Polaroid Corporation arguably started out as one of the most unique companies in the annals of photography. It was the first company to understand that numerous photographers wanted instant gratification. For decades, Polaroid was the only game in town for people who wanted such gratification. The maximum size of prints was typically pretty small (unless one was one of the tiny handful of people who could afford their gargantuan 20x24 Polaroid view camera), and the cameras themselves were nothing to get particularly excited about, if one ignored the ability to produce instant prints. But Polaroid films did offer some unique capabilities, not all of which were intentional on the part of the manufacturers.
Artists discovered that Polaroid films possessed some unique properties which encouraged them to manipulate those films in order to produce images which looked as if they might have been created by painters, not photographers. The films made for the Polaroid SX-70 cameras were particularly useful in this respect. The gelatin-based emulsions which created images in SX-70 film (later changed slightly and renamed Time Zero film) didn't become completely dry and permanent until some time after they'd emerged from the cameras (or, in some cases, from the Daylab processors used for the purpose of making exposures onto such film, using 35mm slides created in traditional 35mm cameras). By manipulating the malleable emulsions with appropriate tools, photographers were able to create impressionistic images which were instantly identifiable as SX-70 manipulations.
Interestingly, Edwin Land (who invented the Polaroid camera) is said to have been greatly displeased by such manipulations. I think that he viewed it as a sign that he'd failed to achieve his goal, which had nothing to do with creating prints which took a long time to achieve anything resembling permanence.
Here are several web pages which display such manipulations:
Floral photos by Klaus and Elke Wolfer
Polaroid Manipulations by Kathleen T. Carr
J.B. Schilling (Gallery One)
J.B. Schilling (Gallery Two)
J.B. Schilling (Gallery Three)
This web page on the Daylab website explains how such manipulations were made.
Kathleen Thormod Carr even wrote an entire book on the process!
The images produced with that process were really quite small, so the solution (as documented in Carr's book) was to scan the manipulated images at high resolution, in order to significantly enlarge them and print them out with giclee printers such as the ones made by Epson, or with digital photo printers such as the Durst Lambda or the Fuji Frontier.
Sadly, Polaroid has now discontinued all of its special films! Which means basically that once the remaining stock of Time Zero film is gone, photographers will no longer be able to create such manipulations. (We may be at that point already.)
The bottom line was that the user base which appreciated the unique artistic potential inherent in the SX-70/Time Zero films just wasn't enough to justify Polaroid's continued production of those films. Polaroid still exists, but there's no longer anything special about the company, other than its unique history. They're just competing with all of the other companies which make digital cameras --- and not doing a particularly good job of it, in my opinion. Personally, I think that the company's days are numbered, unless they can introduce something so groundbreaking that they will once again regain their lost momentum.
Now, here's what I'm thinking. It's likely that we will never again see a film comparable to SX-70/Time Zero film, unless some small company owned by hobbyists is able to successfully petition Polaroid to release the technical information which would enable them to manufacture such film once again. But that may not be a big loss.
I've seen a number of digital filters (usually sold as Photoshop plug-ins) which can emulate a wide variety of traditional films. Also, the Liquify filter offered with Photoshop is similar to SX-70 manipulations in some respects.
So why not make an interactive digital filter specifically designed to emulate the look of Polaroid SX-70 manipulations? It could be designed to work in conjunction with the Wacom tablet, which would essentially serve the same function as the styluses once used for manipulating real SX-70 film.
In many respects, such software would be an improvement over the original process. One could work on high resolution images, for instance, thereby eliminating the need to scan manipulated prints at high resolution and retouch them in order to produce big prints. It's also likely that using the pressure-sensitive capabilities of the Wacom tablet would enable people to exercise more control over the actual manipulations. Using multiple pixel-aligned layers in Photoshop, people could blend manipulated and unmanipulated versions of the same images together, using varying levels of opacity and various blend modes in Photoshop, in order to achieve effects which would have been extremely difficult to achieve the "old fashioned" way. They could use layer masks in order to smoothly combine the best parts of multiple manipulations of the same images! They could also save their "SX-70 manipulation" movements as meshes which could then be used with the Liquify filter, if desired. A final benefit, compared with the traditional process, is that there would be no time limit imposed on the process. One could return to the image several months after creating the manipulation and add more manipulations. That wasn't possible with real SX-70 film, since the gelatin emulsion eventually hardened so that it could be manipulated no more. More working time would mean that people could be more reflective about what changes they chose to make.
While they're at it, the software programmers responsible for creating such a filter could also add the ability to emulate other artistic Polaroid processes, such as the image transfers and emulsion transfers described in another book by Kathleen Carr.
If they wanted to go even further, they could also add the ability to emulate all of the "alternative processes" described on this web page. And they could finish it up by adding functionality which would enable photographers to easily generate proper digital negatives based on the principles taught by Dan Burkholder, for the benefit of people who wanted to use the real alternative processes rather than just simulating them digitally. Want to create a platinum/palladium print based on a digital emulation of an SX-70 manipulation? With such a software program, that would be a very real possibility, without the need to do any scanning (assuming that the original photo was taken with a DSLR).
Alas, I'm not a computer programmer, and I wouldn't have a clue about how to go about creating such a Photoshop plug-in. But there are enough talented programmers around that I'd imagine that they will see the need, sooner or later, and they will then create such a program.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Photo Books for Nonprofits
In my last blog post, I discussed the new options offered, in terms of print on demand publishing of high quality photo books, by companies such as Blurb.com. I also talked about a number of ideas I've had for photo books which I might like to design, write and publish. However, in spite of the length of that blog post, I didn't discuss all of the ideas which have occurred to me. Some of my ideas have been inspired by past job experiences I've had.
From 1996 to 2000, I worked as a database specialist for a nonprofit organization which was a division of the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago. It was known as "YMCA Child Welfare". Like Catholic Charities, which had a somewhat larger operation than our own, our agency managed the cases of numerous foster children. There were about 950 foster children in my Microsoft Access database when I first started working there in 1996, but changes subsequently made by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services caused our caseloads to dramatically decline in later years, leading to staff cutbacks. That explains why I no longer work there. Of course, no one else does, either. At one time, YMCA Child Welfare employed something like 80 different caseworkers, but the agency was eventually disbanded, and their remaining cases were handed over to other social service agencies. (It bears mentioning that a similar thing happened with respect to the child welfare division of Catholic Charities.)
During my years as an employee of YMCA Child Welfare, I became acutely aware of the extent to which nonprofit groups tend to rely heavily on the ability to tell their stories effectively, so as to be able to persuade potential donors to furnish them with the funds which they need for operating expenses.
Most nonprofit groups and social service agencies, whether public or private, are in the people business. The justification for the existence of such organizations can be found in the ability of those organizations to meet human needs which would otherwise go unmet. Therefore, when seeking funding, their ability to obtain such funding can hinge on how effective they are in selling potential supporters on the idea that they are providing services which are deeply needed.
Testimonials are therefore extremely useful. For instance, if an organization is in the business of offering rehabilitation services to drug addicts or former criminals or handicapped people or homeless people, it isn't usually sufficient to make an abstract statement to that effect. It's much more effective to present the stories of real individuals who have actually been substantially helped as a result of their programs.
There are numerous ways to accomplish that goal. Videos, for instance, can be very useful. But not everyone has the time to sit through a video presentation in the middle of a work day. Not everyone has the equipment with which to watch a video presentation at home. (And there are several different video formats, so a video should really be offered in multiple formats, including YouTube, if one hopes to reach the maximum number of people with that video.) As for online videos and presentations, it should be remembered that they tend to eat up a lot of bandwidth. Sad to say, there are still a lot of people in the world who enjoy very limited Internet access, and there are even people who still rely on dial-up connections or on public computers at places such as libraries and Internet cafes. For such people, online videos may not be a very good option.
Therefore, even though videos are useful, other options ought to be explored as well. And it seems to me that photo books published and sold online by Blurb.com ought to be seriously considered when exploring such options.
Blurb.com's books come in three different sizes (7x7, 8x10 and 13x11), and four different orientations (i.e., both "portrait" and "landscape" for 8x10 books), with as many as 440 pages! That's a lot of space in which to tell an organization's story with text and visuals. Such a book could be organized any way one wished, but I would suggest that it ought to include the following elements:
Faces of the Hanna Project: A Study in Sepia
Puffins
Franciscan Outreach Association
Access Living
Lawyer's Committee for Better Housing
Anixter Center
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
Thresholds
Inspiration Corporation
Chicago Christian Industrial League
From 1996 to 2000, I worked as a database specialist for a nonprofit organization which was a division of the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago. It was known as "YMCA Child Welfare". Like Catholic Charities, which had a somewhat larger operation than our own, our agency managed the cases of numerous foster children. There were about 950 foster children in my Microsoft Access database when I first started working there in 1996, but changes subsequently made by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services caused our caseloads to dramatically decline in later years, leading to staff cutbacks. That explains why I no longer work there. Of course, no one else does, either. At one time, YMCA Child Welfare employed something like 80 different caseworkers, but the agency was eventually disbanded, and their remaining cases were handed over to other social service agencies. (It bears mentioning that a similar thing happened with respect to the child welfare division of Catholic Charities.)
During my years as an employee of YMCA Child Welfare, I became acutely aware of the extent to which nonprofit groups tend to rely heavily on the ability to tell their stories effectively, so as to be able to persuade potential donors to furnish them with the funds which they need for operating expenses.
Most nonprofit groups and social service agencies, whether public or private, are in the people business. The justification for the existence of such organizations can be found in the ability of those organizations to meet human needs which would otherwise go unmet. Therefore, when seeking funding, their ability to obtain such funding can hinge on how effective they are in selling potential supporters on the idea that they are providing services which are deeply needed.
Testimonials are therefore extremely useful. For instance, if an organization is in the business of offering rehabilitation services to drug addicts or former criminals or handicapped people or homeless people, it isn't usually sufficient to make an abstract statement to that effect. It's much more effective to present the stories of real individuals who have actually been substantially helped as a result of their programs.
There are numerous ways to accomplish that goal. Videos, for instance, can be very useful. But not everyone has the time to sit through a video presentation in the middle of a work day. Not everyone has the equipment with which to watch a video presentation at home. (And there are several different video formats, so a video should really be offered in multiple formats, including YouTube, if one hopes to reach the maximum number of people with that video.) As for online videos and presentations, it should be remembered that they tend to eat up a lot of bandwidth. Sad to say, there are still a lot of people in the world who enjoy very limited Internet access, and there are even people who still rely on dial-up connections or on public computers at places such as libraries and Internet cafes. For such people, online videos may not be a very good option.
Therefore, even though videos are useful, other options ought to be explored as well. And it seems to me that photo books published and sold online by Blurb.com ought to be seriously considered when exploring such options.
Blurb.com's books come in three different sizes (7x7, 8x10 and 13x11), and four different orientations (i.e., both "portrait" and "landscape" for 8x10 books), with as many as 440 pages! That's a lot of space in which to tell an organization's story with text and visuals. Such a book could be organized any way one wished, but I would suggest that it ought to include the following elements:
- The organization's mission statement.
- A statement about the inspiration for the book, and a statement summarizing the multifaceted objective of the book (which may include raising funds for the organization, via online book sales).
- A table of contents.
- A statement from the leader of the organization, with that person's photo.
- Multiple stories about people whose lives have actually been improved by the work of the organization, accompanied by art and/or photos which enhances the text on those pages. Portraits of the people who have been helped are certainly useful, but it's also important to include images which give a context to their lives, such as photos of the environments in which they live. Principles which are applicable to good, socially responsible photojournalism are applicable to such a project as well.
- Information, following the people profiles, regarding needs which the organization has, and various options for those who believe in the organization's work and want to help. That might include monetary donations, "gifts in kind", volunteer work, and purchasing various products being sold for fundraising purposes (including the book, but also including things such as fine art prints, tickets to fundraising events, and so forth). A book which could potentially be as long as 440 pages certainly would have space for pages which displayed fundraising products and which furnished prices, order forms, shipping information and other details needed in order to effectuate the sales of such products via the information presented in the book. This would further maximize the fundraising potential of every single book.
- A glossary of terms (if applicable).
- An index (if deemed necessary and useful).
- A bibliography of reference books and articles relevant to the work being done by the organization.
- A reference list of resources (such as other social service agencies involved in similar work).
- A detailed list (divided into donor levels) of people, organizations and businesses who have already supported the nonprofit organization in the past. This would enhance the likelihood of procuring additional support for those individuals in the future, since it would let them know that their generosity had been greatly appreciated. It would also encourage potential supporters to support the work of the organization, since they would be made aware that their names would be added to the list when future editions of the book were published, if they too chose to support the organization and it's work.
- Credits for all art, photos and articles in the book, if the book is a collaborative work (as it probably should be), and contact information for all contributors.
Of course, it's possible to create effective books which don't include all of the aforementioned elements, but it's nice to know that those options exist.Currently, there are roughly 56 books under the category of "Nonprofits & Fundraising" in the Blurb.com online bookstore. But I think they're just getting started. Once people begin to brainstorm and think about the ways in which such books can help them to raise funds for their nonprofit groups, I suspect that many more organizations will want to explore that option. Here are the primary ways in which nonprofits could be helped by such groups:
- Revenue from the online sales of such books, via e-commerce bookstores set up by Blurb.com.
- Giving such books to big donors as incentives and rewards for their generosity.
- Including such books as part of an organization's presentation whenever applying for grants and/or loans from government programs, private foundations, corporations and well-heeled individual philanthropists.
I am currently exploring the option of visiting with the leaders from several local charities and nonprofit groups in order to suggest that I would be willing to help them to develop such projects, in exchange for remuneration for my efforts. I believe that I have the writing skills, the graphic design skills and the organizational skills needed in order to bring such projects through to completion in a manner which would enhance an organization's ability to raise support and thereby fulfill its mission.
Here are several samples of books which show how some people are using Blurb.com books for such purposes:
Children of the Miracle FoundationFaces of the Hanna Project: A Study in Sepia
Puffins
(Be sure to click the Book Preview links in order to open PDF files which will enable you to browse through those books.)
The following is a brief (and very incomplete) list of a few worthy nonprofits I hope to approach with this idea, with the objective of working with them in order to develop fund raising books for their organizations:
StreetwiseFranciscan Outreach Association
Access Living
Lawyer's Committee for Better Housing
Anixter Center
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
Thresholds
Inspiration Corporation
Chicago Christian Industrial League
In some cases, endeavors in which the aforementioned organizations are already involved lead me to believe that they would be receptive to my ideas.
For instance, Streetwise's main focus is on empowering homeless people (and people who are in danger of becoming homeless) by allowing them to earn money selling the newspapers which the company publishes.
The Franciscan Outreach Association has recently held a fundraising art auction, which leads me to believe that they'd be open to the idea of selling art books for fundraising purposes.
Access Living recently became involved in an "arts and culture initiative" which enabled disabled people to exhibit their art via its "disability art collection," and they've also auctioned art off for fundraising purposes (at their annual gala), so it would be a natural for them to sell photo books, giclee prints and other products featuring such art.
The Anixter Center operates a variety of businesses in order to furnish handicapped people with employment opportunities.
The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless holds fundraising benefit concerts and sells coffee online for fundraising purposes.
The Inspiration Corporation currently operates three restaurants (Inspiration Cafe, Cafe Too and The Living Room Cafe) for the purpose of offering employment opportunities to homeless people, and also for the purpose of raising funds for operating expenses. The organization also sells merchandise online (including coffee, aprons, T-shirts etc.) for fundraising purposes.
Thresholds operates a florist shop (known as Urban Meadows) which gives its employees a new lease on life.
Chicago Christian Industrial League operates a landscaping service which offers work opportunities to homeless people in the Chicago area.
In short, the practice of operating various legitimate business endeavors for the purpose of funding nonprofit organizations is well established. Provided that things are run properly, there is no reason why such fundraising endeavors needs to jeopardize a group's tax-exempt status.
I have created this blog post, in part, because documenting these possibilities may prove useful to me in the near future when presenting proposals to some of the aforementioned organizations (and also to other potential business partners, such as public schools which could raise substantial funds for special programs by publishing books featuring art created by their students).
Such proposals will include the creation of Blurb.com books, but other related options (such as sales of fine art prints, greeting cards, and various products which could be produced by a company such as CafePress.com) may also be included in my proposals.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Great Publishing Options at Blurb.com
Until recently, persuading a major book publisher to publish a coffee table book featuring one's photos and/or art was a major undertaking. "Print on demand" companies were mostly limited to text-only books such as novels. Fortunately, that is now changing.
Blurb.com is a company which offers the ability to publish high-quality hard cover and paperback books which one can then sell online via one's own e-commerce website. (Pikto.com also offers the option of selling one's own photo books online, but their onetime setup fee of $200 might deter some people from exploring that option.)
Blog books, business books, cookbooks, photo books, poetry books, portfolios and wedding books are just a few of the possibilities which are listed at Blurb.com. They can also print text-only books, but their real strength seems to be in their ability to publish full-color books (including hard cover coffee table books) and then sell them online on behalf of their authors.
Other similar on-demand book publishers which offer the option of printing full-color photo books include Pikto.com, Apple (via their iPhoto service), MPix.com, MyPublisher.com, Lulu.com and XLibris.com.
Lulu.com and Blurb.com seem to be the best choices if you not only want to publish your color photos in books but you also want to sell them online via your own e-commerce web pages.
Lulu.com is a nice option, but Blurb.com seems to offer more sizes: 7x7 (square); 8x10 or 10x8 (portrait or landscape orientation); and 13 wide x 11 high (landscape orientation; hard cover only). And each book can have as many as 440 pages!!!
Consider this: The very nice photo book "America 24/7" has 304 pages, and measures 13.1" x 10.6" x 1.2". It's a massive book, but no larger than what's possible with the parameters offered by Blurb.com.
I also like the fact that the Blurb.com site includes its own online bookstore where people can browse through all of the books they've published at any given date and time, so you don't have to know about a specific book in advance in order to easily learn about it. What's particularly impressive is the huge number of books they've published so far! Specifically:
Architecture (80)
Arts & Photography (5220!)
Biographies & Memoirs (335)
Blogs (60)
Business (36)
Children (592)
Comics & Graphic Novels (18)
Computers & Internet (2)
Cooking (168)
Crafts & Hobbies (40)
Education (74)
Entertainment (66)
Fine Art (217)
Fine Art Photography (989)
Gay and Lesbian (10, unfortunately)
History (113)
Home & Garden (87)
Humor (36)
Literature & Fiction (55)
Medicine & Science (15)
Mystery & Crime (3)
Nonprofits & Fundraising (56)
Parenting & Families (208)
Pets (153)
Poetry (250)
Portfolios (340)
Reference (18)
Religion & Spirituality (157)
Romance (50)
Science Fiction & Fantasy (15)
Self-Improvement (26)
Sex & Relationships (13)
Sports & Adventure (413)
Travel (1804)
Uncategorized (8839)
Wedding (1178)
In short, they've already published a lot of books!
I also like the fact that each e-commerce page can have an author profile, a text description of the book, tags which make it easy to find the book, a PDF preview of the book (so people can make intelligent buying decisions rather than buying solely on the basis of the cover and the description), and the ability to bookmark or e-mail interesting books. Here's a sample of what I mean. Author's can also have their own Blurb.com home pages and their own Blurb.com "bookstores". That's is particularly useful for promoting their own websites, and for gathering all of their Blurb.com books together on a single page.
Blurb.com authors also get to set their own prices, so they can make as much or as little money as they wish (provided that they charge enough to pay for printing and other costs).
Another interesting note: Blurb.com seems to have integrated its services with iStockPhoto.com, resulting in an alliance which would seem to enable writers to use photos from the latter web-based "microstock" company (in case they aren't able to produce the photos they need themselves). See this page for details. That might be very useful for poets and other types of writers. It's likely that one would need to pay for the Extended License versions of each image, though, in order to keep things legal.
I can't speak from personal experience, with regard to the quality of Blurb.com's books, because I haven't yet created or bought my first book from them. But I think that what I've seen looks very promising.
PHOTO BOOK IDEAS
Here are some ideas I have regarding books I'd like to publish via Blurb.com and/or Lulu.com:
The Creator's Creators: A visual overview of artistically talented Christians and their work. This would include samples of their work (and/or photos of them at work, in the case of musicians, actors, etc.), plus pen & ink portraits of all featured artists (created by myself using my stippled pen & ink technique), plus written profiles and interviews featuring each artist, plus complete contact information so that creative directors, concert promoters, art collectors and other interested parties could contact the people featured in the book. In that sense, the book would be a creative directory comparable to the ones which have been used by photographers and illustrators to obtain work in the past. Examples of such directories have included American Showcase, The Black Book, the Graphic Art Guild's Directory of Illustration, Stock Illustration Source, and Workbook. Publication in such directories (as well as regional publications of a similar nature) is useful both for the artists featured in the books (and related websites) and also for those who need a quick way to view numerous portfolios without waiting for the individual artists to contact them. A secondary purpose of the directory would be to draw attention to those artists who've specifically made a point of publicly expressing their Christian convictions, or who are making a special effort to target the religious marketplace (such as Christian record companies, book publishers, art galleries, etc.). A third function would be to spur collaborations and fruitful exchanges of dialog between diverse artistic Christians.
The Life of The Body: This book would be somewhat similar to America 24/7, which was a collaborative photo book based on digital images submitted online by numerous Americans throughout the United States. (That book stimulated regional versions for every state in the union, as well as similar books focusing on other countries and other subjects such as dogs and cats. The Life of The Body would be a collaborative photo book focusing specifically on the lives (both in and out of church) of diverse members of the Body of Christ throughout the United States. Brief text profiles would be included, but the primary contents would be visual. The objective would be to make people more aware of the extent to which the influence of the Christian Church permeates the cultural life of the United States. (Additional editions might later be created for other nations and/or continents.)
The Taste of Mercy: This would be a book which would combine my Christ-centered poetry, my photography, my pen & ink portraits (and other art, such as digital abstract art) and more. In addition, the book would contain order forms and related information, for people who wished to commission pen & ink portraits or purchase related products such as fine art prints. There would also be text which would describe my comprehensive vision for Artistic Christian Endeavors, and information for people who wished to book me as a speaker in relation to that project. Later, my hope is that I could produce and publish similar books which would feature the work of numerous other artistic Christians, such as poets, painters, photographers and so forth.
Other book ideas I might pursue, all of which would benefit from the services at Blurb.com:
Blurb.com is a company which offers the ability to publish high-quality hard cover and paperback books which one can then sell online via one's own e-commerce website. (Pikto.com also offers the option of selling one's own photo books online, but their onetime setup fee of $200 might deter some people from exploring that option.)
Blog books, business books, cookbooks, photo books, poetry books, portfolios and wedding books are just a few of the possibilities which are listed at Blurb.com. They can also print text-only books, but their real strength seems to be in their ability to publish full-color books (including hard cover coffee table books) and then sell them online on behalf of their authors.
Other similar on-demand book publishers which offer the option of printing full-color photo books include Pikto.com, Apple (via their iPhoto service), MPix.com, MyPublisher.com, Lulu.com and XLibris.com.
Lulu.com and Blurb.com seem to be the best choices if you not only want to publish your color photos in books but you also want to sell them online via your own e-commerce web pages.
Lulu.com is a nice option, but Blurb.com seems to offer more sizes: 7x7 (square); 8x10 or 10x8 (portrait or landscape orientation); and 13 wide x 11 high (landscape orientation; hard cover only). And each book can have as many as 440 pages!!!
Consider this: The very nice photo book "America 24/7" has 304 pages, and measures 13.1" x 10.6" x 1.2". It's a massive book, but no larger than what's possible with the parameters offered by Blurb.com.
I also like the fact that the Blurb.com site includes its own online bookstore where people can browse through all of the books they've published at any given date and time, so you don't have to know about a specific book in advance in order to easily learn about it. What's particularly impressive is the huge number of books they've published so far! Specifically:
Architecture (80)
Arts & Photography (5220!)
Biographies & Memoirs (335)
Blogs (60)
Business (36)
Children (592)
Comics & Graphic Novels (18)
Computers & Internet (2)
Cooking (168)
Crafts & Hobbies (40)
Education (74)
Entertainment (66)
Fine Art (217)
Fine Art Photography (989)
Gay and Lesbian (10, unfortunately)
History (113)
Home & Garden (87)
Humor (36)
Literature & Fiction (55)
Medicine & Science (15)
Mystery & Crime (3)
Nonprofits & Fundraising (56)
Parenting & Families (208)
Pets (153)
Poetry (250)
Portfolios (340)
Reference (18)
Religion & Spirituality (157)
Romance (50)
Science Fiction & Fantasy (15)
Self-Improvement (26)
Sex & Relationships (13)
Sports & Adventure (413)
Travel (1804)
Uncategorized (8839)
Wedding (1178)
In short, they've already published a lot of books!
I also like the fact that each e-commerce page can have an author profile, a text description of the book, tags which make it easy to find the book, a PDF preview of the book (so people can make intelligent buying decisions rather than buying solely on the basis of the cover and the description), and the ability to bookmark or e-mail interesting books. Here's a sample of what I mean. Author's can also have their own Blurb.com home pages and their own Blurb.com "bookstores". That's is particularly useful for promoting their own websites, and for gathering all of their Blurb.com books together on a single page.
Blurb.com authors also get to set their own prices, so they can make as much or as little money as they wish (provided that they charge enough to pay for printing and other costs).
Another interesting note: Blurb.com seems to have integrated its services with iStockPhoto.com, resulting in an alliance which would seem to enable writers to use photos from the latter web-based "microstock" company (in case they aren't able to produce the photos they need themselves). See this page for details. That might be very useful for poets and other types of writers. It's likely that one would need to pay for the Extended License versions of each image, though, in order to keep things legal.
I can't speak from personal experience, with regard to the quality of Blurb.com's books, because I haven't yet created or bought my first book from them. But I think that what I've seen looks very promising.
PHOTO BOOK IDEAS
Here are some ideas I have regarding books I'd like to publish via Blurb.com and/or Lulu.com:
The Creator's Creators: A visual overview of artistically talented Christians and their work. This would include samples of their work (and/or photos of them at work, in the case of musicians, actors, etc.), plus pen & ink portraits of all featured artists (created by myself using my stippled pen & ink technique), plus written profiles and interviews featuring each artist, plus complete contact information so that creative directors, concert promoters, art collectors and other interested parties could contact the people featured in the book. In that sense, the book would be a creative directory comparable to the ones which have been used by photographers and illustrators to obtain work in the past. Examples of such directories have included American Showcase, The Black Book, the Graphic Art Guild's Directory of Illustration, Stock Illustration Source, and Workbook. Publication in such directories (as well as regional publications of a similar nature) is useful both for the artists featured in the books (and related websites) and also for those who need a quick way to view numerous portfolios without waiting for the individual artists to contact them. A secondary purpose of the directory would be to draw attention to those artists who've specifically made a point of publicly expressing their Christian convictions, or who are making a special effort to target the religious marketplace (such as Christian record companies, book publishers, art galleries, etc.). A third function would be to spur collaborations and fruitful exchanges of dialog between diverse artistic Christians.
The Life of The Body: This book would be somewhat similar to America 24/7, which was a collaborative photo book based on digital images submitted online by numerous Americans throughout the United States. (That book stimulated regional versions for every state in the union, as well as similar books focusing on other countries and other subjects such as dogs and cats. The Life of The Body would be a collaborative photo book focusing specifically on the lives (both in and out of church) of diverse members of the Body of Christ throughout the United States. Brief text profiles would be included, but the primary contents would be visual. The objective would be to make people more aware of the extent to which the influence of the Christian Church permeates the cultural life of the United States. (Additional editions might later be created for other nations and/or continents.)
The Taste of Mercy: This would be a book which would combine my Christ-centered poetry, my photography, my pen & ink portraits (and other art, such as digital abstract art) and more. In addition, the book would contain order forms and related information, for people who wished to commission pen & ink portraits or purchase related products such as fine art prints. There would also be text which would describe my comprehensive vision for Artistic Christian Endeavors, and information for people who wished to book me as a speaker in relation to that project. Later, my hope is that I could produce and publish similar books which would feature the work of numerous other artistic Christians, such as poets, painters, photographers and so forth.
Other book ideas I might pursue, all of which would benefit from the services at Blurb.com:
- A portfolio book featuring numerous samples of my pen & ink portraits, along with detailed descriptions of how to go about commissioning me to produce such portraits.
- An art instruction book which I would use for the purpose of teaching others to create stippled pen & ink portraits. (Other ideas for art instruction books I could write are also running through my mind.)
- A catalog featuring numerous fine art prints and related products produced by myself and other members of the North American Alliance of Artistic Christians. The catalog would include detailed pricing and ordering information, along with an order form (for people who wish to photocopy that form), along with the web address where a downloadable PDF order form could be obtained.
- A portfolio book featuring commercial graphic designs I've created in Photoshop (such as full-color business cards, postcards, etc.). This book would supplement a related website as a means of presenting my capabilities to potential graphic design clients.
- An illustrated cookbook featuring numerous recipes contributed by members of the North American Alliance of Artistic Christians. Proceeds would be used to raise funds for the ministry. (Additional recipes could be sold in a book published via CafePress.com. The CafePress.com book wouldn't have full color photos.)
- An anthology of Christ-centered short stories and poems by various writers. Ideally, there would be illustrations which related to the subjects of the stories and poems.
- Church directories published for the purpose of helping members of various churches to get to know one another better, thereby enabling them to more effectively serve Christ together.
The preceding book projects would be sold online in order to raise funds for Artistic Christian Endeavors. The books would be published under the name Priceless Pearl Press.
There would be a related literary journal known as The P3 Review. (The literary journal would be published as an e-book, for ease of distribution and low cost. There might also be a related blog and a related podcast. The podcast would enable me to include audio interviews, music excerpts, audio excerpts from movies, readings from short stories and poetry, and so forth.)
While all of the above projects would be created partially for the purpose of raising badly needed funds, making money would not be the only objective. I sincerely believe that every one of the projects listed above would be valuable contributions to the world of reading. Some of the aforementioned projects will be very time consuming and difficult to create. Others should be fairly easy. But all of them are doable, and I believe that I have what it will take to complete these projects, with the help of numerous others who see the potential in my ideas.
UPDATE: Be sure to read my related, more recent blog post which discusses ways in which Blurb.com photo books could be used in order to raise funds and achieve other goals in relation to various nonprofit groups and charitable organizations.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Relatively Short Autobiography
Now that I've discovered the web publishing benefits of Google Docs, I've decided to use that program's nice little free word processor in order to create a document consisting of a short autobiography of myself. The nice thing about Google Docs is that it makes it easy to turn word processed documents into web pages which aren't cluttered with all of the doodads (sidebar links and so forth) which characterize posts on this and other blogs. Just a clean, crisp white page with text and links. Of course, one can also add graphics if one wishes to do so, but it isn't necessary.
I especially like the fact that one can set things up so that the HTML web page is automatically updated whenever one updates the word processed document on which the HTML page is based. I've decided to use that feature in order to enable me to periodically add more text for the purpose of expanding and completing the aforementioned autobiography.
The Google Docs word processor can also export text in various formats, including Microsoft Word (.doc) and Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). And even though it isn't as full-featured as Microsoft Word, it's surprisingly capable, with a lot of useful features, such as Bookmarks so that one can easily navigate to different sections of the document after saving it as a web page.
I especially like the fact that one can set things up so that the HTML web page is automatically updated whenever one updates the word processed document on which the HTML page is based. I've decided to use that feature in order to enable me to periodically add more text for the purpose of expanding and completing the aforementioned autobiography.
The Google Docs word processor can also export text in various formats, including Microsoft Word (.doc) and Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). And even though it isn't as full-featured as Microsoft Word, it's surprisingly capable, with a lot of useful features, such as Bookmarks so that one can easily navigate to different sections of the document after saving it as a web page.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Double Standards For Christian Musicians
Here's a link to an article which I recently posted via Google Docs. You may find it enlightening.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Whole Lotta' Shakin' Goin' On
On April 18 of this year, I woke up in the early morning to a peculiar sensation which I'd never felt before. It felt as if someone had replaced my ordinary bed with a vibrator bed. I heard shifting and shaking sounds from the boxes of books piled up in my room, indicating that it wasn't just me. How peculiar, I thought. If I didn't know better, I'd think that Chicago was experiencing an earthquake! I looked at the clock next to my bed. It was 4:44 a.m.
Later, I learned that Chicago had indeed experienced an earthquake, as had numerous other cities in the Midwest. As earthquakes go, it wasn't very destructive, but some Chicago residents felt it more than I did. (In a letter to the editor of TimeOut Chicago, one resident talked about "books and knickknacks" falling off his shelves.)
Apparently the epicenter of the earthquake was six miles from West Salem, IL, which is 140 miles east of St. Louis, MO. West Salem is either 230 miles from Chicago (if you believe the writer of the Chicago Sun-Times article) or 270 miles from Chicago (if you believe Google Maps, as I'm inclined to do). The Sun-Times also mentions Mount Carmel, IL, which Google says is 283 miles from Chicago.
Even though the earthquake caused no serious damage, it made me aware of how vulnerable we all can be to nature.
I'm extremely thankful that I've never experienced any life-threatening natural disasters on a personal level. There have been a number of tornadoes in or near my home town of Springfield, MO, but I've never actually seen a tornado or experienced any tornado-related property damage.
Later, I learned that Chicago had indeed experienced an earthquake, as had numerous other cities in the Midwest. As earthquakes go, it wasn't very destructive, but some Chicago residents felt it more than I did. (In a letter to the editor of TimeOut Chicago, one resident talked about "books and knickknacks" falling off his shelves.)
Apparently the epicenter of the earthquake was six miles from West Salem, IL, which is 140 miles east of St. Louis, MO. West Salem is either 230 miles from Chicago (if you believe the writer of the Chicago Sun-Times article) or 270 miles from Chicago (if you believe Google Maps, as I'm inclined to do). The Sun-Times also mentions Mount Carmel, IL, which Google says is 283 miles from Chicago.
Even though the earthquake caused no serious damage, it made me aware of how vulnerable we all can be to nature.
I'm extremely thankful that I've never experienced any life-threatening natural disasters on a personal level. There have been a number of tornadoes in or near my home town of Springfield, MO, but I've never actually seen a tornado or experienced any tornado-related property damage.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
What Happened To All The Pay Phones?
Not long ago, RCN (my phone company) cut me off because I fell too far behind on my phone bill. (I currently owe $220.) I didn't want to fall behind, but I had no income other than a small check I was receiving every month from a woman in Missouri. I was scarcely able to pay my rent, much less pay that phone bill. (I should mention that a substantial part of the $220 was late fees, not charges for actual phone calls.)
I figured that if worse came to worst, I could continue to search for work by using a pay phone for the purpose of making calls related to my job search. I'd have used the pay phone in the building where I lived, except that it often got so noisy in the residential lounge that I could barely hear myself think, much less hear someone at the other end of the phone line. (That's one of the drawbacks of living in a building inhabited by large numbers of rude and thoughtless people. They're often so loud that it's virtually impossible to hear dialog when watching shows on the TV in the lounge.)
It was very annoying for me to have to walk over to the Omni Hotel or Northwestern Medical Center in order to make such calls and in order to check my voice mail messages (at 773-509-8126), but it was doable. That's what I've been doing for the past couple of months.
No more. I went to the Omni Hotel today, and I discovered that there was no longer a pay phone in that building! That was upsetting enough, but when I walked over to Northwestern, I discovered that their pay phones had been removed as well, with the exception of one last pay phone (in the Feinberg Pavilion) which (for all I know) could easily be removed soon as well.
What's going on? I have no idea. The fact that pay phones were removed from multiple unrelated locations seems to suggest that Ameritech itself is to blame. (That's the company which was identified as the phone service provider on all of those phones.)
I guess that explains the lousy service I've been getting from them when I've tried to make long distance calls from those pay phones. They no longer have any commitment to good pay phone service, probably because they're getting out of the pay phone business in Chicago.
The one pay phone remaining at Northwestern (in the Feinberg Pavilion) has a sign indicating that AT&T is the company behind that phone. So maybe that's why it hasn't been removed yet. But the way things seem to be going, I wouldn't be surprised to return to that location and find that phone missing as well.
It might come as a surprise to some people, but not everyone in the world has a cell phone! Some people just can't afford their own cell phones. Plus, people who do have cell phones sometimes find themselves in need of pay phones because they left their cell phones at home, or their cell phones were lost or broken. What are they supposed to do if they can't find pay phones in such situations? Build smoke signals?
It's a weird situation when one can buy a phone which will take photos and play MP3 files and YouTube videos and games, but one can't find a simple public pay phone with which to make a call when one needs to make a phone call.
It's really a scary situation for me. I am never going to get myself out of the financial pit I'm in if I can't get a job. But how am I supposed to get work if I can't even find a phone with which to check my voice mail messages or contact potential employers? True, I do tell people that e-mail is the best way to reach me whenever I speak with them. But they don't always heed that advice. And there are a number of Help Wanted ads where they don't even list an e-mail address, so my only choice if I want to be considered for such jobs is to call them on the phone during normal business hours.
I shudder to think what would happen if I could no longer use the computers at the Apple Store or the library for sending and receiving e-mail. I'd be almost completely cut off from potential employers. That's unlikely to happen at the library, but I've seen a lot of changes at the Apple Store since they first opened their doors here. Today, it's possible to just walk in the door and use one of their computers to send and receive e-mail. Tomorrow? Who knows?
I do have a friend who might conceivably let me go over to his apartment in the evening and check my voice mail messages. But I don't want to constantly impose on him. Besides, I have to be able to make calls during the daytime, too, if I'm going to call potential employers, most of whom are only accessible during business hours.
One possible solution may lie in the fact that there's a Life Development Center (LDC) on the 5th floor at the Lawson House YMCA. They have long offered certain services in connection with the search for employment. They've allowed me to use the fax machine to send out resumes. (They insist on operating the fax machine themselves, even though I'm perfectly capable of doing so myself without any help.) If I explain the dire situation in which I now find myself, perhaps I can persuade them to allow me to regularly use one of the phones in that office in order to make job-related calls during the daytime. I really hope so.
Obviously, the ideal would be for me to pay my phone bill at RCN so I could get my own phone service again. I definitely plan to pay that bill when I'm able to do so. But first I have to get a job and a decent income!
It's highly unlikely that anyone from the phone companies will ever read this blog post, but just for the record, I think that the current dearth of pay phones stinks. Of course, if they want to give me a cell phone for free (even if it's just a prepaid phone with a limited number of minutes), I might revise that opinion. But that's not likely to happen.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a document (created with Google Docs) containing some additional notes on this subject.
I figured that if worse came to worst, I could continue to search for work by using a pay phone for the purpose of making calls related to my job search. I'd have used the pay phone in the building where I lived, except that it often got so noisy in the residential lounge that I could barely hear myself think, much less hear someone at the other end of the phone line. (That's one of the drawbacks of living in a building inhabited by large numbers of rude and thoughtless people. They're often so loud that it's virtually impossible to hear dialog when watching shows on the TV in the lounge.)
It was very annoying for me to have to walk over to the Omni Hotel or Northwestern Medical Center in order to make such calls and in order to check my voice mail messages (at 773-509-8126), but it was doable. That's what I've been doing for the past couple of months.
No more. I went to the Omni Hotel today, and I discovered that there was no longer a pay phone in that building! That was upsetting enough, but when I walked over to Northwestern, I discovered that their pay phones had been removed as well, with the exception of one last pay phone (in the Feinberg Pavilion) which (for all I know) could easily be removed soon as well.
What's going on? I have no idea. The fact that pay phones were removed from multiple unrelated locations seems to suggest that Ameritech itself is to blame. (That's the company which was identified as the phone service provider on all of those phones.)
I guess that explains the lousy service I've been getting from them when I've tried to make long distance calls from those pay phones. They no longer have any commitment to good pay phone service, probably because they're getting out of the pay phone business in Chicago.
The one pay phone remaining at Northwestern (in the Feinberg Pavilion) has a sign indicating that AT&T is the company behind that phone. So maybe that's why it hasn't been removed yet. But the way things seem to be going, I wouldn't be surprised to return to that location and find that phone missing as well.
It might come as a surprise to some people, but not everyone in the world has a cell phone! Some people just can't afford their own cell phones. Plus, people who do have cell phones sometimes find themselves in need of pay phones because they left their cell phones at home, or their cell phones were lost or broken. What are they supposed to do if they can't find pay phones in such situations? Build smoke signals?
It's a weird situation when one can buy a phone which will take photos and play MP3 files and YouTube videos and games, but one can't find a simple public pay phone with which to make a call when one needs to make a phone call.
It's really a scary situation for me. I am never going to get myself out of the financial pit I'm in if I can't get a job. But how am I supposed to get work if I can't even find a phone with which to check my voice mail messages or contact potential employers? True, I do tell people that e-mail is the best way to reach me whenever I speak with them. But they don't always heed that advice. And there are a number of Help Wanted ads where they don't even list an e-mail address, so my only choice if I want to be considered for such jobs is to call them on the phone during normal business hours.
I shudder to think what would happen if I could no longer use the computers at the Apple Store or the library for sending and receiving e-mail. I'd be almost completely cut off from potential employers. That's unlikely to happen at the library, but I've seen a lot of changes at the Apple Store since they first opened their doors here. Today, it's possible to just walk in the door and use one of their computers to send and receive e-mail. Tomorrow? Who knows?
I do have a friend who might conceivably let me go over to his apartment in the evening and check my voice mail messages. But I don't want to constantly impose on him. Besides, I have to be able to make calls during the daytime, too, if I'm going to call potential employers, most of whom are only accessible during business hours.
One possible solution may lie in the fact that there's a Life Development Center (LDC) on the 5th floor at the Lawson House YMCA. They have long offered certain services in connection with the search for employment. They've allowed me to use the fax machine to send out resumes. (They insist on operating the fax machine themselves, even though I'm perfectly capable of doing so myself without any help.) If I explain the dire situation in which I now find myself, perhaps I can persuade them to allow me to regularly use one of the phones in that office in order to make job-related calls during the daytime. I really hope so.
Obviously, the ideal would be for me to pay my phone bill at RCN so I could get my own phone service again. I definitely plan to pay that bill when I'm able to do so. But first I have to get a job and a decent income!
It's highly unlikely that anyone from the phone companies will ever read this blog post, but just for the record, I think that the current dearth of pay phones stinks. Of course, if they want to give me a cell phone for free (even if it's just a prepaid phone with a limited number of minutes), I might revise that opinion. But that's not likely to happen.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a document (created with Google Docs) containing some additional notes on this subject.
Moral Degeneracy In The Name of God
At some point, I will very likely come back to this blog post and expand on the thoughts herein. For the time being, I'm pressed for time, so it will have to suffice for me to say that this article is just one example of how corrupt and ungodly certain branches of the Christian Church have become in recent years.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Why The Democrats Won't Get My Vote
It's way too early to predict who will be elected President of our country in 2008. However, if Barack Obama loses the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, or if he loses the presidential election in November, it seems likely (based on the racial paranoia which afflicts large segments of this country) that numerous people will claim that he lost because he was black.
There may be some people in this country for whom Obama's race is considered an important factor. But I'm not one of them.
I'd be happy to vote for Alan Keyes, for example, if I thought he had any chance at all of winning during this election cycle. (In fact, I think Keyes would make a much better candidate than John McCain --- and maybe even a better candidate than Mike Huckabee, although that would be a close call for me.) Unfortunately, I think that the probability of Keyes winning is virtually nil. Even though McCain isn't my idea of the ideal candidate, he's still a much better choice than Obama or Clinton.
There are many issues facing our country, so it's important not to be a one-issue voter.
Having said that, I believe that some issues so outweigh other issues that those issues are pivotal in deciding how one ought to vote. During the antebellum era, that issue was slavery. In my opinion, that pivotal issue is now the abortion issue. In America, abortion has taken roughly 50 million human lives since being legalized in 1973. What could possibly be more important than passing laws (and amending our Constitution) in order to end America's national holocaust?
When it comes to the abortion issue, it really doesn't matter whether the Democratic nominee is Obama or Clinton. The views of both of them on that subject are equally abhorrent. Notwithstanding the fact that Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion "rare," and notwithstanding his written acknowledgment that human life begins at conception, his unwillingness to support pro-life legislation made his alleged dislike of abortion essentially worthless. Hillary's views on that subject are virtually indistinguishable from Bill's.
One doesn't need to be a conservative Republican or a Christian such as myself to understand the importance of the abortion issue. In an article by jazz critic and Democrat Nat Hentoff, Hentoff (a writer for the Village Voice) said that he was appalled by Barack Obama's extremely liberal views on the subject of abortion. (Here's a link to a longer, and earlier, article Hentoff wrote about abortion. Hentoff also wrote an excellent book about the hypocrisy of liberals who claimed to value civil liberties while simultaneously opposing the freedom of conservatives to express their opinions in the public square. The book contained a detailed consideration of the way in which "pro-choice" people suppressed the choice of people to make up their own minds about the abortion issue by hearing both sides of the argument.)
There have been a few rare pro-life Democrats (such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania or Glenn Poshard of Illinois), but the overall evidence leads me to conclude that the Democratic party as a whole is on the wrong side of the most important issue currently facing our nation. That's particularly true when one considers the shameful way in which the Democratic party (which allegedly values "tolerance" highly) has excluded or marginalized people such as Casey and Poshard time and time again.
There may be some people in this country for whom Obama's race is considered an important factor. But I'm not one of them.
I'd be happy to vote for Alan Keyes, for example, if I thought he had any chance at all of winning during this election cycle. (In fact, I think Keyes would make a much better candidate than John McCain --- and maybe even a better candidate than Mike Huckabee, although that would be a close call for me.) Unfortunately, I think that the probability of Keyes winning is virtually nil. Even though McCain isn't my idea of the ideal candidate, he's still a much better choice than Obama or Clinton.
There are many issues facing our country, so it's important not to be a one-issue voter.
Having said that, I believe that some issues so outweigh other issues that those issues are pivotal in deciding how one ought to vote. During the antebellum era, that issue was slavery. In my opinion, that pivotal issue is now the abortion issue. In America, abortion has taken roughly 50 million human lives since being legalized in 1973. What could possibly be more important than passing laws (and amending our Constitution) in order to end America's national holocaust?
When it comes to the abortion issue, it really doesn't matter whether the Democratic nominee is Obama or Clinton. The views of both of them on that subject are equally abhorrent. Notwithstanding the fact that Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion "rare," and notwithstanding his written acknowledgment that human life begins at conception, his unwillingness to support pro-life legislation made his alleged dislike of abortion essentially worthless. Hillary's views on that subject are virtually indistinguishable from Bill's.
One doesn't need to be a conservative Republican or a Christian such as myself to understand the importance of the abortion issue. In an article by jazz critic and Democrat Nat Hentoff, Hentoff (a writer for the Village Voice) said that he was appalled by Barack Obama's extremely liberal views on the subject of abortion. (Here's a link to a longer, and earlier, article Hentoff wrote about abortion. Hentoff also wrote an excellent book about the hypocrisy of liberals who claimed to value civil liberties while simultaneously opposing the freedom of conservatives to express their opinions in the public square. The book contained a detailed consideration of the way in which "pro-choice" people suppressed the choice of people to make up their own minds about the abortion issue by hearing both sides of the argument.)
There have been a few rare pro-life Democrats (such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania or Glenn Poshard of Illinois), but the overall evidence leads me to conclude that the Democratic party as a whole is on the wrong side of the most important issue currently facing our nation. That's particularly true when one considers the shameful way in which the Democratic party (which allegedly values "tolerance" highly) has excluded or marginalized people such as Casey and Poshard time and time again.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Racial Paranoia and Jeremiah Wright
By now, anyone who isn't aware of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's paranoid rants against America has probably been hiding in the same cave as Osama bin Laden. (I'd be willing to bet that bin Laden knows about them, too, if he's still alive.) The news is all over the web, so I won't waste your time by repeating it here. That's what Google searches are for.
What I would like to do, though, is to comment on several aspects of the controversy.
In Wright's latest speech, he asserted that criticism of him was tantamount to an attack on all black churches. What unmitigated arrogance! The idea that there might be African American pastors and church members who disagree with his paranoid statements doesn't seem to have occurred to him. In his exalted opinion of himself, he speaks for all black Americans, not just for some of them. I'll grant you, the black community seems to exhibit less diversity of thought than many other demographic groups, but the diversity is there, nevertheless.
Reverend Wright needs to spend time talking with conservative African American Christians such as Alan Keyes. I'm not sure whether Ward Connerly or Larry Elder consider themselves to be Christians, but they're definitely conservative African Americans. Having read the insightful things which they have written, I can just about guarantee that they do not share Reverend Wright's bleak and unpatriotic outlook on life.
Another African American who seems to understand racial issues a lot better than Reverend Wright is John L. Jackson, Jr. Mr. Jackson wrote a book entitled Racial Paranoia. I found that book at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I found it to be so fascinating that I read the entire book right there in the store.
Reverend Wright expressed the opinion that the U.S. government had created AIDS to destroy African Americans, as if black folks were the only people who had been killed by that disease! In his book, John L. Jackson, Jr. discusses that conspiracy theory, and he also discusses the conspiracy theory which followed Hurricane Katrina (to the effect that the government had planted a bomb in New Orleans' black neighborhood). Those are just a couple of examples of the type of paranoia demonstrated by putative black leaders such as Reverend Wright. In both cases, those theories seem to be politically motivated, with the obvious intention of portraying Republicans such as myself (and George Bush in particular) as evil people. (Never mind that it was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln who liberated them from slavery with his Emancipation Proclamation.)
Of course, racial paranoia isn't always politically motivated. Sometimes it's more personal. I could cite a number of examples from my own experiences here in Chicago and elsewhere. I have witnessed and been involved in incidents in which accusations of racism were made recklessly and without any factual basis other than the accusers' assumptions to the effect that the things which they found to be disagreeable must have been motivated by racism.
To my way of thinking, such accusations are a sign of racism on the part of the accuser, not on the part of the accused! The mere fact that a white man criticizes a black man for something does not constitute proof that the criticism is motivated by racism. The mere fact that a white man says "no" to a request for money from a black street beggar does not constitute proof that the white man is a racist.
Given a choice between hiring someone who takes criticism well or hiring a person to responds to any and all criticisms by saying, "You're just saying that because I'm black and you're white," who would you want to hire if you were currently looking for a new employee? The answer is obvious. In today's climate, in which accusations of racism seem to be made at the drop of a hat, hiring black folks can be seen, by some, as a very risky thing to do. So racial paranoia becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Knee jerk accusations of racism, in the absence of any substantive proof, are irresponsible and counterproductive. They foster the perception that African Americans do not take criticism very well at all. They foster the perception that African Americans think that the world owes them a living. And they foster resentment on the part of people who, in many cases, may have previously been sympathetic with the goals of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. They may even lead, in some cases, to a backlash which is ultimately harmful to the African American community.
I am particularly fascinated by the thesis of Racial Paranoia, as expressed by its subtitle: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness. In essence, Jackson argues that racial paranoia actually increases as genuine episodes of white-against-black racism decrease. The reason, he argues, is that many African Americans are aware of the societal stigma which is attached these days to racist words and acts spoken and committed by white folks. White folks who have made racist statements or done racist things have often lost their jobs, and sometimes even more, as a result of their words or actions. Consequently, there are often lingering suspicions on the part of African Americans to the effect that racism never really went away --- it just went "underground".
There may be rare occasions in which such suspicions are justified by the facts, but the unsubstantiated nature of the suspicions makes it highly probable that there are many more instances in which such suspicions amount to little more than vicious slander.
Racial paranoia makes it virtually impossible for a white person to do anything to disprove accusations of racism. Such a person can vehemently state that he or she believes strongly in racial equality and the need for civil rights, and can even cite examples of incidents in which that person took a stand against racism --- but a person who is guilty of racial paranoia is so solidly attached to his or her assumptions that actual evidence is ignored whenever it contradicts those assumptions.
When you create a no-win situation for white folks who genuinely reject the racism of the past and who fervently desire to see the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.' s famous dream, it tends to create resentment among the very people who once counted themselves as your allies.
If you treat people as if they're guilty whether they're guilty or not, then you remove the incentive for them to do right and you create a strong incentive for them to do wrong. That just isn't very bright! Even if you aren't motivated by any sense of right and wrong, it's in your best interest to refrain from making accusations which are likely to diminish the number of your friends and allies.
But there are considerations which go beyond utilitarian concerns. The Golden Rule is a universally recognized rule of ethics which states that you should treat people as you would wish to be treated. What does that mean? Among other things, it means giving people the benefit of the doubt, if indeed a reasonable doubt exists. It means not accusing people of malevolent motivations when you have nothing more than vague suspicions on which to base such accusations.
People who do not act in accordance with the Golden Rule forfeit their own moral authority. If they aren't willing to treat other people with fairness, as they would wish to be treated, then they have no right to expect others to treat them fairly, either. In the case of civil rights issues, that isn't smart, because the Civil Rights movement never could have triumphed as it did without a general recognition on the part of numerous white Americans such as myself that Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers had integrity and moral authority.
By casting a dark cloud over Barack Obama's campaign, Reverend Wright's intemperate words have diminished the likelihood that Barack Obama will be the first African American president of the United States. Is that really in the best interests of the black community, or in the best interests of Barack Obama? Wright doesn't seem to have given much thought to the likely consequences of his own actions. No wonder Barack Obama has been quick to criticize Reverend Wright publicly.
I was raised by parents who both taught me from a very early age that racism and racial discrimination were wrong. I was sympathetic with the goals of the Civil Rights movement. My heroes included men such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and George Washington Carver (whose birthplace in Diamond, Missouri was just a short distance from my home town).
My father took our family to Carver's birthplace on two separate occasions, because he wanted us to know where he stood on the issue of race. Dad bragged about having run in a track meet with Dick Gregory, in a way which made it clear that he admired Mr. Gregory. My father served as the Chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights, and he took a stand against racial discrimination even though there really wasn't any great public pressure to do so (since there were very few black folks in my home town of Springfield, MO). He preached at an African American church (Pitts Chapel United Methodist Church) at the request of the Rev. Houston Montgomery, who later became a good friend of ours.
In short, I didn't admire my father in every respect, but I strongly admired his stand against racism, and I incorporated those values into my own beliefs.
I don't regret having done so, but I have come to realize, over the years, that the issues are more complex than I once realized. Yes, there are racists in this world. Some of them are white. But more than a few of them are black.
White racists are absolutely on the wrong track, but that doesn't mean that all of their criticisms of the black community are completely unfounded. Some African Americans are good people who are worthy of admiration on many levels, but there are also a lot of black people whose behavior could be accurately characterized as dysfunctional, antisocial and morally bankrupt.
In short, black folks and white folks have a lot in common with each other. Members of both groups have a lot of good qualities and a lot of bad qualities. It's important to praise praiseworthy things, but it's equally important to speak the truth about things which ought to appall us. That's the only way that we will ever move closer to the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream of a world in which men and women are judged according to the contents of their character.
Creating an atmosphere in which people of both races are free to speak honestly will go a long way towards ending the racial paranoia which currently characterizes large numbers of African Americans. It's disingenuous to claim that you want "dialog" about race, when what you really mean is that you want a one-sided monolog in which only black folks have a voice.
I am growing weary of African American leaders, such as Dr. Wright, who claim to believe that racial discrimination and racism are wrong, while simultaneously demonstrating through their words and actions that they are guilty of the very things they claim to abhor. The divisive and hostile words spoken by such people hinder the chances that we will ever overcome America's tragic legacy of racism.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a good article about the relationship between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.
To his credit, Obama has recently spoken out against Wright's conspiracy theories and anti-American words.
However, I can't help but observe that if John McCain's pastor had been an outspoken white supremacist, the chances of McCain ever been nominated or elected for president of the United States would be virtually nil, especially if McCain's relationship with that pastor had been as well-documented as Obama's relationship with Wright. Unless we wish to embrace double standards based on race --- in other words, racial discrimination --- we should hold Barack Obama to similar standards. Jeremiah Wright's views are every bit as racist and repugnant as any white supremacist's views.
Obama has claimed that he wasn't aware of Wright's paranoid views until very recently. How credible is that claim? Not very. In light of Wright's truculent response to criticism during the recent past, I find it likely that Wright made his views known to all of the members of his church on a fairly regular basis. The only way that Barack Obama could have been ignorant of those views would be if he had basically slept through most of the worship services, or stayed at home on those Sundays when such views were promoted from the pulpit. And if indeed he was ignorant of Wright's views, what does that say about his level of commitment to his church? Any way that one looks at it, the situation reflects poorly on his character.
What I would like to do, though, is to comment on several aspects of the controversy.
In Wright's latest speech, he asserted that criticism of him was tantamount to an attack on all black churches. What unmitigated arrogance! The idea that there might be African American pastors and church members who disagree with his paranoid statements doesn't seem to have occurred to him. In his exalted opinion of himself, he speaks for all black Americans, not just for some of them. I'll grant you, the black community seems to exhibit less diversity of thought than many other demographic groups, but the diversity is there, nevertheless.
Reverend Wright needs to spend time talking with conservative African American Christians such as Alan Keyes. I'm not sure whether Ward Connerly or Larry Elder consider themselves to be Christians, but they're definitely conservative African Americans. Having read the insightful things which they have written, I can just about guarantee that they do not share Reverend Wright's bleak and unpatriotic outlook on life.
Another African American who seems to understand racial issues a lot better than Reverend Wright is John L. Jackson, Jr. Mr. Jackson wrote a book entitled Racial Paranoia. I found that book at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I found it to be so fascinating that I read the entire book right there in the store.
Reverend Wright expressed the opinion that the U.S. government had created AIDS to destroy African Americans, as if black folks were the only people who had been killed by that disease! In his book, John L. Jackson, Jr. discusses that conspiracy theory, and he also discusses the conspiracy theory which followed Hurricane Katrina (to the effect that the government had planted a bomb in New Orleans' black neighborhood). Those are just a couple of examples of the type of paranoia demonstrated by putative black leaders such as Reverend Wright. In both cases, those theories seem to be politically motivated, with the obvious intention of portraying Republicans such as myself (and George Bush in particular) as evil people. (Never mind that it was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln who liberated them from slavery with his Emancipation Proclamation.)
Of course, racial paranoia isn't always politically motivated. Sometimes it's more personal. I could cite a number of examples from my own experiences here in Chicago and elsewhere. I have witnessed and been involved in incidents in which accusations of racism were made recklessly and without any factual basis other than the accusers' assumptions to the effect that the things which they found to be disagreeable must have been motivated by racism.
To my way of thinking, such accusations are a sign of racism on the part of the accuser, not on the part of the accused! The mere fact that a white man criticizes a black man for something does not constitute proof that the criticism is motivated by racism. The mere fact that a white man says "no" to a request for money from a black street beggar does not constitute proof that the white man is a racist.
Given a choice between hiring someone who takes criticism well or hiring a person to responds to any and all criticisms by saying, "You're just saying that because I'm black and you're white," who would you want to hire if you were currently looking for a new employee? The answer is obvious. In today's climate, in which accusations of racism seem to be made at the drop of a hat, hiring black folks can be seen, by some, as a very risky thing to do. So racial paranoia becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Knee jerk accusations of racism, in the absence of any substantive proof, are irresponsible and counterproductive. They foster the perception that African Americans do not take criticism very well at all. They foster the perception that African Americans think that the world owes them a living. And they foster resentment on the part of people who, in many cases, may have previously been sympathetic with the goals of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. They may even lead, in some cases, to a backlash which is ultimately harmful to the African American community.
I am particularly fascinated by the thesis of Racial Paranoia, as expressed by its subtitle: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness. In essence, Jackson argues that racial paranoia actually increases as genuine episodes of white-against-black racism decrease. The reason, he argues, is that many African Americans are aware of the societal stigma which is attached these days to racist words and acts spoken and committed by white folks. White folks who have made racist statements or done racist things have often lost their jobs, and sometimes even more, as a result of their words or actions. Consequently, there are often lingering suspicions on the part of African Americans to the effect that racism never really went away --- it just went "underground".
There may be rare occasions in which such suspicions are justified by the facts, but the unsubstantiated nature of the suspicions makes it highly probable that there are many more instances in which such suspicions amount to little more than vicious slander.
Racial paranoia makes it virtually impossible for a white person to do anything to disprove accusations of racism. Such a person can vehemently state that he or she believes strongly in racial equality and the need for civil rights, and can even cite examples of incidents in which that person took a stand against racism --- but a person who is guilty of racial paranoia is so solidly attached to his or her assumptions that actual evidence is ignored whenever it contradicts those assumptions.
When you create a no-win situation for white folks who genuinely reject the racism of the past and who fervently desire to see the fulfillment of Martin Luther King, Jr.' s famous dream, it tends to create resentment among the very people who once counted themselves as your allies.
If you treat people as if they're guilty whether they're guilty or not, then you remove the incentive for them to do right and you create a strong incentive for them to do wrong. That just isn't very bright! Even if you aren't motivated by any sense of right and wrong, it's in your best interest to refrain from making accusations which are likely to diminish the number of your friends and allies.
But there are considerations which go beyond utilitarian concerns. The Golden Rule is a universally recognized rule of ethics which states that you should treat people as you would wish to be treated. What does that mean? Among other things, it means giving people the benefit of the doubt, if indeed a reasonable doubt exists. It means not accusing people of malevolent motivations when you have nothing more than vague suspicions on which to base such accusations.
People who do not act in accordance with the Golden Rule forfeit their own moral authority. If they aren't willing to treat other people with fairness, as they would wish to be treated, then they have no right to expect others to treat them fairly, either. In the case of civil rights issues, that isn't smart, because the Civil Rights movement never could have triumphed as it did without a general recognition on the part of numerous white Americans such as myself that Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers had integrity and moral authority.
By casting a dark cloud over Barack Obama's campaign, Reverend Wright's intemperate words have diminished the likelihood that Barack Obama will be the first African American president of the United States. Is that really in the best interests of the black community, or in the best interests of Barack Obama? Wright doesn't seem to have given much thought to the likely consequences of his own actions. No wonder Barack Obama has been quick to criticize Reverend Wright publicly.
I was raised by parents who both taught me from a very early age that racism and racial discrimination were wrong. I was sympathetic with the goals of the Civil Rights movement. My heroes included men such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and George Washington Carver (whose birthplace in Diamond, Missouri was just a short distance from my home town).
My father took our family to Carver's birthplace on two separate occasions, because he wanted us to know where he stood on the issue of race. Dad bragged about having run in a track meet with Dick Gregory, in a way which made it clear that he admired Mr. Gregory. My father served as the Chairman of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights, and he took a stand against racial discrimination even though there really wasn't any great public pressure to do so (since there were very few black folks in my home town of Springfield, MO). He preached at an African American church (Pitts Chapel United Methodist Church) at the request of the Rev. Houston Montgomery, who later became a good friend of ours.
In short, I didn't admire my father in every respect, but I strongly admired his stand against racism, and I incorporated those values into my own beliefs.
I don't regret having done so, but I have come to realize, over the years, that the issues are more complex than I once realized. Yes, there are racists in this world. Some of them are white. But more than a few of them are black.
White racists are absolutely on the wrong track, but that doesn't mean that all of their criticisms of the black community are completely unfounded. Some African Americans are good people who are worthy of admiration on many levels, but there are also a lot of black people whose behavior could be accurately characterized as dysfunctional, antisocial and morally bankrupt.
In short, black folks and white folks have a lot in common with each other. Members of both groups have a lot of good qualities and a lot of bad qualities. It's important to praise praiseworthy things, but it's equally important to speak the truth about things which ought to appall us. That's the only way that we will ever move closer to the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream of a world in which men and women are judged according to the contents of their character.
Creating an atmosphere in which people of both races are free to speak honestly will go a long way towards ending the racial paranoia which currently characterizes large numbers of African Americans. It's disingenuous to claim that you want "dialog" about race, when what you really mean is that you want a one-sided monolog in which only black folks have a voice.
I am growing weary of African American leaders, such as Dr. Wright, who claim to believe that racial discrimination and racism are wrong, while simultaneously demonstrating through their words and actions that they are guilty of the very things they claim to abhor. The divisive and hostile words spoken by such people hinder the chances that we will ever overcome America's tragic legacy of racism.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a good article about the relationship between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.
To his credit, Obama has recently spoken out against Wright's conspiracy theories and anti-American words.
However, I can't help but observe that if John McCain's pastor had been an outspoken white supremacist, the chances of McCain ever been nominated or elected for president of the United States would be virtually nil, especially if McCain's relationship with that pastor had been as well-documented as Obama's relationship with Wright. Unless we wish to embrace double standards based on race --- in other words, racial discrimination --- we should hold Barack Obama to similar standards. Jeremiah Wright's views are every bit as racist and repugnant as any white supremacist's views.
Obama has claimed that he wasn't aware of Wright's paranoid views until very recently. How credible is that claim? Not very. In light of Wright's truculent response to criticism during the recent past, I find it likely that Wright made his views known to all of the members of his church on a fairly regular basis. The only way that Barack Obama could have been ignorant of those views would be if he had basically slept through most of the worship services, or stayed at home on those Sundays when such views were promoted from the pulpit. And if indeed he was ignorant of Wright's views, what does that say about his level of commitment to his church? Any way that one looks at it, the situation reflects poorly on his character.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Photo Bedding
Vision Bedding is a company I found on the web via a Google search. Visiting the company's website shows a few of the many creative options which have become available to photographers and artists, thanks to the digital revolution.
A number of different companies produce blankets, towels and other products which have been woven with your own images. Vision Bedding is slightly different. It uses dyes to permanently print your images on your bedding.
Want to witness about your faith in Christ to relatives and friends who come to sleep overnight in your guest room (or to anyone who ever visits your bedroom)? Create a custom design, in Photoshop, which features Christ-centered art and/or photography and/or text. Then have it made into a custom blanket or pillow. This would also be very effective if you owned and operated your own Christian bed & breakfast inn or summer camp.
That's one of the many ideas which I plan to list in a book with a title such as "100 Creative Ways To Share Your Faith".
A number of different companies produce blankets, towels and other products which have been woven with your own images. Vision Bedding is slightly different. It uses dyes to permanently print your images on your bedding.
Want to witness about your faith in Christ to relatives and friends who come to sleep overnight in your guest room (or to anyone who ever visits your bedroom)? Create a custom design, in Photoshop, which features Christ-centered art and/or photography and/or text. Then have it made into a custom blanket or pillow. This would also be very effective if you owned and operated your own Christian bed & breakfast inn or summer camp.
That's one of the many ideas which I plan to list in a book with a title such as "100 Creative Ways To Share Your Faith".
Bring Back Telephone Company Regulation!
As I write this blog post, I’m furious. I just tried to make a long distance call on an AT&T pay phone at the Omni Hotel in Chicago. After numerous unsuccessful attempts, I gave up. Fortunately, the hostess at the bar on the same floor of the hotel was kind enough to let me use her phone (which wasn't a pay phone) to make the call I needed to make.
First, I tried to call an 800 number. (Specifically, 1-800-347-2861, which is the toll-free number for my voice mail company, American Voice Mail, in California.) I got a prerecorded message saying that was impossible. I’d made other 800 calls from that phone before, so that made no sense to me. I called the operator and asked, "Why won't this pay phone allow me to call this particular 800 number?" Instead of answering the question, he transferred me to a prerecorded message saying that only customer-dialed 800 numbers could be called from pay phones. But that was totally inappropriate, because the call in question had been "customer-dialed," since I'd dialed the number myself.
I then tried many times to call the company’s non-toll-free number, using my Visa card. Every time, I was asked which carrier I preferred. I had no idea. I tried several different carriers. Most carriers wouldn’t accept Visa cards in payment. When I asked the AT&T operator to tell me which ones would accept such cards, she had no idea. So I just had to keep trying until I could find a carrier which would accept such payment. At one point, I did find such a company, and I actually got through to American Voice Mail, but my first call didn’t get the person I needed (since I got no answer when I dialed 0 for the operator), so I needed to make another call. Unfortunately, I didn’t recall the name of the carrier I’d used, so I was back to square one.
I'd have placed the call using quarters, but apparently that's no longer possible with long distance calls.
AT&T customer service stinks when it comes to pay phones. Why? I suspect that it's because cell phones have become so ubiquitous these days that only poor people such as yours truly are forced to use pay phones on a frequent basis --- and giving good service to such customers isn't a high priority for AT&T.
Go ahead and visit the AT&T website. You'll find that they have information on all kinds of superfluous and trendy fluff (such as a service that allows you to make a wireless connection to American Idol), but little or nothing to do with pay phones. If you try to send them a message via their Contact Us function, there is virtually no option which enables you to do so unless you have a specific AT&T phone number and account in mind. I tried to send them a truncated message (1,000 characters or less) consisting of the basic information from this blog post, but I couldn't even do so, because I didn't have the phone number for the pay phone I'd been using (since I was sending the e-mail message from a computer located at a store across the street).
In the old days prior to deregulation, making a long distance call from a pay phone was a piece of cake. Now a simple call of that nature is as complicated and frustrating as it can possibly be.
If AT&T is going to confuse customers by expecting customers to select the long distance carrier instead of just going ahead and selecting that company themselves, then the least they could do, it seems to me, is to have a database which enables them to answer basic questions such as, "Will that company allow me to pay with my VISA card?" How are you supposed to intelligently select a carrier if they won't furnish you with the information you need in order to assess which carrier is best for your own needs and your own situation? My time is valuable. I have better things to do than stand there for half an hour or more, trying one long distance carrier after another and making notes about the ones which couldn't accept VISA cards and which ones could do so.
This is hardly the only time I've experienced phone problems related to deregulation. It seems to me that there is no longer any accountability when it comes to big companies such as AT&T. When you get lousy customer service, it's always someone else's fault, never their fault.
I'll be glad when I have my own phone again so that I don't have to use pay phones any more. I did have a phone account with RCN, but I fell behind on my payments, thanks to the fact that I'd been out of work for so long. So RCN cut me off. Currently, the only way for me to make a phone call is to either use a pay phone or else to impose on a friend and ask to use his phone. He's allowed me to do that in the past, but I can't count on that, and I don't want to alienate him by asking to use his phone on a regular basis.
Fortunately, most of the calls I need to make are local calls, and normal coins seem to work fine for such calls.
UPDATE: AT&T and Ameritech removed its pay phone from the Omni Hotel shortly after I wrote this blog post, so the Omni Hotel no longer has any pay phones at all! Ditto for Northwestern Hospital, just a few blocks east of the Omni.
I guess that explains why they didn't care about offering good service.
Thankfully, there are still a couple of pay phones at the nearby Dunkin' Donuts shop and also at the Palmer House Hilton down in the Chicago Loop. Those companies appear to be operated by different companies, so I'm hoping that they will remain available for a while, at least until I'm able to get back on my feet financially and get a phone of my own again. But I think it really stinks to see that pay phones are going the way of the dinosaurs.
I subsequently wrote another blog post about this subject as well.
First, I tried to call an 800 number. (Specifically, 1-800-347-2861, which is the toll-free number for my voice mail company, American Voice Mail, in California.) I got a prerecorded message saying that was impossible. I’d made other 800 calls from that phone before, so that made no sense to me. I called the operator and asked, "Why won't this pay phone allow me to call this particular 800 number?" Instead of answering the question, he transferred me to a prerecorded message saying that only customer-dialed 800 numbers could be called from pay phones. But that was totally inappropriate, because the call in question had been "customer-dialed," since I'd dialed the number myself.
I then tried many times to call the company’s non-toll-free number, using my Visa card. Every time, I was asked which carrier I preferred. I had no idea. I tried several different carriers. Most carriers wouldn’t accept Visa cards in payment. When I asked the AT&T operator to tell me which ones would accept such cards, she had no idea. So I just had to keep trying until I could find a carrier which would accept such payment. At one point, I did find such a company, and I actually got through to American Voice Mail, but my first call didn’t get the person I needed (since I got no answer when I dialed 0 for the operator), so I needed to make another call. Unfortunately, I didn’t recall the name of the carrier I’d used, so I was back to square one.
I'd have placed the call using quarters, but apparently that's no longer possible with long distance calls.
AT&T customer service stinks when it comes to pay phones. Why? I suspect that it's because cell phones have become so ubiquitous these days that only poor people such as yours truly are forced to use pay phones on a frequent basis --- and giving good service to such customers isn't a high priority for AT&T.
Go ahead and visit the AT&T website. You'll find that they have information on all kinds of superfluous and trendy fluff (such as a service that allows you to make a wireless connection to American Idol), but little or nothing to do with pay phones. If you try to send them a message via their Contact Us function, there is virtually no option which enables you to do so unless you have a specific AT&T phone number and account in mind. I tried to send them a truncated message (1,000 characters or less) consisting of the basic information from this blog post, but I couldn't even do so, because I didn't have the phone number for the pay phone I'd been using (since I was sending the e-mail message from a computer located at a store across the street).
In the old days prior to deregulation, making a long distance call from a pay phone was a piece of cake. Now a simple call of that nature is as complicated and frustrating as it can possibly be.
If AT&T is going to confuse customers by expecting customers to select the long distance carrier instead of just going ahead and selecting that company themselves, then the least they could do, it seems to me, is to have a database which enables them to answer basic questions such as, "Will that company allow me to pay with my VISA card?" How are you supposed to intelligently select a carrier if they won't furnish you with the information you need in order to assess which carrier is best for your own needs and your own situation? My time is valuable. I have better things to do than stand there for half an hour or more, trying one long distance carrier after another and making notes about the ones which couldn't accept VISA cards and which ones could do so.
This is hardly the only time I've experienced phone problems related to deregulation. It seems to me that there is no longer any accountability when it comes to big companies such as AT&T. When you get lousy customer service, it's always someone else's fault, never their fault.
I'll be glad when I have my own phone again so that I don't have to use pay phones any more. I did have a phone account with RCN, but I fell behind on my payments, thanks to the fact that I'd been out of work for so long. So RCN cut me off. Currently, the only way for me to make a phone call is to either use a pay phone or else to impose on a friend and ask to use his phone. He's allowed me to do that in the past, but I can't count on that, and I don't want to alienate him by asking to use his phone on a regular basis.
Fortunately, most of the calls I need to make are local calls, and normal coins seem to work fine for such calls.
UPDATE: AT&T and Ameritech removed its pay phone from the Omni Hotel shortly after I wrote this blog post, so the Omni Hotel no longer has any pay phones at all! Ditto for Northwestern Hospital, just a few blocks east of the Omni.
I guess that explains why they didn't care about offering good service.
Thankfully, there are still a couple of pay phones at the nearby Dunkin' Donuts shop and also at the Palmer House Hilton down in the Chicago Loop. Those companies appear to be operated by different companies, so I'm hoping that they will remain available for a while, at least until I'm able to get back on my feet financially and get a phone of my own again. But I think it really stinks to see that pay phones are going the way of the dinosaurs.
I subsequently wrote another blog post about this subject as well.
Friday, April 25, 2008
With Churches, It Pays To Be Selective
Recently I was speaking with my mother, and the subject of church came up. I had told her a few weeks earlier that I'd begun attending church again, after discovering a local congregation which seemed to show some promise. My mother is very devoted to her church, and she knows that I share her faith in Christ, so she has always strongly urged me to commit myself to a local congregation of believers.
In principle, I agree that that's a worthy goal. The problem is that finding a church which meets my criteria has been easier said than done. During my phone conversation with Mother last week, I revealed to her that my investigations had revealed that the latest church I'd visited didn't meet my most important criteria. I could hear the disappointment in her voice when she learned that I'd decided not to make that my home church.
Frankly, she wasn't half as disappointed as I was. I'd been without a church for a while, and I'd been hoping that this group I'd recently discovered was the one for which I'd been looking. But I have been to enough churches in my life, both good and bad, to know that it's a big mistake to pick a church randomly out of the phone directory and then make a commitment to that church before one really has any idea what one is committing one's self to. Life is too short to spend Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in a church which poorly reflects one's own values or which does a poor job of empowering one to fulfill God's call upon one's life. So when I start attending a new church, I tend to take a very "proactive" approach designed to help me ascertain as soon as possible whether or not the church is worthy of a long-term commitment. That means asking a lot of questions and then asking myself if I can live with the answers I receive.
When Mother spoke with me, she advised me to bloom where I was planted. But even though that advice sometimes has merit (in situations where people have no choice about where they have been planted), it's somewhat disingenuous when it comes to one's choice of a church to attend. After all, the only thing which "planted" me at the aforementioned church was that I decided to attend the church in the first place. There were no family issues or other things binding me to that particular church. It seems a bit absurd to me to say that it's O.K. for me to exercise my free will by choosing to attend the church, but not O.K. for me to go in search of a church which better meets my needs if it turns out, upon investigation, that the church doesn't offer the things which I seek.
When seeds or plants are planted in dry soil which lacks the nutrients they need, they don't "bloom". They die!!! I don't deny that there were some good aspects of the church I most recently attended. Otherwise, I never would have returned in order to attend a second service. But I was looking for some specific things which were extremely important to me. Unfortunately, I learned after several weeks that they weren't prepared to offer those things to me.
Many people would argue that "there is no such thing as a perfect church". Well, duhhh! Of course there isn't. People, even redeemed people, are imperfect, and probably always will be imperfect, this side of heaven. But what bothers me is when true statements are misappropriated in order to support false dichotomies.
It doesn't follow from the fact that churches are all imperfect that one ought to refrain from exercising discernment when selecting a church. That's the kind of gullible mentality which led people to feel as if they had to keep attending Jim Jones' cultish church (The People's Temple) even after it had become abundantly clear that the guy had become psychologically and spiritually unhinged. The tragic results, it seems to me, speak for themselves.
Not every church is as cultish or abusive as The People's Temple, but there are a lot of churches which are abusive in subtle ways, even though their doctrinal statements may look great on paper. They may have great music and great preaching, but those aren't the only things which are needed in order to make for a great church experience.
Churches are all imperfect, but it is possible (albeit difficult) to find churches which are good enough to justify long-term commitments to them. I know, because I have attended such churches in the past.
If a person is attending a church where getting up in the morning to go to the worship service feels like a dreary chore which is performed out of obligation and nothing more, then there's something seriously wrong, because church was never meant to be that way. Jesus said it well: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Legalistic observations of the Sabbath can defeat the purpose of the Sabbath, which is to strengthen believers and equip them for lives characterized by joyful service to God. If that goal is not being accomplished, then the value of such regular observations is highly questionable.
The problem is that there's a mentality among many Christians to the effect that Christians who are unwilling to settle for spiritually unfruitful relationships, and who regularly change church homes in search of things they haven't yet found, are somehow selfish and undisciplined.
I understand where they got that idea. There are admittedly some Christians who leave churches over issues which are utterly trivial. The color of the carpet, for instance. Such people are undoubtedly responsible for the phrase which some Christian coined several decades ago: "Church hoppers".
But individual situations should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of generalities which may or may not be applicable to those particular situations. I happen to think that the criteria with which I decide whether or not to continue attending a particular church are biblically defensible and extremely important.
Some people may disagree, and that's their prerogative. But it should be remembered that different people have different needs, and therefore different priorities.
For example, if I had children, it is likely that I would be looking for a church with a dynamic children's ministry which would protect and nurture my children, and which would teach the gospel to them in a way which would maximize the likelihood that they would commit themselves to Christ in a way which would motivate them to make the world a better place. But I don't have children, and the way things are looking, it seems unlikely that I ever will have children of my own, for the simple reason that it seems unlikely that I will ever get married. (Not that I wouldn't like to get married! But the older I get, the less likely that seems to happen. I'm just as selective when it comes to women as I am when it comes to churches.) So while I think that every church ought to have a great ministry to children, it isn't as important to me, personally, as it would be if I had a wife and children.
Some people greatly prefer a small church, and other people greatly prefer a big church. I have no real preferences in terms of what size of church makes me comfortable, but the size of the church can be a relevant consideration when it comes to some of my other criteria. Small churches tend to be a lot friendlier, and pastors there tend to be a lot more accessible, but the downside is often the fact that such churches don't have much in the way of material resources. That might not matter much if I were just looking for a place to worship, but I'm also looking for a church which can help me to accomplish some specific goals in my life. And that requires a church with substantial resources.
The trouble is that pastors of large churches tend to be very inaccessible. They sometimes unintentionally or intentionally convey the idea that individuals who attend their churches are somewhat expendable and unworthy of individual attention and consideration, unless those individuals are part of a very limited "inner circle" consisting mostly of staff members or people who have attended the church for a very long time.
But that's mostly a matter of attitude, and attitudes aren't carved into stone. I think that it's possible to pastor a large church which has abundant resources without becoming egotistical or isolated from the people who attend that church. It's rare, but it's possible. So I guess that if I had my choice, I'd say that I'd prefer to attend that kind of church.
Having said that, I'd rather attend a small church where people have all of the right attitudes and values than to attend a large church where their contrary attitudes and values stand in the way of my ability to achieve my life's goals. Lots of material resources are nice, but they don't do a whole lot of good if one can't utilize them.
In terms of theology, I am pretty conservative. Of course, that word means different things to different people. What it means for me is that the scriptures are far more important than "traditions of men". For too many churches today, the scriptures are only of peripheral concern --- and this, ironically, includes some churches where they give lip service to the idea that the scriptures are of paramount importance.
Where the scriptures speak clearly about issues, then it seems to me that really sincere Christians have no choice but to accept their authority and do their best to comply with their demands. This doesn't mean, however, that there will be no legitimate disagreements about what the scriptures teach and demand. The Bible is a marvelous book, and that's an understatement. But that doesn't mean that it's always 100% clear how a particular scriptural teaching should apply to us. Some people do a better job of properly interpreting scriptures (in the context in which they were written) than others. ("Exegesis" is the fancy technical term for such interpretation. The Bible itself calls it "rightly dividing the Word of God".) So it seems to me that all Christians ought to have the humility to make every effort to explain their policies and practices in the light of their understanding of the scriptures, and to listen with sincerity to those who might disagree with them on specific points.
Ideally, people would always agree with one another, but this is not an ideal world. Sometimes, when it comes to secondary issues, the best option is to agree to disagree. At other times, though, it's important to have some backbone and take a stand against immorality. Far too many liberal churches today have allowed the culture to shape them, instead of accepting the responsibility to shape the culture in positive ways which reflect values derived from the Word of God.
To many people, stylistic matters (pertaining to preaching styles, music styles, liturgical styles and so forth) are of paramount importance. I have worshiped in a wide variety of environments, some of which were very formal and some of which were very informal. I do have my preferences, of course. I generally tend to prefer a more informal type of service, because I have seen the way in which liturgy can become so stale that no real spiritual encounters with God are facilitated. But I've also seen how informality can be abused in a way which props up the egos of the people who lead such services, so that's the flip side.
Even though I might have my preferences, I would say that such matters are relatively low on my list of priorities, unless they impact the freedom which I have to use my own talents in service to God. How might that happen? Well, in one case, I was told in no uncertain terms that the pastor of the church I was attending at the time had no tolerance for any musical performances which did not involve the performance of hymns. No jazz allowed! I knew of no relevant scriptures which would justify such a position, so it seemed to me that the pastor in question was simply imposing his personal aesthetic preferences on the rest of the congregation, with no biblical justification. I felt hamstrung by the realization that as long as I attended that church, I would never have the opportunity to make the most of my musical talents during a worship service, or during any other church event for that matter. To me, that was more than reason enough to leave that church and continue my search for a church which would appreciate what I had to offer.
If I had to list my highest priorities when selecting a church to attend on a regular basis, I think I would list the following things:
In principle, I agree that that's a worthy goal. The problem is that finding a church which meets my criteria has been easier said than done. During my phone conversation with Mother last week, I revealed to her that my investigations had revealed that the latest church I'd visited didn't meet my most important criteria. I could hear the disappointment in her voice when she learned that I'd decided not to make that my home church.
Frankly, she wasn't half as disappointed as I was. I'd been without a church for a while, and I'd been hoping that this group I'd recently discovered was the one for which I'd been looking. But I have been to enough churches in my life, both good and bad, to know that it's a big mistake to pick a church randomly out of the phone directory and then make a commitment to that church before one really has any idea what one is committing one's self to. Life is too short to spend Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in a church which poorly reflects one's own values or which does a poor job of empowering one to fulfill God's call upon one's life. So when I start attending a new church, I tend to take a very "proactive" approach designed to help me ascertain as soon as possible whether or not the church is worthy of a long-term commitment. That means asking a lot of questions and then asking myself if I can live with the answers I receive.
When Mother spoke with me, she advised me to bloom where I was planted. But even though that advice sometimes has merit (in situations where people have no choice about where they have been planted), it's somewhat disingenuous when it comes to one's choice of a church to attend. After all, the only thing which "planted" me at the aforementioned church was that I decided to attend the church in the first place. There were no family issues or other things binding me to that particular church. It seems a bit absurd to me to say that it's O.K. for me to exercise my free will by choosing to attend the church, but not O.K. for me to go in search of a church which better meets my needs if it turns out, upon investigation, that the church doesn't offer the things which I seek.
When seeds or plants are planted in dry soil which lacks the nutrients they need, they don't "bloom". They die!!! I don't deny that there were some good aspects of the church I most recently attended. Otherwise, I never would have returned in order to attend a second service. But I was looking for some specific things which were extremely important to me. Unfortunately, I learned after several weeks that they weren't prepared to offer those things to me.
Many people would argue that "there is no such thing as a perfect church". Well, duhhh! Of course there isn't. People, even redeemed people, are imperfect, and probably always will be imperfect, this side of heaven. But what bothers me is when true statements are misappropriated in order to support false dichotomies.
It doesn't follow from the fact that churches are all imperfect that one ought to refrain from exercising discernment when selecting a church. That's the kind of gullible mentality which led people to feel as if they had to keep attending Jim Jones' cultish church (The People's Temple) even after it had become abundantly clear that the guy had become psychologically and spiritually unhinged. The tragic results, it seems to me, speak for themselves.
Not every church is as cultish or abusive as The People's Temple, but there are a lot of churches which are abusive in subtle ways, even though their doctrinal statements may look great on paper. They may have great music and great preaching, but those aren't the only things which are needed in order to make for a great church experience.
Churches are all imperfect, but it is possible (albeit difficult) to find churches which are good enough to justify long-term commitments to them. I know, because I have attended such churches in the past.
If a person is attending a church where getting up in the morning to go to the worship service feels like a dreary chore which is performed out of obligation and nothing more, then there's something seriously wrong, because church was never meant to be that way. Jesus said it well: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Legalistic observations of the Sabbath can defeat the purpose of the Sabbath, which is to strengthen believers and equip them for lives characterized by joyful service to God. If that goal is not being accomplished, then the value of such regular observations is highly questionable.
The problem is that there's a mentality among many Christians to the effect that Christians who are unwilling to settle for spiritually unfruitful relationships, and who regularly change church homes in search of things they haven't yet found, are somehow selfish and undisciplined.
I understand where they got that idea. There are admittedly some Christians who leave churches over issues which are utterly trivial. The color of the carpet, for instance. Such people are undoubtedly responsible for the phrase which some Christian coined several decades ago: "Church hoppers".
But individual situations should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of generalities which may or may not be applicable to those particular situations. I happen to think that the criteria with which I decide whether or not to continue attending a particular church are biblically defensible and extremely important.
Some people may disagree, and that's their prerogative. But it should be remembered that different people have different needs, and therefore different priorities.
For example, if I had children, it is likely that I would be looking for a church with a dynamic children's ministry which would protect and nurture my children, and which would teach the gospel to them in a way which would maximize the likelihood that they would commit themselves to Christ in a way which would motivate them to make the world a better place. But I don't have children, and the way things are looking, it seems unlikely that I ever will have children of my own, for the simple reason that it seems unlikely that I will ever get married. (Not that I wouldn't like to get married! But the older I get, the less likely that seems to happen. I'm just as selective when it comes to women as I am when it comes to churches.) So while I think that every church ought to have a great ministry to children, it isn't as important to me, personally, as it would be if I had a wife and children.
Some people greatly prefer a small church, and other people greatly prefer a big church. I have no real preferences in terms of what size of church makes me comfortable, but the size of the church can be a relevant consideration when it comes to some of my other criteria. Small churches tend to be a lot friendlier, and pastors there tend to be a lot more accessible, but the downside is often the fact that such churches don't have much in the way of material resources. That might not matter much if I were just looking for a place to worship, but I'm also looking for a church which can help me to accomplish some specific goals in my life. And that requires a church with substantial resources.
The trouble is that pastors of large churches tend to be very inaccessible. They sometimes unintentionally or intentionally convey the idea that individuals who attend their churches are somewhat expendable and unworthy of individual attention and consideration, unless those individuals are part of a very limited "inner circle" consisting mostly of staff members or people who have attended the church for a very long time.
But that's mostly a matter of attitude, and attitudes aren't carved into stone. I think that it's possible to pastor a large church which has abundant resources without becoming egotistical or isolated from the people who attend that church. It's rare, but it's possible. So I guess that if I had my choice, I'd say that I'd prefer to attend that kind of church.
Having said that, I'd rather attend a small church where people have all of the right attitudes and values than to attend a large church where their contrary attitudes and values stand in the way of my ability to achieve my life's goals. Lots of material resources are nice, but they don't do a whole lot of good if one can't utilize them.
In terms of theology, I am pretty conservative. Of course, that word means different things to different people. What it means for me is that the scriptures are far more important than "traditions of men". For too many churches today, the scriptures are only of peripheral concern --- and this, ironically, includes some churches where they give lip service to the idea that the scriptures are of paramount importance.
Where the scriptures speak clearly about issues, then it seems to me that really sincere Christians have no choice but to accept their authority and do their best to comply with their demands. This doesn't mean, however, that there will be no legitimate disagreements about what the scriptures teach and demand. The Bible is a marvelous book, and that's an understatement. But that doesn't mean that it's always 100% clear how a particular scriptural teaching should apply to us. Some people do a better job of properly interpreting scriptures (in the context in which they were written) than others. ("Exegesis" is the fancy technical term for such interpretation. The Bible itself calls it "rightly dividing the Word of God".) So it seems to me that all Christians ought to have the humility to make every effort to explain their policies and practices in the light of their understanding of the scriptures, and to listen with sincerity to those who might disagree with them on specific points.
Ideally, people would always agree with one another, but this is not an ideal world. Sometimes, when it comes to secondary issues, the best option is to agree to disagree. At other times, though, it's important to have some backbone and take a stand against immorality. Far too many liberal churches today have allowed the culture to shape them, instead of accepting the responsibility to shape the culture in positive ways which reflect values derived from the Word of God.
To many people, stylistic matters (pertaining to preaching styles, music styles, liturgical styles and so forth) are of paramount importance. I have worshiped in a wide variety of environments, some of which were very formal and some of which were very informal. I do have my preferences, of course. I generally tend to prefer a more informal type of service, because I have seen the way in which liturgy can become so stale that no real spiritual encounters with God are facilitated. But I've also seen how informality can be abused in a way which props up the egos of the people who lead such services, so that's the flip side.
Even though I might have my preferences, I would say that such matters are relatively low on my list of priorities, unless they impact the freedom which I have to use my own talents in service to God. How might that happen? Well, in one case, I was told in no uncertain terms that the pastor of the church I was attending at the time had no tolerance for any musical performances which did not involve the performance of hymns. No jazz allowed! I knew of no relevant scriptures which would justify such a position, so it seemed to me that the pastor in question was simply imposing his personal aesthetic preferences on the rest of the congregation, with no biblical justification. I felt hamstrung by the realization that as long as I attended that church, I would never have the opportunity to make the most of my musical talents during a worship service, or during any other church event for that matter. To me, that was more than reason enough to leave that church and continue my search for a church which would appreciate what I had to offer.
If I had to list my highest priorities when selecting a church to attend on a regular basis, I think I would list the following things:
- A strong commitment to the proclamation of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ, with a foundation in the scriptures. This includes the willingness to speak out clearly against sin (even when it's "politically incorrect" to do so) and to make it very clear to people that those who reject Christ's salvation are lost.
- A strong commitment to the need for social justice and compassion --- not based on Marxist presuppositions, but based on Christ's teachings, which make it very clear that we have obligations in terms of ministering to hurting people and victims of injustice, such as prisoners, sexual abuse victims, poor people, minorities, unborn children and so forth.
- A strong commitment to the necessity of cultural transformation --- not cultural accommodation, and not withdrawal from involvement and engagement with mainstream culture. In particular, I feel that it's important to recognize the dominant role which the arts play in terms of shaping the values of our friends, neighbors, coworkers and relatives. Churches which have little interest in the arts have abdicated their cultural responsibilities. If they aren't empowering artistically talented Christians, artistically talented unbelievers with entirely different agendas will be more than happy to step in and fill the cultural void.
- A strong commitment to the goal of empowering all Christians to fully utilize their God-given talents --- thereby fulfilling their biblical responsibilities --- and to leave lasting legacies which will validate the time which they have spent living on this earth.
The preceding list isn't all-inclusive, of course. But it ought to give a good idea of what I'm seeking in a church. Such a church isn't easy to find, but I keep looking, because I am convinced that God has a calling on my life. I cannot fulfill that calling without substantial help from brothers and sisters who share my values, goals and priorities.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Good Articles About Christianity and The Arts
Dick Staub is a Christian with a podcast called The Kindlings Muse. I just came across an article he'd posted online, entitled "Art Helping People See God". I recommend that you check it out.
I also recommend that you click here and then download a PDF file consisting of a "Lausanne Occasional Paper" entitled "REDEEMING THE ARTS: The Restoration of the Arts to God’s Creational Intention". It's interesting reading from the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism (founded in 1974 by Billy Graham and others). It talks about the importance the arts play in terms of reaching the lost for Christ.
I will very likely update this blog post with additional related suggestions as time permits.
I also recommend that you click here and then download a PDF file consisting of a "Lausanne Occasional Paper" entitled "REDEEMING THE ARTS: The Restoration of the Arts to God’s Creational Intention". It's interesting reading from the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism (founded in 1974 by Billy Graham and others). It talks about the importance the arts play in terms of reaching the lost for Christ.
I will very likely update this blog post with additional related suggestions as time permits.
Monday, April 21, 2008
What Integrity Is Not
With regard to the word "integrity," the American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definitions:
Here are a couple of things which I consider to be exceedingly hypocritical:
But there's another type of respect. That type of respect could be defined as "the condition of being esteemed or honored". That kind of respect cannot be demanded. It can only be earned. One earns such respect by practicing what one preaches. Those who have no integrity have no right to expect anyone to esteem, honor or admire them.
- Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
- The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
- The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
Here are a couple of things which I consider to be exceedingly hypocritical:
- Claiming that racial discrimination is immoral --- unless, of course, the beneficiaries of such discrimination happen to belong to traditionally oppressed minorities, in which case racial discrimination is considered (by many liberals) to be positively virtuous. This type of hypocrisy characterizes liberals' demands for remedial racial discrimination (also known euphemistically as "affirmative action" and "reparations"). Such a world view is incoherent. It raises obvious questions, regarding such things as how we are to determine the societal obligations of people (such as Barack Obama) who are racially mixed. But even if that were not the case, it would still be unprincipled. Either racial discrimination is wrong, or it's not. One cannot logically have it both ways.
- Claiming that gender discrimination is immoral --- unless, of course, the beneficiaries of such discrimination happen to be women who are enjoying the special "perks" which have traditionally been given to women by men (such as always paying the bill on a first date), in which case the discrimination doesn't seem to bother most so-called "feminists" at all. Again, gender discrimination is either wrong, or it's not. One cannot logically have it both ways. If women really want to be treated as "equals," whether they call themselves feminists or not, then they need to stop expecting special favors from men.
But there's another type of respect. That type of respect could be defined as "the condition of being esteemed or honored". That kind of respect cannot be demanded. It can only be earned. One earns such respect by practicing what one preaches. Those who have no integrity have no right to expect anyone to esteem, honor or admire them.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Courage of John McCain
Few people question the idea that a man willing to risk death on the battlefield has a type of courage. But there are other types of courage as well. So I found this quotation interesting. I hope that you will give serious thought to the following words when you decide who to vote for during the upcoming presidential election in November.
Wisdom suggests that we should be willing to give an unborn child the same chance that our parents gave us, but it takes courage in this political climate to insist on the protection of unborn children who can't vote, have no voice, and can't reward you with support and donations. ... John McCain
Friday, March 28, 2008
Madonna Is No Savior
I just came across an interesting article at MSN News. The opening paragraph said the following:
Then again, Madonna seems to think that she and Jesus are very much alike, judging by her stage act of a year or two ago, when she hung from a glittery cross, in a move which left many committed Christians feeling offended, appalled and outraged.
I guess that's what happens when a person such as Madonna is the recipient of undeserved adulation. Such a person sometimes develops an ego as large as the legendary Jumbo the Elephant. On other occasions, such a person becomes as much of a dysfunctional train wreck as Britney Spears has become. Sometimes both phenomena can be seen in the same person.
It seems to me that Britney and Madonna are both equally in need of salvation. But then again, the same thing could be said about you and me.
Madonna wants the media to leave Britney Spears alone. "They need to step off," she told the "Yo on E!" satellite radio show. "For real ... Let's go save her."I agree with Madonna with regard to the media. However, in spite of Madonna's religious-sounding name, I've got news for her. She is incapable of "saving" Britney Spears, or anyone else for that matter. Only Jesus Christ can do that.
Then again, Madonna seems to think that she and Jesus are very much alike, judging by her stage act of a year or two ago, when she hung from a glittery cross, in a move which left many committed Christians feeling offended, appalled and outraged.
I guess that's what happens when a person such as Madonna is the recipient of undeserved adulation. Such a person sometimes develops an ego as large as the legendary Jumbo the Elephant. On other occasions, such a person becomes as much of a dysfunctional train wreck as Britney Spears has become. Sometimes both phenomena can be seen in the same person.
It seems to me that Britney and Madonna are both equally in need of salvation. But then again, the same thing could be said about you and me.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Death By The Numbers
Today's edition of RedEye (published by the Chicago Tribune) reports that the total number of Americans killed in the Iraq war (which has lasted for five years) hit 4,000. So we're talking an approximate average of 800 deaths a year.
Democrats are appalled --- appalled, I say! --- by that number.
Now, I personally think that one unnecessary death is one unnecessary death too many. As one who obtained official status as a conscientious objector when I was called by my draft board in 1974 (shortly before the draft was abolished), no one with any brains would accuse me of being a warmongering ultraconservative.
However, I'd like to point out some inconvenient truths (to borrow Al Gore's phrase) which Democrats would prefer to gloss over or ignore.
That's particularly true of Barack Obama (notwithstanding his mild-mannered public demeanor). Not only is he extremely pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but he has even refused to endorse Illinois legislation which had the sole purpose of prohibiting infanticide, and which was written in such a way as to specifically limit the scope of that legislation to the killing of babies after they had been born.
What's particularly ironic is that many of the people now backing Obama are the same people whose denunciations of American soldiers during the Vietnam war included claims that our troops were "baby killers". Back then, they seemed to believe that killing babies was morally wrong and repugnant. Sadly, they seem to have changed their minds about that idea. Either that, or they're ignorant about what Obama really stands for.
John McCain might not be my first choice as President of the United States, since I would have preferred Alan Keyes or Mike Huckabee. But McCain is still a far better choice than anyone the Democrats currently offer to the American public.
UPDATE: McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate speaks very well for him indeed.
Democrats are appalled --- appalled, I say! --- by that number.
Now, I personally think that one unnecessary death is one unnecessary death too many. As one who obtained official status as a conscientious objector when I was called by my draft board in 1974 (shortly before the draft was abolished), no one with any brains would accuse me of being a warmongering ultraconservative.
However, I'd like to point out some inconvenient truths (to borrow Al Gore's phrase) which Democrats would prefer to gloss over or ignore.
- The total number of Americans killed during the Iraq war is roughly equivalent to the average number of unborn children killed in abortion clinics every single day of the year. (In an excellent article about how African Americans have been sold down the river by the Democratic party, Rev. Clinard Childress writes, "Each day, 1452 African Americans are murdered by abortion. 4,000 children over all.") Hey, Democrats, how about a sense of proportion? Is that asking too much?
- Unlike the aforementioned unborn children, most of the Americans killed in Iraq had a choice about whether or not to put themselves in harm's way, and most of them were well equipped to defend themselves.
- Unlike the aforementioned unborn children (many of whom have been killed for reasons which could only be described as frivolous), the Iraqi war was initiated at least partially for the purpose of deposing an incontestably evil dictator who was oppressing his own people. One may legitimately question whether the circumstances met the criteria of St. Augustine's "just war," but regardless, there is a world of difference between killing people in order to depose a leader who is guilty of gassing his own people to death and killing an unborn child because having a child would interfere with one's career plans.
- Very few Democrats are the pacifists they'd like you to think they are. With the notable exception of Mr. Obama, most Democratic leaders (including Hillary) voted to go to war. They now claim that they were deceived into doing so. Hey, since when are congressmen and senators incapable of conducting their own independent investigations? If they conducted such investigations and found nothing to persuade them to vote against the war, then how can they claim that they were deceived? If they found evidence that there were no actual weapons of mass destruction, and if they went ahead and voted to go to war anyway, then doesn't that make them even worse than President Bush and Colin Powell? If they didn't even bother to conduct their own research into the matter, then doesn't that just make them lazy and irresponsible? Any way that you look at it, it's utterly specious to claim that the Iraq war is solely a Republican war. The Democratic party bears a fair amount of the blame for the 4,000 deaths cited by RedEye. Therefore, it is irrational to base one's political affiliation on one's perception that this is somehow "Bush's war".
That's particularly true of Barack Obama (notwithstanding his mild-mannered public demeanor). Not only is he extremely pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but he has even refused to endorse Illinois legislation which had the sole purpose of prohibiting infanticide, and which was written in such a way as to specifically limit the scope of that legislation to the killing of babies after they had been born.
What's particularly ironic is that many of the people now backing Obama are the same people whose denunciations of American soldiers during the Vietnam war included claims that our troops were "baby killers". Back then, they seemed to believe that killing babies was morally wrong and repugnant. Sadly, they seem to have changed their minds about that idea. Either that, or they're ignorant about what Obama really stands for.
John McCain might not be my first choice as President of the United States, since I would have preferred Alan Keyes or Mike Huckabee. But McCain is still a far better choice than anyone the Democrats currently offer to the American public.
UPDATE: McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate speaks very well for him indeed.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Alcohol Killer Is Dangerous Stuff
I recently learned about a new drink with the intriguing name of Alcohol Killer.
Judging by the name of the product, one might be inclined to think that drinking the product neutralizes the effects of booze, allowing one to drink limitless amounts of liquor without ever getting drunk or suffering from a hangover the following morning. One might even think that the consumption of the product served as an inoculation against alcoholism.
Unfortunately, it does no such thing. At best, it might slightly reduce one's BAC (blood alcohol content). But the company's own website states that an independent European study showed that the product "did not reduce intoxication".
In a Chicago Reader ad, it states that Alcohol Killer "may help to eliminate the unfavorable effects of alcohol, as well as a hangover." What makes the ad noteworthy is its use of hedge words ("may" and "help"), which are clearly designed to make the company exempt from liability in any legal cases involving claims regarding the efficacy of the product. If the produce really "killed" alcohol, such hedge words wouldn't be needed, now would they?
I also love the way that the statement subtly implies (through the use of the phrase "as well as") that a hangover is not an unfavorable effect. I think that most people who've suffered from hangovers would beg to differ.
I have a suggestion for people who are looking for ways to eliminate hangovers and other unfavorable effects of alcohol consumption: DON'T CONSUME ALCOHOL!!! Duh.
It's not as if there is a shortage of delicious beverages which have no alcohol whatsoever. Personally, I'm partial to fruit juice and gourmet coffee.
Mormons might object to my consumption of coffee and tea and cola, but I've never heard about anyone dying behind the wheel or beating his wife and kids or suffering from delirium tremens as the result of drinking too many caffeinated beverages. I suppose that it's theoretically possible that a person who was sufficiently "wired" from caffeine could do one or more of those things, but it's a remote possibility at best. There's nothing remote about the harmful effects of alcohol abuse. Just ask an ER physician or nurse, if you don't believe me.
Short of total abstinence, the next best option would be to resolve that one would never under any circumstances continue to drink alcoholic beverages past the point where one first began to notice any kind of a "buzz" whatsoever.
But that, of course, would require a measure of self control. Americans aren't into self control. They'd rather think that they can make stupid choices and then buy and use additional products which will negate the effects of their stupidity.
The trouble with a product like Alcohol Killer is that most of the people who buy it and drink it won't bother to read the fine print. They'll see it as a license to drink even more than they normally drink. Consequently, whatever positive effects the beverage might bring in terms of reduction of BAC will be more than offset by the fact that it will encourage people to drink to excess.
The manufacturers of Alcohol Killer seem to assume that people who drink only do it for the great taste of the booze. They seem to assume that such people don't really want to get drunk. There may be some cases in which that's true, but there are a lot of other cases in which it's demonstrably false.
Let's be honest. Some alcoholic beverages taste pleasant, but there are others which taste more or less like turpentine. People put up with the nasty taste (or gradually get used to it) only because they desire the buzz they can get by drinking the stuff. It's very similar to smoking in that respect.
Bartenders are sure to love Alcohol Killer. They can sell even more booze, and then deny responsibility for the tragic consequences of their sales transactions.
As the son of a man who was an alcoholic when he died in 1999, I have personally experienced the destructive effects of alcohol abuse. And I can say with unequivocal certainty that Alcohol Killer is not the answer to the problem. The answer, rather is to follow the advice offered by the Bible, in Ephesians 5:18:
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
Judging by the name of the product, one might be inclined to think that drinking the product neutralizes the effects of booze, allowing one to drink limitless amounts of liquor without ever getting drunk or suffering from a hangover the following morning. One might even think that the consumption of the product served as an inoculation against alcoholism.
Unfortunately, it does no such thing. At best, it might slightly reduce one's BAC (blood alcohol content). But the company's own website states that an independent European study showed that the product "did not reduce intoxication".
In a Chicago Reader ad, it states that Alcohol Killer "may help to eliminate the unfavorable effects of alcohol, as well as a hangover." What makes the ad noteworthy is its use of hedge words ("may" and "help"), which are clearly designed to make the company exempt from liability in any legal cases involving claims regarding the efficacy of the product. If the produce really "killed" alcohol, such hedge words wouldn't be needed, now would they?
I also love the way that the statement subtly implies (through the use of the phrase "as well as") that a hangover is not an unfavorable effect. I think that most people who've suffered from hangovers would beg to differ.
I have a suggestion for people who are looking for ways to eliminate hangovers and other unfavorable effects of alcohol consumption: DON'T CONSUME ALCOHOL!!! Duh.
It's not as if there is a shortage of delicious beverages which have no alcohol whatsoever. Personally, I'm partial to fruit juice and gourmet coffee.
Mormons might object to my consumption of coffee and tea and cola, but I've never heard about anyone dying behind the wheel or beating his wife and kids or suffering from delirium tremens as the result of drinking too many caffeinated beverages. I suppose that it's theoretically possible that a person who was sufficiently "wired" from caffeine could do one or more of those things, but it's a remote possibility at best. There's nothing remote about the harmful effects of alcohol abuse. Just ask an ER physician or nurse, if you don't believe me.
Short of total abstinence, the next best option would be to resolve that one would never under any circumstances continue to drink alcoholic beverages past the point where one first began to notice any kind of a "buzz" whatsoever.
But that, of course, would require a measure of self control. Americans aren't into self control. They'd rather think that they can make stupid choices and then buy and use additional products which will negate the effects of their stupidity.
The trouble with a product like Alcohol Killer is that most of the people who buy it and drink it won't bother to read the fine print. They'll see it as a license to drink even more than they normally drink. Consequently, whatever positive effects the beverage might bring in terms of reduction of BAC will be more than offset by the fact that it will encourage people to drink to excess.
The manufacturers of Alcohol Killer seem to assume that people who drink only do it for the great taste of the booze. They seem to assume that such people don't really want to get drunk. There may be some cases in which that's true, but there are a lot of other cases in which it's demonstrably false.
Let's be honest. Some alcoholic beverages taste pleasant, but there are others which taste more or less like turpentine. People put up with the nasty taste (or gradually get used to it) only because they desire the buzz they can get by drinking the stuff. It's very similar to smoking in that respect.
Bartenders are sure to love Alcohol Killer. They can sell even more booze, and then deny responsibility for the tragic consequences of their sales transactions.
As the son of a man who was an alcoholic when he died in 1999, I have personally experienced the destructive effects of alcohol abuse. And I can say with unequivocal certainty that Alcohol Killer is not the answer to the problem. The answer, rather is to follow the advice offered by the Bible, in Ephesians 5:18:
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
3:16 Haiku
Haiku is a Japanese form of poetry which has been Westernized by Americans and others.
I read an article not long ago which defined "haiku" as any poem consisting of three lines with 5, 7 and 5 syllables respectively.
Reading the lengthy article on the subject at Wikipedia has subsequently made me aware that that definition is a bit simplistic. Nevertheless, it also seems apparent from the article that the definition of the haiku form of poetry has become blurry, in part because of intrinsic differences between English and Japanese cultures and languages.
Some American poets have indeed created poetry based primarily on the assumptions expressed in the first paragraph of this blog. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's "authentic" haiku, I thought I'd try my hand at writing some poems which met those parameters. I ended up writing ten poems of that type in all. Almost all of those poems had a Christian theme (which, in itself, would probably be deemed inauthentic by most Japanese people, since Buddhism is the predominant religion in that country).
Here's an "American haiku" poem which I created, based on John 3:16 from the Bible:
God so loved the world
that He gave His only Son
just to die for you.
Aside from the necessity of dropping the word "begotten" and adding the final line, the poem practically wrote itself.
I read an article not long ago which defined "haiku" as any poem consisting of three lines with 5, 7 and 5 syllables respectively.
Reading the lengthy article on the subject at Wikipedia has subsequently made me aware that that definition is a bit simplistic. Nevertheless, it also seems apparent from the article that the definition of the haiku form of poetry has become blurry, in part because of intrinsic differences between English and Japanese cultures and languages.
Some American poets have indeed created poetry based primarily on the assumptions expressed in the first paragraph of this blog. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's "authentic" haiku, I thought I'd try my hand at writing some poems which met those parameters. I ended up writing ten poems of that type in all. Almost all of those poems had a Christian theme (which, in itself, would probably be deemed inauthentic by most Japanese people, since Buddhism is the predominant religion in that country).
Here's an "American haiku" poem which I created, based on John 3:16 from the Bible:
God so loved the world
that He gave His only Son
just to die for you.
Aside from the necessity of dropping the word "begotten" and adding the final line, the poem practically wrote itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)