay with the body until the authorities arrive, even if the body has been dead for many days.
Peter Singer might call me a "speciesist," but personally, I think it's a good thing that we value human beings more highly than we value animals. I love animals, but I am not stupid enough to think that they are the moral equivalents of people.
Peter Singer might call me a "speciesist," but personally, I think it's a good thing that we value human beings more highly than we value animals. I love animals, but I am not stupid enough to think that they are the moral equivalents of people.
When talking with Wayne, he was willing to acknowledge that it might be wrong to kill an unborn child in the second or third trimester. (In acknowledging that to be the case, he was willing to contradict Peter Singer.) But Wayne said that he thought that abortion in the first trimester was acceptable, because an unborn child had no sentience and no capacity to conceive of life outside of the womb (or of life in any form at all).
Interestingly, those are pretty similar to the criteria cited by Michael Tooley in his paper entitled "In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide," except that Tooley defined "sentience" in such a way that it enabled him to push the envelope much further than Wayne was willing to push it. Tooley was a Stanford professor whose views were very similar to Peter Singer's views. And I think that's worthy of some serious contemplation, because the arguments made by many people in defense of legal abortion are very similar to the arguments which a considerably smaller number of people have made in defense of the legalization of infanticide. So before we accept the legitimacy of the premises on which people have based their arguments in favor of legal abortion, we need to ask ourselves where those premises would likely lead us if we followed them to their logical conclusions. Do we really want to live in a society in which infanticide is considered to be an acceptable option? I think that most people now living would answer that they do not want to live in such a society.
When considering that there are people who argue in favor of the legalization of infanticide, you might be tempted to dismiss that fact as unimportant, given the fact that such people are so rare that they are highly unlikely to prevail politically in this country in the near or foreseeable future. But history teaches us that political climates can change quickly. In times of turmoil, people often look for scapegoats, which helps to explain some of the most heinous pogroms of the 20th Century.
Now, let's think for a moment about my acquaintance Wayne, and about his argument to the effect that "sentience" ought to be the dividing line.Interestingly, those are pretty similar to the criteria cited by Michael Tooley in his paper entitled "In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide," except that Tooley defined "sentience" in such a way that it enabled him to push the envelope much further than Wayne was willing to push it. Tooley was a Stanford professor whose views were very similar to Peter Singer's views. And I think that's worthy of some serious contemplation, because the arguments made by many people in defense of legal abortion are very similar to the arguments which a considerably smaller number of people have made in defense of the legalization of infanticide. So before we accept the legitimacy of the premises on which people have based their arguments in favor of legal abortion, we need to ask ourselves where those premises would likely lead us if we followed them to their logical conclusions. Do we really want to live in a society in which infanticide is considered to be an acceptable option? I think that most people now living would answer that they do not want to live in such a society.
When considering that there are people who argue in favor of the legalization of infanticide, you might be tempted to dismiss that fact as unimportant, given the fact that such people are so rare that they are highly unlikely to prevail politically in this country in the near or foreseeable future. But history teaches us that political climates can change quickly. In times of turmoil, people often look for scapegoats, which helps to explain some of the most heinous pogroms of the 20th Century.
It's true that animals such as cows, pigs and chickens possess some level of "sentience". Certainly, an animal is more sentient than a rock, a blade of grass or a block of wood.
But anyone who's ever spent time on or near a farm knows that there's a world of difference between the sentience of a barnyard animal and the sentience of a human being. The most mentally retarded human being on the face of the earth is still a genius compared with the average cow. Try spending an entire day standing in a field doing nothing but eating, defecating, fornicating and repeatedly saying "moo" and see how long it takes before you're bored out of your gourd. Then contemplate doing the same thing, day after day, for the rest of your life, with no ambition in life other than the desire to survive for another day so that you can do the same inane, boring thing over and over again.
Face it, people. Not withstanding the delusions of those who are Hindus, God created cows so that people (and other carnivores) would have delicious, protein-packed meat to eat. God did not create cows so that they could have intellectually stimulating conversations with one another, or so that they could build grand cathedrals in which to worship Him, or so that they could make beautiful music or paint beautiful pictures. Such activities are reserved for human beings, who alone are created in God's image.
Now, there are those, such as Wayne, who would point out that even the stupidest animal has a level of sentience which is higher than the level which is possible in a human fetus prior to the point when the human fetus has formed the neural connections which are necessary for conscious thought.
They may well be right about that. But I see a serious problem with the idea of deciding that sentience ought to be the dividing line, and it's simply this: Once we start deciding that some particular quality such as sentience ought to serve as the dividing line, we lose the sense that all human beings have intrinsic value simply because they are human beings. Once we lose that sense, we open a veritable "Pandora's Box" in which a host of rationalizations can be employed for the purpose of justifying murder.
In Nazi Germany, the Holocaust did not begin with the wholesale murder of the Jews, although that's obviously where it ended. It began with the belief that certain people --- specifically, mentally retarded people and physically handicapped people --- forfeited the right to life on account of the idea that they did not really live lives which were worth living. Somehow, I doubt that they polled the people they were killing in order to determine whether or not those people considered their own lives to be worthwhile.
Once the idea of a "life not worth living" was accepted, it was only a small step to take for the German people to conclude that other "undesirables" were likewise expendable.
What do you think would have happened if Hitler had prevailed? Do you honestly think that the Holocaust would have ended with the extermination of the Jews? Think again. Evil is self perpetuating. Having eliminated the Jews, the Nazis would have begun to look for a new class of "undesirables" to eliminate. Anyone perceived as different and alien would have become a target.
The only way to prevent that from happening is to take a strong stand on moral principle. And here's the principle: All human beings are special and created in the image of God, regardless of what you may think about the merits associated with their ethnic identities or religious beliefs or political alliances or sexual orientations or physical handicaps or mental handicaps.
As a Christian, I may abhor Communism or homosexuality or atheism, but that does not give me the right to kill people as a means of expressing my abhorrence of those things. The Declaration of Independence got it right: God has endowed all human beings, from the moment of their creation (not from the moment of birth) with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I would add this: The right to life is logically the most important right of all, because a person cannot exercise any other right if other people are free to kill that person with impunity.
There are those who think that our nation ought to be absolutely neutral when it comes to religious ideas. I think that's a logical impossibility. To say that a human right is "inalienable," as the founders of our country did, is to make an inherently theistic statement, since such a statement acknowledges that the source of that right transcends human recognition of the existence of that right. You can live in the most oppressive nation on the face of the earth, but you still have inalienable rights, even if those rights are not recognized or respected by the people around you. If people are free to take your rights away, then they are not inalienable.
It's comforting to me to know that the source of all inalienable human rights is divine. God is a just God, and while He is merciful and longsuffering, the Bible teaches us that God will not tolerate evil forever.
I feel sorry for atheists such as Wayne Hsiung and Richard Dawkins, because they cannot state with any conviction that monsters such as Hitler will ever be adequately punished for their heinous deeds. Christians know better. Justice may not always prevail in this life, but the Bible teaches that people eventually reap what they sow. Sometimes in this life. Sometimes in the life to come.
Like individuals, nations also reap what they sow. Think about that when you go to the polls to elect a president next November.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Here's An Article You Should Read
In an excellent article which I just discovered online at Crosswalk.com, writer Paul Coughlin argues that Christian parents are often guilty of going way overboard in their efforts to shelter their kids from the evil in the world. He says that such parents are actually guilty of neglecting a very important part of the gospel. The end result is passive, "nice" kids who are poorly prepared to engage in spiritual battle in a world which is increasingly hostile to Christianity and its values. Amen to that!
I could add more comments on that subject, but my time online these days is limited, so for the time being, I think I'll just link to that article and let you ponder Paul's words.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Relevance of Proofreading
During the years subsequent to the election of President Bush, Democrats and liberals have repeatedly ridiculed President Bush for his alleged verbal ineptitude.
In all fairness to his detractors, Bush has said some things which could have been expressed more intelligently. But not every president can be an Abraham Lincoln when it comes to literacy.
Lincoln was one of our most eloquent presidents, as the author of the book Lincoln's Sword has pointed out. Yet, Lincoln was mostly self-educated. Bush, on the other hand, graduated from Yale. Not just from an ordinary college, in other words, but a highly esteemed Ivy League university.
Could it be --- perish the thought --- that our institutions of higher learning are not always all they're cracked up to be? At the very least, it would be accurate to say that the acquisition of a degree from such a university is no guarantee that the person who has acquired such a degree will be a particularly skilled communicator, nor is the absence of such a degree an indication, necessarily, that one is an unintelligent or uneducated yahoo.
Just as the correlation between higher education and actual literacy is sometimes tenuous at best, the correlation between one's political affiliation and one's level of intelligence is equally tenuous, in spite of continued efforts on the part of Democrats and liberals to imply that people who would vote for Bush (or for any politically conservative candidate) must be stupid. It would be more accurate to state that both major parties have geniuses, ordinary people, and idiots on their membership lists.
Here in Chicago, we have a free newspaper called RedEye. It's published by the Chicago Tribune, and distributed free to commuters and others.
As a Republican who has repeatedly had to endure the caustic comments directed towards our current president, I was amused recently (on 10/19/2007) when I read the following comment in a column by RedEye columnist Jimmy Greenfield:
"The alternative to not being relevant, to not having a say in your life and the world around you, is to be irrelevant, and that's a frightening concept."
Earlier in the column, Greenfield had talked about how the presidency of President Bush had been allegedly a disaster. He ended the column by saying that readers should seek to live lives which were relevant, but most assuredly not in the way that Bush had been relevant.
Personally, I couldn't help but think that Greenfield's inability to proper proofread his own column might be relevant to the question of whether or not his criticisms of Bush had any credibility. So just in case you missed it, here's that quote again:
"The alternative to not being relevant, to not having a say in your life and the world around you, is to be irrelevant, and that's a frightening concept."
The last time I checked, the word "irrelevant" meant "not relevant". So it's unclear to me why the only alternative to not being relevant is to be irrelevant. That is indeed a frightening concept! It's almost as frightening as the idea that an imbecilic self-described Bush-basher named Jimmy Greenfield might actually have enough clout to persuade other people to vote for a Democrat during the upcoming presidential election.
Given the fact that they have demonstrably failed to achieve linguistic perfection themselves, one might be justified in accusing Democrats such as Jimmy Greenfield of hypocrisy when they ridicule President Bush for his own failures in that department. But that would be a trivial matter, if that were the only instance in which they had been guilty of hypocrisy.
What is not so trivial is the way in which the Democratic party constantly prattles on about how it is the party of compassion, in spite of the fact that it has been anything but compassionate towards the millions of unborn children who have been deliberately killed in abortion clinics over the past 34 years as a result of public policies which have been promoted and defended by that same party. That, too, is hypocritical, and it is a deadly form of hypocrisy indeed.
Abraham Lincoln was indeed an eloquent man. But eloquence is only virtuous if it is employed in pursuit of virtuous objectives. It wasn't Lincoln's eloquence which made him one of America's greatest presidents. It was Lincoln's resolute determination to halt the spread of slavery, and his willingness to grow in his understanding until he came to a point in his life where he understood that ending slavery altogether was the only acceptable option available to him.
Having studied the issue carefully for the past several decades, I have long held the conviction that the abortion issue is very similar to the slavery issue in many respects. There are numerous uncanny parallels when it comes to the similarities between arguments which have been adduced in support of each practice. I don't have the time to engage in a detailed examination of those arguments in this blog post, but I would seriously urge you to look into the matter for yourself. In particular, I would encourage you to read the book Rachel Weeping by James Burtchaell, if you can find a copy of that book.
I would have preferred a president who was more eloquent than Bush, but I voted for him in spite of my awareness of his shortcomings, because he took a stand against the evils of legal abortion.
Bush could have done much better as a president insofar as that issue was concerned, and it's certainly arguable that Bush handled the Iraq situation poorly as well. Looking back at his years in office, I would not rank him as one of America's greatest presidents. But the election of his opponents in 2000 and 2004 would have been a disaster for America and for the pro-life cause. So notwithstanding the fact that he has sometimes been the source of some amusing verbal gaffes, I am glad that I voted for him. Under similar circumstances, I would do so again.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Perversion of The Cross of Christ
Historically, the cross has been the most prominent symbol of Christianity ever since Jesus died on the original "old rugged cross" on Golgotha. But over time, symbols can become transmutated, until the people who use them forget what they're really all about.
There is something strange indeed about seeing a fan of hip hop music (or a hip hop "artist"), draped in absurd amounts of ostentatious jewelry (also known as "bling"), particularly when that jewelry includes a big and gaudy gilded cross pendant. It's especially strange when you consider that such a person is likely to endorse or play "music" which is laced with profanity, misogyny and lyrics which endorse recreational drugs, gang violence and other aspects of the "thug" life. None of those things are even remotely congruent with Christian discipleship.
Of course, it isn't just African-American thugs from the hood who are clueless when it comes to the cross. Some wealthy white folks are equally clueless. Last night I was at Barnes & Noble, and I was browsing through The New Yorker magazine. On page 93 of the 7/17/2007 issue, there was an ad for Shrubsole. The ad featured a cross pendant, decorated with "Montana sapphire and diamond". The price tag? $14,500!
Wow. Imagine how many hungry children one could feed for that kind of money. One could probably even build a nice home for a person living in a third world country, using that kind of money.
For that matter, that kind of money would go a long way in helping the poor right here in the United States. I've gone years when I didn't make any more than $14,500, and that was when I wasn't unemployed.
What kind of idiot thinks that spending nearly 15 grand on a cross pendant is a good way to express one's faith in Christ? And what kind of idiot wears a cross for reasons which are unrelated to a desire to express faith in the One who died on the cross more than 2,000 years ago?
There is something strange indeed about seeing a fan of hip hop music (or a hip hop "artist"), draped in absurd amounts of ostentatious jewelry (also known as "bling"), particularly when that jewelry includes a big and gaudy gilded cross pendant. It's especially strange when you consider that such a person is likely to endorse or play "music" which is laced with profanity, misogyny and lyrics which endorse recreational drugs, gang violence and other aspects of the "thug" life. None of those things are even remotely congruent with Christian discipleship.
Of course, it isn't just African-American thugs from the hood who are clueless when it comes to the cross. Some wealthy white folks are equally clueless. Last night I was at Barnes & Noble, and I was browsing through The New Yorker magazine. On page 93 of the 7/17/2007 issue, there was an ad for Shrubsole. The ad featured a cross pendant, decorated with "Montana sapphire and diamond". The price tag? $14,500!
Wow. Imagine how many hungry children one could feed for that kind of money. One could probably even build a nice home for a person living in a third world country, using that kind of money.
For that matter, that kind of money would go a long way in helping the poor right here in the United States. I've gone years when I didn't make any more than $14,500, and that was when I wasn't unemployed.
What kind of idiot thinks that spending nearly 15 grand on a cross pendant is a good way to express one's faith in Christ? And what kind of idiot wears a cross for reasons which are unrelated to a desire to express faith in the One who died on the cross more than 2,000 years ago?
Saturday, September 08, 2007
I Guess It Beats Working For A Living
I just came across a news story about how Paris Hilton had chosen to sue Hallmark Cards for using the phrase "that's hot" on one of their greeting cards.
In response, here's what I would love to say to her, if she and I should ever meet:
"Paris, you brainless bimbo, you did not invent the phrase 'that's hot'. People were using that phrase long before you were ever born. So kindly explain why you now think that you have an exclusive right to use that common-as-dirt phrase and to sue others who use it without your permission."
I felt the same way when I saw that McDonalds had "trademarked" the phrase, "I'm lovin' it." I mean, come on. The folks at McDonalds basically borrowed that phrase from street culture and made it their own. Anyone who thinks that no one had ever used that phrase prior to hearing it in a McDonald's commercial is seriously clueless.
Hey, I have an idea. I think I'll trademark common phrases such as "I love you," "Season's Greetings" and so forth. Then every time any greeting card company wants to use those phrases in the future, they'll have to pay me royalties. In fact, I'll get royalties whenever any husband tells his wife that he loves her. Now won't that be peachy! With the windfall I'm sure to make from all of the lawsuits I'm sure to win, I'll never have to work another day in my life.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic, because I would never actually do such a thing. I believe in copyright protection for genuinely creative people, but a legal system which allows people to claim exclusive rights over phrases which are commonly used by numerous English speaking people is a legal system which has run amuck.
Now all I have to do is pray that no one has trademarked the phrase "run amuck".
In response, here's what I would love to say to her, if she and I should ever meet:
"Paris, you brainless bimbo, you did not invent the phrase 'that's hot'. People were using that phrase long before you were ever born. So kindly explain why you now think that you have an exclusive right to use that common-as-dirt phrase and to sue others who use it without your permission."
I felt the same way when I saw that McDonalds had "trademarked" the phrase, "I'm lovin' it." I mean, come on. The folks at McDonalds basically borrowed that phrase from street culture and made it their own. Anyone who thinks that no one had ever used that phrase prior to hearing it in a McDonald's commercial is seriously clueless.
Hey, I have an idea. I think I'll trademark common phrases such as "I love you," "Season's Greetings" and so forth. Then every time any greeting card company wants to use those phrases in the future, they'll have to pay me royalties. In fact, I'll get royalties whenever any husband tells his wife that he loves her. Now won't that be peachy! With the windfall I'm sure to make from all of the lawsuits I'm sure to win, I'll never have to work another day in my life.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic, because I would never actually do such a thing. I believe in copyright protection for genuinely creative people, but a legal system which allows people to claim exclusive rights over phrases which are commonly used by numerous English speaking people is a legal system which has run amuck.
Now all I have to do is pray that no one has trademarked the phrase "run amuck".
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Another Possible CD Cover Design
Here's a CD cover design I created for a CD of my instrumental music. The black background is just for display here. The colorful background was created in Photoshop. It would be printed "full bleed". (I've checked to make sure that there's an adequate bleed area and an adequate "safe area".) Needless to say, the original image has higher resolution than the image displayed here.
I think the colors here look reminiscent of the tie dye T-shirts I bought a few years ago.
The title was suggested by the image. I was thinking about God, not about myself, when I came up with that phrase!
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Public Vulgarity in the City on the Lake
In many respects, Chicago can be a beautiful city. But it also has its ugly side. For some reason, this city seems to attract large numbers of people who like to indulge in crude and vulgar public behavior. I'm not saying that it's completely unique in that respect, but I lived in the Boston area for 7 years during the 80's, and I don't recall seeing things that were nearly as bad as some of the things I've seen while living here.
When I first moved here in 1991, there were a number of episodes in which I witnessed public urination, in the CTA subway platforms and even on city sidewalks in broad daylight.
Most of the time, it would be a man who would whip it out and just start peeing right there in front of any passersby who might happen to be in the area. I thought that was bad enough. What was even worse, in my opinion, was the time I was exiting the El platform over on Wabash. As I descended the staircase, I saw to my shock that a woman was standing on the sidewalk (not far from the Ritz Camera store), with her big behind up in the air. She apparently had decided that it was too much trouble to walk a block or two north and use the public restroom located in the Palmer House hotel. (She also could have used the restroom in the basement at Marshall Fields, as another option.) Instead, she was peeing on the sidewalk in full view of anyone who cared to watch (or didn't care to watch, for that matter).
I also vividly remember the night I left the Borders bookstore shortly before they closed for the evening. As I walked home, I saw a guy approaching me in the darkness of the evening. There was something odd about his appearance, but it took a moment or two for my mind to register what it was. He had his zipper opened, and his "manhood" was hanging out for all to see. He wasn't even urinating at the time, he was just walking down the street with his genitals hanging out. I can only assume that he was crazy, drunk, high or all three of those things. If I'd had a cell phone on me, I'd have immediately called the police, but I didn't have access to a phone, and by the time I reached one, I figured he'd already have been spotted by someone else anyway.
When I first moved here, I was out on the West Side of Chicago one evening, and a woman approached me. "Wanna' be my boy frien'?" she asked. It didn't take a great deal of genius to figure out that she was looking for a john, not for a long-lasting dating relationship. Needless to say, I declined the offer. And I received a similar offer on another occasion when I was in the Uptown neighborhood, during that first year.
Back in the 90's, I attended the Taste of Chicago event one year. There was a blues musician playing outside at that event. Normally, I might have enjoyed the performance, since I like listening to the blues (and even playing that style of music) from time to time. But one couple was apparently inspired by the music to perform a dance which included some explicit dance moves which were clearly meant to simulate oral sex. The fact that no actual genitalia were displayed did not negate the offensiveness of the act.
It was only a couple of years ago when I was in the Lakeside neighborhood on a weekend when they were holding the Gay Pride parade. A woman on the El platform had a rainbow painted or printed on her T-shirt, along with the words "Taste The Rainbow" and a big arrow pointing directly at her crotch. And here I'd thought that people had learned something from the Biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently not.
Just the other day, there was a woman standing on the street corner a block away from where I live. She had a T-shirt with the words "I Swallow" printed on it. Hmmm, somehow I don't think she was referring to what she does with her chewing gum, her food or her normal beverages.
A couple of days ago, I was in the McDonald's eating my dinner, when a crazy black woman began talking very loudly to no one in particular, clearly trying to draw attention to herself. (She kept yelling the word "bitch" at regular intervals.) When she walked over to the area where I was sitting, I looked her straight in the eye and said, "No one ever taught you how to behave in public, did they!" Needless to say, this did not endear me to her. She got very close to my table and began arguing with me and ridiculing me, which I took as a compliment, considering the source.
At one point, she turned around and wiggled her behind at me, presumably as a means of daring me to kiss it, although she didn't say those precise words. (Later, however, she did loudly yell something about sucking her genitalia. O.K., she didn't use the word "genitalia", she used a more common word which means the same thing and which has also been used on occasions to describe animals of the feline persuasion.) At one point, she called me a "bitch", which I thought was rather strange. I always thought that bitch was a name for a female dog.
As it turned out, she wasn't there by herself. Her friend was in the ladies room, apparently changing her clothes in order to bathe herself. That woman was buck naked, which I discovered when she showed up at the door with her ugly and shriveled breasts hanging out for all to see. Presumably, she wanted to see who her friend was arguing with, and she couldn't wait until she'd put her clothes back on before satisfying her curiosity. She lingered in the doorway for several brief seconds before closing the door and returning to whatever she'd been doing in there.
Eventually the police showed up and threw the two women out of the restaurant, but not before the first woman had spit in my direction, sending not only saliva but little bits of food flying through the air. Fortunately for me, she was far enough from me at the time that none of the food or spittle hit me.
Now, I don't want to sound like a racist, but the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people involved in the aforementioned incidents were black. The "taste the rainbow" woman was white, but she was an exception to the rule.
I know from personal experience that there are a lot of good and decent black folks who would never think of doing things like these things, and I certainly don't want to imply that they would. But the fact remains that there is a significant problem in certain segments of the black community when it comes to little things such as manners and common decency.
This is the kind of society which has been bred by the judgment-free ideologies of the liberals who predominantly run the city of Chicago. God forbid that anyone should suggest that there is any such thing as moral standards to which all must adhere.
I'm slightly surprised that I haven't yet seen anyone copulating in front of the Water Tower. In light of the fact that the moral standards here seem to be declining on a daily basis, such a thing would seem to be the next logical step.
When I first moved here in 1991, there were a number of episodes in which I witnessed public urination, in the CTA subway platforms and even on city sidewalks in broad daylight.
Most of the time, it would be a man who would whip it out and just start peeing right there in front of any passersby who might happen to be in the area. I thought that was bad enough. What was even worse, in my opinion, was the time I was exiting the El platform over on Wabash. As I descended the staircase, I saw to my shock that a woman was standing on the sidewalk (not far from the Ritz Camera store), with her big behind up in the air. She apparently had decided that it was too much trouble to walk a block or two north and use the public restroom located in the Palmer House hotel. (She also could have used the restroom in the basement at Marshall Fields, as another option.) Instead, she was peeing on the sidewalk in full view of anyone who cared to watch (or didn't care to watch, for that matter).
I also vividly remember the night I left the Borders bookstore shortly before they closed for the evening. As I walked home, I saw a guy approaching me in the darkness of the evening. There was something odd about his appearance, but it took a moment or two for my mind to register what it was. He had his zipper opened, and his "manhood" was hanging out for all to see. He wasn't even urinating at the time, he was just walking down the street with his genitals hanging out. I can only assume that he was crazy, drunk, high or all three of those things. If I'd had a cell phone on me, I'd have immediately called the police, but I didn't have access to a phone, and by the time I reached one, I figured he'd already have been spotted by someone else anyway.
When I first moved here, I was out on the West Side of Chicago one evening, and a woman approached me. "Wanna' be my boy frien'?" she asked. It didn't take a great deal of genius to figure out that she was looking for a john, not for a long-lasting dating relationship. Needless to say, I declined the offer. And I received a similar offer on another occasion when I was in the Uptown neighborhood, during that first year.
Back in the 90's, I attended the Taste of Chicago event one year. There was a blues musician playing outside at that event. Normally, I might have enjoyed the performance, since I like listening to the blues (and even playing that style of music) from time to time. But one couple was apparently inspired by the music to perform a dance which included some explicit dance moves which were clearly meant to simulate oral sex. The fact that no actual genitalia were displayed did not negate the offensiveness of the act.
It was only a couple of years ago when I was in the Lakeside neighborhood on a weekend when they were holding the Gay Pride parade. A woman on the El platform had a rainbow painted or printed on her T-shirt, along with the words "Taste The Rainbow" and a big arrow pointing directly at her crotch. And here I'd thought that people had learned something from the Biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently not.
Just the other day, there was a woman standing on the street corner a block away from where I live. She had a T-shirt with the words "I Swallow" printed on it. Hmmm, somehow I don't think she was referring to what she does with her chewing gum, her food or her normal beverages.
A couple of days ago, I was in the McDonald's eating my dinner, when a crazy black woman began talking very loudly to no one in particular, clearly trying to draw attention to herself. (She kept yelling the word "bitch" at regular intervals.) When she walked over to the area where I was sitting, I looked her straight in the eye and said, "No one ever taught you how to behave in public, did they!" Needless to say, this did not endear me to her. She got very close to my table and began arguing with me and ridiculing me, which I took as a compliment, considering the source.
At one point, she turned around and wiggled her behind at me, presumably as a means of daring me to kiss it, although she didn't say those precise words. (Later, however, she did loudly yell something about sucking her genitalia. O.K., she didn't use the word "genitalia", she used a more common word which means the same thing and which has also been used on occasions to describe animals of the feline persuasion.) At one point, she called me a "bitch", which I thought was rather strange. I always thought that bitch was a name for a female dog.
As it turned out, she wasn't there by herself. Her friend was in the ladies room, apparently changing her clothes in order to bathe herself. That woman was buck naked, which I discovered when she showed up at the door with her ugly and shriveled breasts hanging out for all to see. Presumably, she wanted to see who her friend was arguing with, and she couldn't wait until she'd put her clothes back on before satisfying her curiosity. She lingered in the doorway for several brief seconds before closing the door and returning to whatever she'd been doing in there.
Eventually the police showed up and threw the two women out of the restaurant, but not before the first woman had spit in my direction, sending not only saliva but little bits of food flying through the air. Fortunately for me, she was far enough from me at the time that none of the food or spittle hit me.
Now, I don't want to sound like a racist, but the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people involved in the aforementioned incidents were black. The "taste the rainbow" woman was white, but she was an exception to the rule.
I know from personal experience that there are a lot of good and decent black folks who would never think of doing things like these things, and I certainly don't want to imply that they would. But the fact remains that there is a significant problem in certain segments of the black community when it comes to little things such as manners and common decency.
This is the kind of society which has been bred by the judgment-free ideologies of the liberals who predominantly run the city of Chicago. God forbid that anyone should suggest that there is any such thing as moral standards to which all must adhere.
I'm slightly surprised that I haven't yet seen anyone copulating in front of the Water Tower. In light of the fact that the moral standards here seem to be declining on a daily basis, such a thing would seem to be the next logical step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)