Category Archives: Musings

Of Katy Perry and Crude Punks

Katy Perry, beloved by millions of teenage and tweener girls for being a girl and by millions of teenage and slightly younger boys for having jumpstarted them into puberty, apologized a while ago on Twitter to one Chief Keef, a teenage rapper with a strong affection for marijuana and, based on his new single “I Hate Being Sober,” an even stronger affection for any available chemically-induced intoxicated state. For reference purposes I now give you the words to young master Keef’s contribution to pop culture, featuring guest appearances by fellow rappers 50 Cent and Wiz Khalifa (it should be needless to say extreme language and misogyny warning, but I’ll say it nonetheless):

[Hook: Chief Keef]
Damn I hate being sober, I’m a smoker
Fredo a drinker, Tadoe off molly water
We can’t spell sober
Ballout roll up, when we roll up bitches be on us
All the hoes they love smoking, and love drinking
Anti-sober, for no reason
Cause we can’t spell sober
Ya know us, we smoke strong bruh
Watch me roll up
Cause I can’t spell sober

[Verse 1: Chief Keef]
On my tour bus we get dumb high you’s a floor boy
Fredo got a hangover he toting a Cobra
Last night he was shooting shit up like O-Dog
Reesy rollin, Tadoe got hoes on mollies
Chief Sosa, Ballout, we high riding ‘Raris
My bitches love drinking, some love smoking
Let my alcoholic bitch hit the dutch, she start choking
Call up D-Money, now we throw money
All these bitches off the shits walk around like some zombies
Call up D-Money, now we throw money
All these bitches off the shits walk around like some zombies

[Hook]

[Verse 2: 50 Cent]
We got 100 pounds of this shit, my stash house with them bricks
My pockets filled with them stacks, my bitch be gone off a flat
She a hot tamale when she pop a molly, it’s time to party, we party hard
Drink and smoke it, drink and smoke it, drink and smoke it, we high for sure
I came in back of that Rolls, nigga I ain’t stuntin’ them hoes
I trick a bitch to suck dick
Trick, what you spend on her, we spend on clothes
Too young for me she want Sosa, shooters in the Range Rover
That’s GBE, when them two-two-threes get to flyin’ bitch its over
See my ring chain and my Rolex when I’m flexin’
Bitch I got to get mine, nigga get outta line, I check ‘em
See this gangsta’s shit done to perfection
Nigga better believe me, I make it look easy

[Hook]

[Verse 3: Wiz Khalifa]
My weed so strong, my cheese so long
Roll so many joints soon I might need a lung
Spend so many grands that I might need some bands
That’s your bitch why she acting like she need a man?
I’m faded, talking mills cause I made it
Talking pounds cause I smoke it
Talking game cause I played it
I’m wasted, Rose thats my favorite
OG kush, you can taste it
Buying Cris’ by the cases
I hate being sober
Dont smell no one smoking
Me and my niggas gon’ roll up
Believe they gon’ fire on you
You think you could roll up
You smoke by the ounce
Well bitch, I smoke by the pound ‘cause

[Hook]

Robert Frost, step aside. (And to think Tipper Gore used to complain about Twisted Sister. But I digress.)

Anyway, Ms. Perry happened upon the, uh, “song” in question and found it somewhat less than a positive culture changer:

Young master Keef, alas, took umbrage:

For whatever reason, this prompted Ms. Perry to… APOLOGIZE?!!

Which may well be true, but as an inducement for apologizing to someone threatening physical violence against you seems rather tepid.

Now, Ms. Perry’s parents, faithful Christians who have watched their daughter’s departure from her days as a Christian pop singer (yes, really) with more than a little dismay and whose fervent prayer is that she might being the lamentably presently unemployed Tim Tebow home as her boyfriend, are doubtless less than enthralled about a loudmouthed pothead insulting and then threatening their daughter. As any parents would be, I strongly suspect. I also strongly suspect that in addition to their daughter dating Mr. Tebow, Ms. Perry’s parents are also praying they’ll invite Chuck Norris to be their chaperone for the evening, said evening culminating with a visit to young master Keef’s residence so he might enthusiastically be shown the error of his ways.

And now, time to lay aside the snark.

It’s easy to forget that celebrities are human beings; that the women so many men lust after are indeed someone’s daughter and that they, like we, are but sinners for whom Christ died so they may live. Chances are extremely limited that anyone reading, not to mention the individual writing, these words will ever have genuine interaction with any of the people involved in this little matter. Also, I harbor no illusion that any of the people involved will read or so much as hear of these words. That said, none of it negates the fact that these are still people precious to God; people who need to either continue following Him, return to Him or discover Him in the first place.

We speak often of the need to change the culture, raising up artists to counter the Katy Perrys and Chief Keefs of this world. Which would be nice and is something we should wholeheartedly pursue. However, the Katy Perrys and Chief Keefs of this world are already there. I harbor no delusions about “oh, if only so-and-so would start following Jesus it would reach so many!” It’s easy to pray for celebrities because we don’t have to deal with the actual person involved. However, we should pray for these people. Not because of what they might do were they to emulate Christ. Rather, because they, like we, need Him. That’s more than a good enough reason. And, once someone has the life-changing moment of burying their face in the folds of Christ’s robe and feel the comfort of His nail-scarred hands holding them, you never know what will happen next.

Only that it will be good.

On Fighting the Madness

It is impossible to take a look at current events without believing that the world is rapidly spinning off its axis. The hideous insanity of today’s obscenity in London, where two subhumans hacked an innocent soldier to death in the name of their false prophet, should serve as a warning sign to all that madness has descended on the earth to a level seldom seen before in man’s sordid history. Here in our own land, the madness of a completely out of control, arrogant and contemptuous government spying on its own citizens, hassling innocents in the name of political correctness and generally acting like a pathetic schoolyard bully should also serve as a red flag to anyone who has taken the red pill. We live in insane times.

It is lamentable that in times like these, so many who should know better are consumed with trivial pursuits that mean nothing and bring nothing to the table save yet another round of self-aggrandizing, self-promoting vainglory. One side provokes the other, the other responds in like kind, the trolls on both sides of the bridge hurl their bile and all the while nothing is accomplished. It is a game played by both sides, one in which there are no winners except those who through it garner yet another round of shoe leather fellatio from their adoring followers. The goal ought to be never becoming what we profess to oppose. Indeed, this is being accomplished. Unfortunately, the accomplishment is being even worse than what we profess to oppose.

We have seen nature’s fury these past few days; something which ought to humble us all and bring into full perspective that which truly matters. Instead, after momentary tongue-clucking and self-promoting charity exercises it’s back to business as usual, with left and right berating each other while playing to an adoring crowd within their respective echo chambers. There is much talk about changing the culture, breaking out of the aforementioned echo chamber and not applying litmus tests to one another in order to determine who is and is not on our side. Why, then, is there such an overwhelming amount of playing to the crowd, reciting the same tired lines and doing nothing that genuinely reaches out to others with a message of anything except endless reruns of what everyone else is currently saying?

We wear Scripture tattoos on our arms, but do we bear the wounds of Christ on our bodies? Do we see the world in terms of right and wrong based on political preference and not as a collection of individuals who, like ourselves, are in desperate need of a loving Savior? Do we truly know that Jesus died for everyone? Do we even care?

Are we coming to grips with the reality of how Christ calls us not to a life of luxury and adoration, but rather sacrifice and service to all? Do we understand and put into action simple gestures such as actually helping one another in the menial tasks of life as well as what we perceive to be great and glorious? Many aspire to stand beneath a spire, preaching from the pulpit where they dispense pearls of wisdom, grace and truth to a mesmerized congregation. Very few are equally eager to clean the church restroom.

It is time to reevaluate thinking; to re-examine priorities and put into action the principles and goals we assign to conservatism. For those of us who believe, it is time to begin boldly proclaiming the Word of God along with analysis of political events, philosophies and personalities. It is time to put into action the principles of Christ’s love, reaching out to all with genuine compassion, care and concern regardless of whether doing so earns us brownie points in the eyes of others or advances our career. It is time to lift up and support those who are dedicating their lives to sharing the Good News without regard to whether this pads our resume or garners a greater following. It is not the separation of church and state we should vigorously oppose. Rather, it is the separation of church and statements we make through our lives, words and deeds when we preach politics but fail to preach the Prince of Peace and practice what He has instructed us to do. We eagerly recoil in public horror at the abomination that is Gosnell. Are we equally eager to publicly share the Gospel?

Confront evil with full force, yet with the unshakable belief that Christ’s power can overcome even the hardest hearts. We need to strive toward being a consistent witness, not fearfully hiding our faith and bringing it out for public consideration only when it seems to be the least offensive to others. By doing so, we not only make ourselves look hypocritical by being afraid of stating what we believe, but we also make God look like an utter weakling. A very dangerous path to pursue.

Jesus was a man of action when He walked this earth, zealously and directly opposing those who said one thing and hypocritically did another while reaching out with compassion to society’s misfits – the prostitutes, the tax collectors. He made a whip, turned over tables and drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. He physically put Himself between the woman caught in adultery and the crowd with rocks in their hands itching for the opportunity to stone her. We must do likewise.

Like Him, we must zealously oppose those who say they are with us but whose actions and words reveal them to be anything but. Yet at the same time, we should reach out with compassion and genuine love to those on the other side of the aisle no matter who on our side it may aggravate. We serve a mighty, or to be more accurate the Almighty, God. We should not get in the way of His flexing His muscle.

The world needs love, not another lecture. The world needs Jesus Christ, not jostling to curry favor with fanbois and gurrls. The world needs us refusing to make every battle a pitched personal as well as political conflict. The world needs our complete witness, both telling it about Jesus and living a life worthy of His sacrifice for us on the cross.

This is how we can fight the madness.

In Defense of Justin Bieber

So I wake up on this sunny Sunday, nursing a slight sunburn from the birthday party for my one year old great-grandniece her grandmother held in her backyard yesterday, to see the Twitter world is all atwitter over something Justin Bieber said. Seems the young Canadian lad and pop music teen idol visited the Anne Frank House yesterday, spending an hour or so there, then wrote in the guestbook how inspirational she was and that he hoped she would have been a “belieber.” For the uninitiated, “belieber” is the nickname Bieber’s great in number and even greater in fervor fan base of tween and teenage girls proudly wear.

From the right, the reaction has been a torrent of how abhorrent Bieber’s note was, or at least should be, to one and all. How dare he trivialize Anne Frank in this manner; what a maroon if not in fact dumber and more ego drenched than the lead singer of Maroon 5, etc etc etc and all the usual things you see on Twitchy when people grow outraged over the latest outrageous outrage.

Actually, the only people behaving outrageously are those professing outrage and/or leveling their snark attacks at Bieber over his comment. Shall we review?

Has it occurred to anyone that Bieber might have been expressing a wish that in a better world the toughest situation Anne Frank would have felt compelled to write about in her diary was choosing between the Justin Bieber and One Dimension of her day? That perhaps he meant no disrespect, nor was tripping over his own ego, by expressing a wish that Frank could have had a normal teenage life, not to mention life period, and that instead of his writing a note in the guestbook she’d be writing a check at the local record store to buy one of her granddaughters a Justin Bieber CD? That the face of the Holocaust could have instead been presently making a face at the silly antics of teenage girls going nuts over whoever’s picture is on this month’s Tiger Beat?

Some more facts, if you please. Bieber has 32.5 million Twitter followers. Thirty-two and a half million. Given the well-chronicled disaster that is public education, what are the odds that more than a handful of these kids have so much as heard of Anne Frank? If this non-incident gets copies of The Diary of Anne Frank in their hands, if this sparks interest in who she is and why their dreamboat visited her house, how can this be a bad thing?

Are we so accustomed to slamming celebrities every which way for everything and every slight that we are no longer capable of discerning when the issue is reasl or imagined? C’mon, people. Pick your battles.

No wonder we keep losing the cultural as well as the political war.

More Methodical Elements Assembly

Leave a reply

The methodical elements assembly continues with the redesigned Cephas Hour website. Previously it was a single page; now it has far more content with much more to come: artist bios, past show playlists and whatever else I can come up with.

Reaction thus far has been mixed; the design appeals to some and overpowers/turns off others. Ah well.

The work continues.

Radio, Radio

Leave a reply

 

It’s oft been noted here and elsewhere that we need to do far more than preach not political correctness but rather correct politics. We also need to actively influence culture. Be it the arts, sports, media, what have you: we need to be involved, not hiding behind castle walls passing notes out through arrowslits but actively out there; open, honest and uncompromising while simultaneously presenting top-notch work.

The Internet has been a tremendous tool in this. We have the option of streaming our own audio and/or making our own videos. Also, while there is still far too much emphasis on inside joke material there are at least a few attempts being made to reach out beyond the echo chamber cathedral’s parishioner list and engage people where they are. I have my own modest effort; others have theirs. All of these depend on the Internet remaining unfettered by restrictions on what material can and cannot be presented. This unfortunately brings into play the synchronized beauty and horror of the Internet: fortunately, everyone can get on it; unfortunately, so can anyone. The best you can do is either ignore the drek and its purveyors, or have great fun at their expense (language warning, but it’s such a terrific video it’s given a pass):

I mention this to set up the following. On the surface it may seem unrelated to anything; industry shop talk useful solely to industry people. However, this is not the case. The ripples of what may well come to pass will directly affect each of us.

Gene Savage, mastermind of BlackLight Radio where Cephas Hour resides, recently linked to a most interesting blog post from a broadcast radio professional in which he noted that at least two major automotive manufacturers are planning on shortly doing away with AM/FM radios in their cars. Why? Not enough people listen to them to warrant making them available. Satellite radio, yes; although financially Sirius/XM is barely hanging on well enough to keeping the doors open. An input jack for your iPod or other MP3 player, sure. Internet radio? Most definitely, as this incorporates both Internet-only stations such as BlackLight and the streaming services such as iHeart Radio, TuneIn Radio and others most every traditional radio station now employs to make its broadcast available everywhere. But standard over the airwaves radio? Gone.

This raises more than a few questions, assuming it comes to pass. Will the auto manufacturers charge a fee for Internet radio access? Will it be satellite-based or dependent on local cell service? Given the latter’s inherently fragile and ofttimes spotty nature, in case of emergency will there be a fallback system? If scanning through stations now is a distraction, what will it be like when a driver can access most every traditional and online station in the world? One can safely assume there will be voice command to narrow down the search by category and genre; hopefully when the search term used is “music that changes the culture” my show will be among those listed. But I digress.

Given that most every cell network out there is stretched beyond capacity, one can only imagine how overloaded they would be should thousands or tens of thousands of cars in a single area suddenly access them for streaming media. To avoid this, it goes to reason that some kind of satellite service will be made available. Satellite internet is already with us, but as run by current providers it is extremely high priced with severely limited data plans. A plan and platform similar to what satellite radio presently employs is the most likely scenario, run by either an existing business or one set up on behalf of, if not by, the auto manufacturers. It also stands to reason that the auto manufacturers would work with existing streaming channels such as the aforementioned iHeart or TunedIn to avoid unnecessary work recreating what already exists.

While on the surface this has no great impact on society, presuming access to local channels remains intact and free of charge or at the least inexpensive, it does bring up a deeper point. What if the presumption is incorrect? If radio becomes a primarily or exclusively Internet-based service, and access in a car is through a provider, will it truly remain free?

What concerns me is the potential cableization, to coin a word, of radio, both traditional and online. An example of cableization is how Comcast XFINITY has no problem letting subscribers watch ESPN directly on mobile devices using ESPN’s app. When it comes to FOX News, which offers the same service through its app? No dice, despite many other providers making it available. While many factors go into such deals, although it usually boils down to three primary factors all of which are commonly referred to as “money,” it is a signpost pointing the way to what can happen when service providers base decisions on neither economic reasons or public demand, but rather personal (i.e. political) preferences.

In the streaming app world this is already in place. Case in point: on our occasional jaunts through Southern California Mrs. Dude and I habitually listen to KNX in Los Angeles for its regular traffic updates. Let’s say we were dependent on an online service to pick up the broadcast. Let’s also say our car radio has only one streaming service as its source. Using the currently available stations list, should the app be TuneIn or Radio.com no problem. iHeart? Well, ain’t life a bust and have a great time cruising down I-5 as it’s doubtless speed limit all the way. No KNX for you! It is a quite manageable step from there to “well, let’s dump these stations because no one listens to them. Oh, wait – they’re all conservative talk? Coincidence. Pull the plug.” You also face the prospect of high rollers (i.e. traditional stations owned by corporations with capital) putting the friendly squeeze on providers to leave out independent voices, such as BlackLight.

Another concern is how, if at all, artists will be paid for their efforts when stations play their music. This gets messy and insider-ish in a hurry, so I’ll skip the details. Suffice it to say that when it comes to who is owed what and how it is paid out it is a mess, with different rules for traditional and streaming stations. Regardless of who plays what, artists usually wind up holding the short end of the stick. After they have been beaten over the head with it. I’m not seeing this improving as the line between traditional and online radio grows ever more blurred.

Much of the above is speculation, and certainly alternate courses may be taken. That said, there is the strong possibility some, most or all of the above will take place during the next few years. If true, it will become that much more difficult to mount a successful outreach. And that is no static.

Banquet At The World’s End

Leave a reply

John Donne was quite correct when he noted that no man is an island, although in addition to his dour framing of this truism there is also a positive interpretation. There are no truly solo artists in life. Each of us benefits from the works of others, who hopefully in turn benefit from our works. This is the Christian way; each of us fulfilling our part by carrying out our mission as all of us are joined together into one body of believers by Christ.

I note this to both set a background for my assorted electronic ink scribbles this time through and properly thank a couple of people without whom Cephas Hour would not exist. There are many people to thank, but these two deserve special praise. First, there is Gene Savage who owns and runs BlackLight Radio. Gene is kind enough to turn his baby over to me for a couple of hours each week, in the course of doing so stepping away from the station’s 1980s hits format as I play the music to close to my, and it should be noted his, heart. Also, there is Adel Meisenheimer who has taken on the herculean effort of making the massive catalog of Frontline Records, on which many of the artists I play were associated, available in proper form after years of first slapdash chopped-up re-release abuse and then neglect. Not content to stop there, Adel has also brought back music from artists across multiple labels, working out all the logistics and legalities that go into such an effort. She and Gene deserve massive accolades for doing the work to make beautiful things happen. Me? I’ve got it easy. All I have to do is once a week pick sixty minutes worth of awesome music from a bountiful supply. Piece of cake. They’re doing the work. They’re doing something.

What does it mean to do something?

It means there is an effort; an outreach beyond trotting out the same ol’ same ol’ for an existing fan base. Doing something isn’t performing for an already enraptured audience. It’s not the home team putting on a show during batting practice. It’s when, to quote one of the artists in my book, you’re shooting arrows over the horizon. Ofttimes unrewarding, at least in the immediate. You don’t know who you’re reaching or so much as if you are reaching anyone. But you do the work anyway, because it has been pressed on your heart that this is what you must do regardless of whether it is known to be paying off. Or, for that matter, whether it pays period.

Compare this with the looming silliness of a convention, allegedly designed to promote a singular political philosophy, that is actively barring people of like mind from participating due to that epidural condition commonly known as a near if not utterly terminal case of thin skin.  Or sub-gatherings at such a convention getting together to throw a party that boast loud and long of their numerous sponsors, yet leaving gentle and good people doing the very work supposedly supported by the aforementioned sub-gathering dependent on the charity of others to attend. Classy.

It’s easy and highly tempting to dismiss works that on the surface seem like futile efforts as failures. Others grab awards and headlines, while the apparently despite their dogged determination unsuccessful receive for their reward at best polite indifference and usually open scorn. Not quite the wished-for support if you are on the receiving end. Yet, those looked down upon press on regardless, for they know what they must do. Namely, that which they have been called to do.

Which is nothing less than planting the seeds of cultural revolution.

There is much talk these days within conservative new media of the need to have a bigger impact on a world seemingly consumed with a passion for unknowing self-destruction on many fronts: political, economic, societal. It is nice talk. Pretty words. Unfortunately it is also, as that noted societal commentator Johnny Rotten noted a few decades ago, pretty vacant. Why is this?

Simply put, it is the unwillingness to reach beyond the comfort zone and do something — anything — beyond what is already known to earn accolades, and if played properly cash rewards, from a self-satiated circle proclaiming it wants to change the world yet in deed refusing to perform anything apart from what feeds the other circle member’s individual and collective ego, expecting the same in return. We say we want to change the culture. Great. An endless recycling and promotion by, in and of the same organizations, the same shows, the same guests, the same conventions that didn’t stop the societal/cultural downward spiral before, and aren’t stopping it now, is somehow going to suddenly not only stem the tide but reverse its course? Really now. We are familiar with the repetitive action definition of insanity, correct? Perhaps it is time we stopped indulging ourselves in the aforementioned insanity by getting off of our happy selves and doing something other than preach to the chorale at the Echo Chamber Cathedral, in the course of this “action” firmly believing pinning notes on its bulletin board constitutes genuine and effective outreach.

It is not the high flyers within a bubble that soar. It is the people who, to repeat an earlier word picture, are shooting arrows over the horizon. They are the ones doing the work, not the mutual admiration society. Only when and only if those who honestly believe doing nothing but talking to those already on their side catch the vision and embrace those who strive to reaching others where they are will there be actual progress. Until then, they remain the self-nominated beautiful people sending excuses while those they look down on accept the invitation to the only party that truly matters. Namely, the banquet at the world’s end.

Somewhat gratuitous Dana Delany photo, but since the show's title is the same as this post why not.

Body of Proof

Leave a reply

It should embarrass the American traditional media industry when a liberal British newspaper does a far better job of covering domestic news than they can be bothered to muster. Yet, such is the case:

Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an “extraordinary circumstance” comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland,” Mr Holder said.

His statement was described as “more than frightening” by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration’s position on the subject.

Couple of thoughts, one specific and one overall. First, the specific observation. Early in its first term, the Obama administration was hellbent for leather to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he of Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Daniel Pearl murder infamy, to New York for a civilian trial in lieu of the military court in Guantanamo for which he had originally been slotted. Eventually it begrudgingly changed its mind and consigned Mohammed to a military tribunal at Guantanamo while administration officials blasted Congress for imposing roadblocks to their original plan. All in the name of fairness, due process and “see we’re not like them”-ism; never mind they guaranteed conviction and execution which seems somewhat contrary to the standard notion of what constitutes a fair trial (but I digress). The administration is now taking another shot at this with Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law. Meanwhile, it took a Rand Paul filibuster to get the administration’s written declaration that it did not have legal authority to summarily use drones to kill an American citizen not engaged in combat against America while they were on American soil. In another meanwhile, debate still rages as to whether the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2012, signed into law by President Obama, permits the government to hold an American citizen indefinitely without trial. The 2013 edition of the bill has not lessened the argument. A side note to this is that much of the disagreement centers on the bill’s ambiguous language concerning whether it permits the aforementioned infinite detention. The bill is 681 pages long. You’d think with the trillions of dollars Washington spends each year, someone there would use some of that money to hire one or two people who can write in clear English. Apparently it’s not a priority.

Now, the more general observation which is derived from the above.

It is a dangerous thing to either deify or demonize a politician. To believe that someone in office can either do no wrong or no right is a fool’s paradise. Even as each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses, every politician will do those things with which we agree and that which we cannot abide. If we close our eyes to this, we close them very tightly.

Going silent when a favored political figure goes against our philosophy and platform should be an embarrassment. Do we select our elected leaders on deeds or personality cult status? We are immediate in lambasting those we generally oppose for any transgression perceived or real. Do we treat our side with the same level of critical analysis?

Even as it is nonsensical to classify a politician as all right or all wrong it is equally, if not more, nonsensical to cast one out of the kingdom with whom we almost always agree because they did one or two things we did not like. An example is how Rand Paul was heralded for his filibuster by many who earlier had told him to hit the highway when he voted to approve Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense.

For far too many, ideological purity trumps all. It is very easy to be a keyboard warrior pounding out thunderous denouncements of anyone and everyone who fails the least little litmus test. Actually being the newsmaker, the one who makes the speeches, writes the bills and casts the votes, is an entirely different matter. They know things we will never know, things that explain actions otherwise inexplicable. Plus, they have their own philosophy, practices and policies. No politician is under any obligation to follow our every whim. We can always vote them out if they are too far out of line.

We need to view politics and politicians with a wide angle lens, not a microscope. We need to consider their entire body of work, not cherrypick random instances and hold them up to be a body of proof. We need to be honest about them even as we need to be honest about ourselves and to each other. They will do things we like and things we loathe. Throwing them out for the least little transgression, or turning a blind eye when a preferred officeholder does something that makes our skin crawl, does neither them nor us any favors.

See the whole picture, and respond accordingly.

To Choose Wisely

Leave a reply

If wisdom is the ability to discern between deliberate lies and uninformed non-truths, then higher wisdom possesses among other noble traits the ability to discern between what we perceive and/or believe to be true and what is genuine. The four most lethal words in the English language are not “I already know that,” fraught with peril as they may be. No, the four most lethal words in the English language are “I don’t believe it!” They declare our preference for clinging onto what we wish to be true, by this rejecting what evidence, logic and reason declare to be factual.

Rejecting truth in favor of what we believe to be, or wish to be, true follows much the same pattern as grief’s stages, or at least parts thereof. This is only fitting, given the often intense level of grief woven throughout the process. There is the initial shock of perceived/desired truth colliding with what is authentic truth, followed by denial of the authentic truth, anger against whoever has informed us of the truth and/or the truth’s originator(s), bargaining with ourselves that somehow we can transform the authentic truth into our perceived/desired truth, depression as we come to grips with the authentic truth, testing to see what we can do to better acclimate ourselves with the authentic truth, and finally acceptance of the authentic truth as we relegate our perceived/desired truth to the trash can of previously believed mythology.

Sometimes, though, people skip a stage or four.

A current case in point involves veteran investigative reporter Bob Woodward, of Woodward and Bernstein fame — look up Watergate in your 20th century US history books if the names don’t ring a bell — and a host of Washington online reporter/commentator types, all of far more recent vintage than Mr. Woodward. Now Mr. Woodward, being old school, is pure honey badger: tenacious, fearless and don’t care with a capital D. He pursues the story regardless of what it is, who is involved or its potential repercussions. It is the story that is sacrosanct. This trait alternately endears him to people and enrages the selfsame people depending on whether he’s goring the other side’s sacred cow or theirs during his current story’s unfolding.

A few days ago, Mr. Woodward wrote a story in which he reported the sequester originated with the Obama administration, not Congress. He subsequently reported being verbally harangued, with follow-up email doing much the same, by a White House staffer who, in Mr. Woodward’s words, “threatened” him. What is more, Mr. Woodward went on to say some less than complimentary things about the Obama administration’s policy decisions as related to the sequester.

At this point the diapers, in the presence of pundits and reporters who either were in diapers or the embryo stage when Mr. Woodward first started breaking world-changing stories, hit the fan. This led to conservative sites that previously held Mr. Woodward at arms length out of respectful fear suddenly embracing him, taking great delight in detailing who in the media said what against the veteran reporter:

It began with Politico itself, which downplayed the entire incident, even as it acknowledged that Woodward’s “play-by-play is basically spot on” with regard to reporting the sequestration. “White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward,” said official Obama buddies Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Allen and VandeHei merely suggested that the battle with Woodward was “a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.” They added, “Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him.” Poor Obama, having to deal with such issues.

Next, the White House went to its favorite outlet, Buzzfeed, and their favorite BenSmithing reporter, Ben Smith, to leak the source of the Woodward “regret” email. It’s clear why they did it – Smith spun the entire incident for the White House. After announcing that the email came from Gene Sperling, director of the White House Economic Council, he proceeded to pretend that the threat email wasn’t a threat email at all – actually, Woodward was making a rookie mistake by misinterpreting a kindly tip as a threat: “Officials often threaten reporters that they will ‘regret’ printing something that is untrue, but Woodward took the remark as a threat.” Nothing to see here. Move along. Just to clarify, Smith later added via Twitter, “Am I crazy to read ‘regret’ here as ‘regret being wrong’? This is something flacks yell at reporters a lot.”

That meme was picked up by the White House’s favorite palace guards, including Dave Weigel at Slate (he retweeted Smith, tweeted, “Theory: Woodward is trolling,” then added via retweet that the whole situation was “boring”); BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, who mockingly tweeted, “Every reporter who deals with flacks/campaign advisors/politicos/ on a daily basis finds that less than threatening”; Justin Green, who edits David Frum’s blog at The Daily Beast, tweeted, “I rarely rarely report, and I’ve had flacks say worse. Not that rare”; Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic tweeted, “As a reporter, I don’t think this was a threat”; Dylan Byers of Politico tweeted, “tweets, I’m no Woodward but broadcast/cable TV PR reps use that ‘regret’ tactic a lot”; Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo tweeted, “Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?” The messaging was universal from the leftist Obama-supporting media: Woodward hadn’t been threatened, and was an amateur or a crazy old coot to think he was being threatened. Matt Yglesias of Slate summed up the general Palace Guard Media take: “Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.”

Others took up the battle cry both for and against Mr. Woodward. One of the more astonishing negative pieces came from Ryu Spaeth at the Week, who as part of his complaint included this amazing bit of pretzel logic from that legendary even-keel non-partisan site Talking Points Memo:

But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered.

Uh, no. The entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to enact change that otherwise would never be enacted, be it preemptive to avoid the enforcement mechanism being triggered or by default, thus triggering the enforcement mechanism. Cognitive thinking seems to be in rather short supply at TPM (please pardon the redundancy).

These anger outbursts were not based on the journalism truism that declares if your mother says she loves you check it out. They were knee-jerk reactions at the perceived affront Mr. Woodward had perpetrated. Not only had he contradicted the meme by stating the sequester was created at Obama’s request, he had gone on to say the White House, specifically a member of the White House staff, had attempted to strong-arm him into silence on the matter and as a final blow criticized administration policy. That so many would immediately jump all over Mr. Woodward, a man whose legendary reporting brought down the Nixon administration, speaks volumes about their blind devotion to President Obama trumping any and all adherence to proper journalistic practices. First you investigate, then you corroborate and only then, should you have both of these elements in place, do you speak publicly. And always be truthful along with accurate.

This all duly noted, the lesson here is not strictly one of liberal rage against one of their own for failing to toe the party line. It also illustrates the danger of blind obedience to what one believes to be true, evidence to the contrary be cursed. Be it politics, or personalities (be they of another or ourselves), or a definition of God not in accordance with His Word it is on us to choose wisely by choosing truth no matter how it plays out. To do otherwise is destructive delusion. The truth remains the truth no matter how we choose to approach its unflappable content. The more we accept this, the more enlightened we become. No matter how painful it might be.

PS: Speaking of pretzel logic…

The Fading Fine Art of Storytelling

Leave a reply

I didn’t watch the Oscars Sunday night; not out of any great moral umbrage taken against a fascist liberal entertainment media but rather because I don’t go to the movies often and therefore have no particular interest in an awards show for same. That said, I was glad to see that Brave won best animated picture, as I quite liked the film. But I digress.

What I most enjoyed about Brave was that it told a story, one of parent/teenager (specifically mother/daughter) strife and taking responsibility for your own actions. The former is one to which I’m sure every parent can relate; the latter something that should be applied across all facets of life even if it does disqualify you from most political posts.

At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy — and the fact I used that term more than indicates I am indeed one — I’m finding the fine art of storytelling to be an increasingly rare commodity in this ADHD-laden energy drink-sodden world. Action a-plenty and blowing up the sky sky high with CGI we have coming out of our ears, even as it assaults eyes and ears with its frenetic breathlessness. This isn’t just movies, by the way; it permeates music, television and pretty much any other art form one cares to list. I read somewhere that to a child, or for that matter a teenager, a seeming eternity of waiting is anything taking three days or higher. Nowadays it’s more like three minutes.

This creates a challenge for anyone wishing to engage in influencing culture. The choice is to either attempt compressing the message, making it shorter and/or flashier, in hopes of keeping people’s attention or take your time telling your tale while knowing full well this risks driving away the short attention span crowd. In this society, the sheer number of voices vying for attention translates into fleeting chances for communication. You’d better be both good and ready when the opportunity presents itself.

That all said, what story are we telling?

Remember, you may get one shot and one shot only at reaching someone. This doesn’t require a response of making sure you preach your evangel 24/7, but it does strongly suggest dispensing with non-complimentary trifles. We don’t have the luxury of talking one way and walking another. We can’t preach respect for women and then try to drive up our blog traffic with girlie pics. We can’t talk unity and then tear each other to pieces. We can’t proclaim citizen journalism is the coming wave and then promote or participate in exclusionary, caste system activities. Well, actually we can do any or all of these things, but if we do so we shouldn’t be surprised when what we are attempting to broadcast falls on deaf ears.

It’s not only what story we tell that matters. It’s how we tell the story. Consistency is key. What is our backdrop? Regardless of whether it’s politics or art or relationships, staying within your life philosophy framework is vital. No one believes the continuously drunk thieving adulterer when he or she preaches the necessity of living a repentant life. Why should they? Their life proclaims their words to be hollow. Live straight. Walk straight. People may not agree with you, but they will respect you.

Don’t play to the crowd. It’s easy to throw red meat in hopes of getting a better seat at the echo chamber banquet. Offering detailed or subtle or non-overt anything, not so much. Yet it is the latter than stands the best chance of being received by pop culture burnouts looking for something — anything — that contains intellectual and/or spiritual nourishment.

Yes, storytelling is difficult. It is not going to immediately grab attention. The impatient will not linger. Yet when told well, and told with honesty and integrity, you’d be surprised how many will suddenly have ears to hear and eyes to see.

PS: Speaking of three minutes…