Category Archives: Political Bloggers

On Changing the Culture

There is something called BlogCon presently taking place in Dallas. It’s a mix of seminars, lectures and, should it follow the pattern of most every conservative new media conclave, drunken karaoke.

It’s a bit of an oddity that the event is co-sponsored by the Blaze, otherwise know as Glenn Beck’s media creation. Several times in the past Beck has been pilloried in CNM circles for wholesale lifting of material from conservative blogs with neither credit to, nor mention of, its originator. Apparently all is forgiven and “I am Breitbart” is forgotten, since everyone who is someone is reportedly at BlogCon. It’s pretty much needless to say I’m not, but I’ll say it anyway.

One of the overriding mantras of BlogCon, based on its itinerary, is how CNM must reach outside the echo chamber and pursue/promote changing the culture. This is an especially crucial message to deliver at this time, and what better place to proclaim this than at a gathering of echo chamber kings and queens? This guarantees much discussion and emphasis within the echo chamber of the idea that CNM must indeed reach out beyond the echo chamber, said discussion being spurred by leaders of the echo chamber who to date have done such a magnificent job of spreading their message outside the echo chamber no one outside the echo chamber knows they exist. Imagine how much worse off we would all be if they were not scoring such monumental successes unfettered by any limitations of speaking solely to the echo chamber! Why, instead of no one outside the echo chamber knowing they exist it would be absolutely no one outside the echo chamber knowing they exist! Certainly can’t have that, now can we.

Sarcasm aside, there is a deep flaw in the “change the culture” philosophy presently being espoused in CNM circles. What we are hearing from people who have made no genuine inroads themselves into the popular mentality is that we need to identify and support conservative artists, pundits and teachers to counterbalance the liberal stranglehold on entertainment, news and education. Certainly this is a noble ideal, one with much merit. However, it overlooks a key element. Part of this is how the preachers of this culture change gospel have with their own actions not moved the needle one iota even as they tell others how it ought to be done. This duly noted, the main error is their forgetting fundamental truths: without love there is nothing, and without Christ there is no genuine change in the human heart.

Breaking this down, as long as CNM individually view themselves, and collectively views itself, as the superior to mainstream media and liberals (pardon the redundancy) it will never make so much as a dent in either MSM or pop culture’s armor. The genuinely humble artist, pundit or teacher lets their work do the talking. They do not boast; they self-promote with polite confidence in the quality of what they have to present. Their mission is not “look at me,” but rather “consider this.” The problem with being someone whose primary message consists of “look at me” is that at some point in time someone will look and see the one demanding attention not as they wish to be seen, nor as they see him or herself, but rather as they actually are. Which is not always a pretty picture.

The second part of this comes straight from Jesus: “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Far too often the comment is made that discussing faith and discussing politics must be separated out for fear of alienating those one is attempting to engage with the latter by talking about the former. Really? If faith calls into play the same logic and reason used to formulate political opinions; that is to say, if faith is something other than an emotional rush but engages the mind as well as heart and soul, why shy away from it? Is not the Prince of Peace more important than politics? Is a single soul not so valuable to God that Jesus came to this earth to suffer and die so that one individual soul might have eternal life with Him? Remember, that single soul is you. And me. And everyone else. If faith is interwoven throughout your life as it ought to be for a believer. even as political philosophy is interwoven throughout your thought process, it should be as much a part of your daily discourse as talking about the latest developments in Washington.

This also applies to what we promote. A personal example. On a very good and quite popular Internet radio station for which the format is 1980s pop music, I have a show on which twice every Sunday I play terrific music; the best of Christian rock and pop from the 1980s with an occasional nod to the 1970s and 1990s as well. This isn’t saccharine schmaltz. It’s real, honest music that was great then and is great now. The show’s purpose is among other things an outreach to those who once knew the joy of life in Christ back in the day when this music was on their turntables and in their cassette decks, but have since seen that joy stripped away by life’s burdens. It is a reminder that Jesus is still there, He still loves them and He is more than willing and able to rekindle their dormant joy. It is changing the culture through the most effective method available: changing people by reviving heart, mind and soul. It also opens a channel through which political discussion can be initiated by talking about the cornerstone of conservative thought, namely the active application of Scripture and Christ’s teachings in everyday life. If this is not the foundation of our politics, then our beliefs have no foundation.

Certainly it is bothersome when I mention the show to CNM people as a possibility for promotion only to be either ignored altogether or told, be it directly or indirectly, there is no interest as it is not a political broadcast; yet these same people are presently gathered at BlogCon shouting to the skies how we must change the culture. Here is a golden opportunity to do so, and it is being dismissed out of hand. However, railing against this either collectively or individually will effect no change in the situation. Waste time, energy and unnecessarily incur hard feelings, yes. Accomplish anything worth accomplishing, not in the least. Therefore, not going there.

What I will say is this. People in CNM say within the echo chamber of their own creation they want to change the culture by reaching outside of the echo chamber. Fine, well and good. However, as long as CNM remains a self-satiated movement unwilling to move past all politics all the time, and as long as it actively excludes those whose cultural outreach is not strictly political in nature, all of its fine words about culture change are so much shouting into the wind heard by no one save those doing the shouting.

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.

The Fine Art Of Criticism As Demonstrated By How(e) Not To Do It

Leave a reply

Back in the dawn of antiquity, when I was an active journalist covering Christian music, I regularly attended the industry’s yearly convention in Nashville. This was at a time when the debate over whether rock and roll was a acceptable medium for Christian music was still a hot button issue. One of the major Christian labels had just put out its first hard rock record, and was fiercely promoting the band. I ran into one of the band members, at a non-industry supervised moment, and he asked me what I honestly thought of their debut. I told him. In my opinion, the music was far too produced and processed to be a legitimate counterpoint to its secular namesake. At that particular time, Guns ‘n Roses was riding high before its appetite for self-destruction took full hold. I mentioned them not as someone to necessarily emulate musically, but rather pointing out the raw energy in their music. In the Christian band’s case, any energy the music might have had had been squeezed out in production, making it too smooth to be what it was trying to be. He politely said thank you. I was told later by other journalists that he commented how much he appreciated I had been the only person to directly speak to him about the band’s music, rather than hiding behind a review or talking about the band behind their back. As a side note, the band’s second record, which if I remember correctly was more commercially successful than the first, was far more raw and energetic.

I mention this in light of the brewing brouhaha between Ben Howe and John Nolte over Howe’s review of a film and music video produced by a tea party group. Howe lambasted the film and video (which as it turns out was a two-minute clip with no plans for being extended into a feature), to which Nolte responded by lambasting Howe over destructive rather than constructive criticism plus writing his review for a left-leaning website. This has had the usual repercussions on social media, namely everybody choose your partner and let’s go square dancing at today’s Battle of Butthurt Hoedown with complimentary refreshments provided by the fine folk at Candyass Cafe.

Being familiar with the entertainment critic realm, given that I used to be in it as both participant and one who rubbed shoulders with others in the same club, a few thoughts born from experience come to mind. The first is that with very few exceptions, critics are frustrated artists. Some accept this fact gracefully, treating fellow albeit more successful artists with affectionate familiarity and encouraging words. Others are steeped in bitterness over their lot in life, brooding over the fundamental unfairness of it all. I should be the one on that record, or stage, or in front of or behind that camera. For these folk, being a critic is not about providing objective analysis of artistic work. It’s a chance for revenge against the guilty by association.

Tied into the latter is the odd phenomenon of critics seeking to co-opt artist’s fame by becoming famous themselves for their invariably caustic criticism. Being noticed by being notorious is a path many have taken over the years, although given how social media has diluted the power traditional media critics once held this is no longer as effective as in days past when a critic could make or break an artist, movie or play.

Taking this from general to specific, while a critic’s obligation is to review with fairness and honesty, letting the chips fall where they may, when dealing within a realm not viewed favorably by the world in general it becomes ever more important for a critic to not only measure their words carefully but also be a direct advocate for raising the performance standard by approaching artists privately to offer thoughts and suggestions on how improvement can be achieved. Two prime examples are Christian music and conservative politics. No one involved in either of these fields need be told they are not in the running for any worldwide popularity prizes. They know the world hates them and is looking for any excuse to tear their work, and them, apart. In this light, it should be even clearer how imperative it is for the knowledgeable critic to respond when something less than stellar comes their way not with snark or smug condescension but rather by going to the artist with a simple message: look, this is not good enough, here is how you can improve. Both the artist, and the cause, will benefit. Provided the artist isn’t so in love with his or herself that all advice is immediately dismissed out of hand, of course. But that is hardly the critic’s fault.

To summarize, there was an opportunity here to work together in the pursuit of excellence. Instead, what we have is what we all too often have: ego, butthurt and nothing positive gained from any of the going-ons. Once again we have someone playing Wile E. Coyote to the hilt as they run around proclaiming themselves, by looking down on others, as a super genius, never noticing they are equally as effective as their idol.

Ali Akbar – Man Of CONVICTION!!!

Leave a reply

And we’re not even referring to his past felonies. From US News & World Report:

Akbar then linked to a story about Donehue, which noted that before he began working for Sanford, Donehue had publicly called the former South Carolina governor a “piece of human [sh#t].”

The back-and-forth didn’t go much further before a moderator stepped in and told the two to take their name calling elsewhere.

Really, Ali? You, linking to a story about someone working for a campaign who previously derided the candidate in question?

How quickly we forget…

Here are the quick ramblings and tatlings of a Newt endorser and the leading NotMittRomney voice: me.

And of course, Ali, your notmittromney.com site which started with such sound and fury in November 2011 — complete with a page on which to make donations — mysteriously transformed itself into a redirect to Romney’s campaign site sometime in-between May 12th and May 27th of last year. Right, Ali!

A man of conviction you are, Akbar.

Snakes (And How Smitty Isn’t One)

Leave a reply

Smitty, who blogs at The Other McCain, was kind enough to share his thoughts here about one of my recent posts. Much appreciated. A few observations in regard to his comments:

It’s worth noting that I’m not about evangelization. It’s not my calling. I’m about edification and exhorting people to return to the faith.

I’ve done loss leader activities before when it was something needing to be done. I will never, as in never, come even halfway close to recouping the money I spent putting together my book. I didn’t mind in the least. How could I? I was repaying a debt to these artists I could never repay. Namely, bringing me back to God. The very least I could do was what I could do to encourage others to also return home.

That said, I didn’t spend what I didn’t have, and I’m not about to start now. I’m neither prepared nor willing to solicit donations for such an endeavor as staging a concert during CPAC 2014. Maybe I’ll change my mind between now and then; I don’t know.

Also, let’s face it. If someone has the choice between writing a check to bring the Lost Dogs or Phil Keaggy to town, or writing the same check to facilitate shmoozing between a bunch of bloggers (never mind their effective reach beyond the echo chamber is negligible at best) and politicos, it’s not cynicism to suggest that going for the immediate effect of perceived political action will trump effecting the cultural change so many bleat they want yet never seem to actually do anything to put into place. Every time.

Back in the day, I attended several Gospel Music Association conventions in Nashville. To a one they were filled with fresh-faced artists, radio people, concert promoters, bookstore owners and so on. These people were to a one in love with the Lord and on fire to serve Him through the music in whatever area they worked. They were ready and willing to do whatever it took to change the world.

They never did.

Why?

It wasn’t their fault. Sure, there were errors of enthusiasm: overestimating abilities, failure to learn business dynamics. However, these people were not even close to being the primary reason for not achieving their goals. They were thwarted by industry leadership unwilling to support the ministries they claimed to have at heart as instead it lavished attention and resources on what was safe, and what paid the most within the Christian cultural castle echo chamber. They were equally held back from reaching their goals by an industry with significant corruption at the highest levels, be it financial, moral or both.

Sound familiar? It should. Substitute CPAC for GMA and you have the exact same scenario. The only difference is that now people claim to follow Ronald Reagan rather than Jesus Christ.

I noticed Smitty didn’t address my comments about NBC. Any possible gain it might offer by facilitating contact between bloggers and politicians is ancillary to its main objective: making Ali Akbar a Beltway player. Never mind that NBC has abandoned its original objective; never mind its lack of financial transparency or its primary fundraising technique consisting of poking the hornets nest and then crying because its residents emerged in an ill humor. Never mind how Akbar has left behind a trail of underhanded dealings, broken promises and questions that regardless of who asks what are immediately labeled a nefarious plot, or unwitting participation in one, by his enablers *coughstacymccaincough*. Does enabling Joe or Jane Blogger to get a photo op with Ted Cruz make all of this all right?

We saw this year with the thin-skinned act by the ACU of excluding GOProud, then Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, from the CPAC program because of criticism, its corruption. We know Akbar’s corruption. This isn’t about them. It is about any organization. A corrupt head weakens, renders ineffective and ultimately lays to waste the entire body no matter how many of its other parts are doing the right thing for the right reason.

You can’t dance with the devil in order to sing for the savior. Stay away from snakes.

PS: Video’s not so hot, but the song is great:

Do Something? Okay

3 Replies

I noted Smitty’s rebuke on The Other McCain today to my none too gentle post here yesterday labeling CPAC in general and BlogBash in particular as lamentable money wasting, serving no purpose save that of egostroking. Smitty is a good man and a good blogger, but I fear in this case he is somewhat off target. To wit:

Noting Jerry Wilson’s disdain for BlogBash, “An event such as BlogBash could prove valuable if it led to greater networking, encouragement and support for all bloggers, not solely those in attendance,” I don’t think Jerry is fully briefed on the goals of The National Blogger’s Club, which really aren’t bad at all.

Actually, I am fully briefed on the NBC’s goals. To quote: “The National Bloggers Club will work to give educate, provide access, and further equip citizen-journalists without robbing them of their independence for those who advocate for economic and individual freedom.” The club’s original goal was to provide independent bloggers with accreditation that could be used to be accepted as legitimate media when covering news events. A very good idea.

The problem is the NBC has not only never delivered on this promise, it has abandoned its founding principle in favor of fundraising for whoever is crying victim and, well, throwing parties. Hey, parties are great fun when you’re invited — I’m not — and offering financial assistance to bloggers who have incurred the wrath of evildoers is a noble cause, never mind how doing so while naming names of the aforementioned evildoers does nothing but urge them forward. But to date there has been nothing done about making the NBC’s original purpose come to fruition. There was a promised website to register NBC membership cards. It has never happened. There is no form with which to apply for membership, no posted rules, no list of members or requirement for membership, and as others have discovered no one responsible for providing media credentials knows the NBC exists, let alone recognizes it as something worth considering when deciding who gets what access where. So yes, I do know the NBC’s goals. Apparently far better than the NBC.

I had gone to the President’s Dinner with Allen West, and then popped in to Blog Bash for about an hour with Da Tech Guy. Then it was time to get home, as  (a) really loud music and (b) heavy partying (I drank an O’Doul’s) are done for me in that time. I did catch the awards portion. It was jolly good and quick.

An even more strident criticism, of CPAC in general, is from Richard Mgrdechian:

I have one simple question for the organizers (and the profiteers) of this political farce: how does anything being done at this event help promote American values of hard work, integrity and gratitude in any way? The answer is, it doesn’t. There is no take away whatsoever.

Two points, gents:

Failure doesn’t age well. Forty years of steady growth in CPAC attendance belie the notion that it is a ‘farce.’ BlogBash/The National Bloggers Club is an order of magnitude younger, but it’s still a growing concern, as noted by the increasing harassment received.

The Democratic party has been around a couple of centuries, but that doesn’t make it any less of a farce, Smitty. Snark aside, longevity does not automatically impart legitimacy. No enterprise is judged on last year’s batting average. And harassment because people can’t stop playing the victim long enough to stop donating their own blood to recognition vampires isn’t true harassment. It’s stupidity.

People don’t scale. With growth and success come the critics. And I’ll point you to the Man in the Arena speech and suggest that, in a capitalist society, competition is the ultimate rebuttal. That is, I’m not sure any of the proffered criticisms don’t apply to many large gatherings of people, but I’d sure like to see a rounder wheel if you can spin one.

Ah, the old “if you don’t like it do it better yourself” approach. More on this later.

Ronald Reagan’s mug dominates the wall behind the main CPAC stage, not that hero-worship excites me. What does excite me is having a concentrated place for the ideas that Reagan embraced and promoted, in that one eight year pause amidst our Progressive decline, to get transmitted from the establishment fogies decried by Wilson and Mgrdechian, to the college generation.

We need CPAC for that? Really?

Is CPAC enough? Let’s call it necessary, but not sufficient. The ditch on the other side of the road is say “They should just let CPAC die because they haven’t done enough to fix. . .” which forms a non-falsifiable, moving goal line. The more criticism heads that way, the less constructive it is.

The notion that criticism is counterproductive is ludicrous. It does nothing to address the issues raised, instead attempting to sweep it all under the rug. CPAC is pay to play, to borrow a music industry term. BlogBash is a circle jerk. And this is advancing conservatism?

I like going to CPAC and trying to make the speeches a little more accessible than just a 20 minute shot of YouTube. I guess that’s my criticism of it. The bandwidth at National Harbor is also wretched, though, I guess if I was sponsoring the event I may have better joy. That many people at once is always just a drain for me.

Here’s the deal. We say we’re a family. We say we’re all together. We say everyone great and small matters and is important for the cause. So where does the inclusiveness come into play? When does it start? Did anyone do a conference call or video conference with those not in attendance? No. Unless you count an Ustream of BlogBash as inclusiveness, which would be an interesting interpretation of the word to say the least.

Did anyone at CPAC call or write anyone not there saying wish you were here? I’m sure someone did; I never heard from anyone. Did anyone at CPAC stop to actually make so much as a jab, let alone stab, at getting people not in the room involved? You say you rubbed shoulders with Allen West and Rand Paul. Great. Very good. Nice. I’m happy for you. Did you put anyone on the phone with them? Did you pass along the contact information for anyone not there at the time who has skills that they could use? Do you genuinely give a flying freak about anyone other than your immediate crew and anything other than your next photo op? Evidence, please.

As a suggestion, guys, why not organize a Christian music concert nearby, for one of the CPAC evenings? National Harbor is crawling with dogs & cats, goldfish & clownfish from all over. CPAC has gathered a great audience for you. You could leverage that for a jolly good, edifying outing of your own. Just sayin’.

Okay, time to address the “if you don’t like how it’s done you do it” bit.

Let’s say I decided to put on a concert nearby. Let’s further say I collaborated with Mgrdechian to make it a double bill with Madison Rising and someone from my corner of the music world. Now, since this isn’t a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movie, the option of staging it at any given individual’s uncle’s barn is off the table. This means renting a venue for the evening, which means things like insurance, employee salaries for venue workers and security, and the like.

Next, you have to supply certain pieces of equipment to have a concert: PA, lights, possibly instruments such as drum sets and amplification if the artist can’t bring his or her own. You’ll need to rent this equipment plus pay a crew to set them up before the concert and take them down afterwards.

Now, let’s provide the artists who will play the concert. We already have Madison Rising booked for this hypothetical show, so it’s up to me to find someone of my preferred genre who is available to perform that evening. I’m now on the hook for their concert fee, plus in almost all cases transportation cost, meals, lodging and all that. And also Madison Rising’s.

Now, if you want anyone to come you can’t charge admission. The house keeps all revenues from food and beverage sales, which will be minimal since as a rule Christians don’t drink much. (And are terrible tippers to boot. But I digress.) The bands keep their merchandise sale revenue. And, since by the time you’re done counting the cost you are looking at five figures easy — like I have that kind of money, answer being nowhere near it — you’re looking at a not inconsiderable sum that cannot be recouped. All to say, “There. I did something.” Know anyone willing and able to cut a check and cover all that? Me neither.

Well, I do in fact do something. Hardly with the flash of a CPAC, but it is there every Sunday at 11 AM and 11 PM Eastern. And you don’t have to go anywhere or be part of the in crowd to participate. Plus, it’s free for everyone who wants to join in. Best I can do right now.

Which is far more than can be said for CPAC and BlogBash.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to The Pirates Cove for the link.

“… take the blows that come our way”

2 Replies

I spent yesterday evening putting together next Sunday’s Cephas Hour. It’s a good one; wide variety of music without illogical genre shifts, superb songs from start to finish. The host could use some work, but he knows that. All too well.

Although I was primarily focusing on song selection, making the segues from one to the next smooth and then choosing my words for the banter in-between sets, my mind did occasionally wander across the country to a piano bar where BlogBash was being held. For the uninitiated (count your blessings), BlogBash is a now annual subgathering during the annual CPAC gathering of conservatives, said subgathering consisting of a self-selected few conservative bloggers who gather together to party, give each other awards and send innumerable tweets and photos of each other, far more often than not in various stages of inebriation. Not my idea of a good time, but to each their own. As to CPAC itself, Madison Rising’s manager sums it up quite nicely.

There are invariably people attending such events I’d like to meet in real life. That said, such a gathering is hardly my definition of a quality meeting place. I prefer small groups, no more than three or four including myself, where everyone spends actual time talking with and getting to know each other. And everyone in attendance is sober. Most preferable is one on one, and not the schmoozing kind where you’re greeting whoever you are currently speaking with while simultaneously bobbing up and down to look over their shoulder so you can see if there is someone else in the room with whom you’d rather converse. Genuine one on one, with both people sharing, caring and making a meaningful connection having nothing to do with mutual career advancement.

It warrants mention that I am far, far more likely to be the next cover story for GQ than be granted admittance to a BlogBash or variation thereof. Doubtless this is all my fault, and if I were the organizers of such events I wouldn’t let me near the place either. Too outspoken; too willing to cross swords and otherwise be an irreverent loose cannon. Also, a champion go along to get along type with charter membership in the mutual admiration society I am not. I truly suck at sucking up. Much more the type who has burned, if not outright dynamited, several bridges behind me over the decades.

Age hopefully brings wisdom. I do my best to be far more circumspect these days, trading a tradition of truculence for a more taciturn approach. Getting far too old for the angry young man shtick, which is nothing more than self-righteousness pretending to be a holy crusade. However, when it presses on me that something need be said, it is said. I may be more particular these days when choosing which hill to die on, but when it is called for my action plan and attitude toward same mirrors that of Esther: if I perish, I perish. The truth, in all its forms, is what matters. Me, not so much.

So many things are of infinitely greater importance than handheld mirror-rooted love feasts or Twitterati internecine warfare. A brutal reminder of this came a few days ago, when a woman I know on Twitter suffered the unspeakable horror of her daughter being killed in a car accident, the daughter leaving behind a young son. I, as do all in the unfortunate fellowship, know from personal experience the heartache of burying your parents and a sibling. Yet even as deeply as these moments hurt, they are expected events. Every child knows and reluctantly accepts that one day they will say goodbye on this earth to their parents. No parent, save in their worst nightmare, contemplates having to say goodbye to their child. For this blinding pain there can be no preparation. For those hit by such a tragedy there must be nothing but love and prayerful support.

Praying properly for others requires proper preparation. I am reminded of Pope Francis I and his introduction to the world; a quiet, humble man of faith and service whose first words to the people were a request for prayer. This is someone to emulate; this is someone setting an example via deeds and not words. This is also someone who incurred harsh criticism for remaining seemingly mute when Argentina was suffering under a repressive regime, it being revealed only years later that he had personally saved more than a few lives from his country’s then government at no small risk to his own. Again, deeds not words. Performance, not PR. Not a man who toots his own horn.

Far too often, an individual or group’s deeds are rendered impotent by the selfsame individual or group’s words. A prime example of this is when combating someone, or an alliance, that is both desirous to do harm in some fashion and feeds on attention. Certainly one must do what need be done to protect him or herself plus family and friends. That said, if the temptation of seeking sympathy by broadcasting your situation to the world is too great to resist you are immediately removing yourself from doing what is right, instead depositing yourself into a game of liar’s dice for a prize of fool’s gold. Recognition vampires will do anything necessary to get their name out there. Do not offer them your neck to bite by sticking it out while looking for your own recognition. Do these things privately. Do not so much as publicly breathe the name or names of the opposition. Do not acknowledge its existence. Quietly pursue justice. Any other course of action will make it that much more difficult to achieve.

Sadly, even as there are those who live to be noticed others live to be part of the Perpetual Sissyhood of Daily Martyrdom. Why? Some enjoy the sympathy, others how this makes for a marvelous fundraiser. For some, both. Bank account running low? Poke the hornets nest, call forth the cash cow… er, bogeyman and cue up “Poor, Poor Pitiful Me.” Works every time. Regrettably, to this group BlogBash was dedicated along with running the show.

An event such as BlogBash could prove valuable if it led to greater networking, encouragement and support for all bloggers, not solely those in attendance. This is not the case. Instead, BlogBash is Purina Ego Chow for petty little people on either side of the battlefield. The pathetic left uses it as a whipping boy for all they say is wrong with the right, while the self-absorbed right uses it as a way to say who’s in and who’s out among a little co-ed frat house blissfully ignorant of how no one outside its own circle knows it exists. Everyone is a misunderstood champion; everyone is a heroic victim of the other side. And everyone is shocked to learn none of it matters.

They ought not to be.

So much of life is lived only when we take the blows that come our way without alibi or fanfare. We will all experience genuine sorrow, the kind that can be effectively handled by no means other than becoming acquainted with the Man of Sorrows, the One acquainted with grief. We do not need sponsors, donations or high school cliques created by equally high school-ish drama queens. These are meaningless and will depart as quickly as they came, leaving behind no legacy other than a monument to folly. Even as only starving the attention seekers while working without notice to thwart their plans effectively counters their evil, only surrender to Jesus’ love and emulation of His service to others builds an enduring testimony to something worthwhile. BlogBash doesn’t qualify.

Therefore, let BlogBash go bye-bye.

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.

Everywhere I Go

1 Reply

It’s an odd world in which we live these days, one in which actions speak volumes while volumes are being spoken that collectively, to paraphrase Shakespeare, are a tale spoken by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Fans of Cephas Hour are rejoicing that the Call, with the late and deeply lamented Michael Been’s son Robert Levon Been taking his place, are playing a handful of shows next month. Not quite the worldwide headlines that accompany every time Jason Bonham fills in for his late father at a Led Zeppelin show, but significant nonetheless. The younger Been is a talented artist; his powerhouse rock combo Black Rebel Motorcycle Club has a strong and steady following. With BRMC’s new record coming out in a couple of weeks it is doubtful Been’s collaboration with his father’s bandmates will be extended much past the two presently scheduled dates; his band starts its tour promoting its new record the following week. Still, for those of us fortunate enough to be able to attend one of the two shows, it will be a welcome respite from today’s dreary music scene.

As mentioned before there is a family vibe among fans of classic Christian alt rock. We cherish the music, the artists and each other as together we celebrate not just what was, but what is and what will be. When you know the present moment is not all there is and you know the past is a signpost pointing toward a shared future of life and love in which all the suffering of this life will be washed away, you see things differently. The trivial fades before the triumph of the cross and the empty grave.

It’s not that nothing else matters. An awareness of Christ clarifies world vision. It adds impetus toward taking action and speaking out on issues of the day, mindful of how they impact lives far beyond the surface. Even as faith permeates all aspects of a believer’s life, Jesus is present in all aspects of life period, be it as creator, healer, savior or admonisher that we should never abuse His creation through sin. And all are His creation, despite the efforts of many to behave in a manner anything but reflective of this truth.

One of the, if not the, most offensive of all offenses against Christ is when an individual portrays himself or herself as His humble servant when his or her actions state loudly this is not the case. The person who lambastes others for their misdeeds while either deliberately downplaying (translation: lying about) their own or denying them altogether, declaring he or she to be a purveyor of good while doing harm to the very cause and/or people allegedly being supported, must be called out and called to account. Life is both short and precious. There is no time for the trivial pursuing vainglorious nonsense.

In this light, recent activities by assorted and in some cases sordid-behaving conservative new media members warrant mention. I would much rather talk about the things of Christ. However, these people claim to both know Him and uplift Him even as their actions dishonor Him. To state this is not judging others. It is a matter of declaring the truth. Which, as I recall, was what Jesus did regardless of who took it in what fashion. Jesus is an extraordinarily equal opportunity individual. He smacks everyone, every single one of us, across the face with the truth.

A couple of days ago it came to light that Joshua Trevino, who’s done assorted writing for and performed various job services for conservative publications and politicians, was part of a contingent that over a recent three year period received close to $400,000 from the Malaysian government. In return, Trevino wrote, as well as placed from others, posts plus columns and articles in several publications promoting said government’s policies, especially its campaign against one Anwar Ibrahim (proper name Anwar). Anwar is a flawed individual to say the least, feet firmly planted on both sides of the fence over issues such as Israel versus Palestine. Generally, however, he is viewed as a pro-liberty, anti-corruption politician. He also supports to a degree gay rights, thus ensuring he is most unlikely to receive a speaking invitation to CPAC anytime soon. But I digress.

Trevino and his current employer Chuck Devore, for whom Trevino served as communications manager during his failed campaign to win the California GOP nomination to face Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat in 2010, have both dismissed the matter as no big deal and common practice stuff. This assertion unravels when considering that Trevino failed to make mention of this deal until now and had in the past vehemently denied its existence. I’m no legal expert, but I believe this falls into the category commonly referred to as “lying.”

Okay, so we’ve established Trevino is dishonest money-grubbing scum. No other description for a paid shill insisting he or she isn’t one comes to mind. However, the reaction by others to Trevino’s now-disclosed activities would be laughable if they were not deeply lamentable as they go off on him for his actions while in their next breath talking up events such as CPAC and BlogBash.

Circle back to earlier and the discussion about the Christian classic alt rock family. It has been preached loud and long that conservative new media is a family, or at least ought to be; an army of Davids speaking truth to power and fighting against the liberal mainstream media. Brothers and sisters in arms, one and all. Sounds great, does it not?

As also mentioned earlier, sound and fury.

One has to but glance at the upcoming CPAC charade to see there is not only zero unity in conservative new media, it is increasingly intent on clawing itself to death. You have the nonsense of BlogBash, an event run by Ali Akbar with financial support from front organizations run by individuals who have received financial aid from Akbar’s allegedly non-profit fundraising efforts. This is more commonly known as kickbacks. Meanwhile, in a world allegedly home to the conservative new media family you have a party, thrown by an organization (National Bloggers Club) that has completely abandoned its original stated objective to create an umbrella under which individual bloggers could be better equipped for acceptance as legitimate media for news events, billing itself as the most exclusive event at CPAC. Actually, given its rejection of GOProud and Pamela Geller CPAC itself is the most exclusive event at CPAC. But again I digress.

The hypocrisy grows in light of the aforementioned exclusions, which have generated tremendous heat but precious little action in terms of people refusing to support CPAC and/or its organizer the American Conservative Union, better known as ACU. The party goes on unabated, with many paying lip service to the notion they are going to CPAC regardless of the ACU as a means of building networks and the like. Really? That is steer manure in a seeping sack. They are going to see and be seen, perhaps playing the role of heroic rebel telling people off even as they reinforce their position within a phantom kingdom’s hierarchy.

There is a belief among these people that they are individually and collectively creating a new media empire. The reality is they have constructed an echo chamber, sealed off from those who so little as wish to become participants within its walls let alone the outside world, in which they scramble for a higher place at the banquet table, alternating between boot-licking and face-punching each other in an effort to get ahead. All the while, they remain unshakable in their delusion, labeled as belief, they are changing the world despite the inconvenient truth of the world neither knowing nor caring they exist. But don’t let that stop the party or handing out awards to each other. Their patron saint is Little Jack Horner.

The question begs asking as to who is truly effective in communicating the conservative message. Answer? Those with an audience outside the echo chamber. Translation: those who catch the most flak from wannabes. For example, taking potshots at Rush Limbaugh has become fashionable among the impatient young insistent they deserve the audience he has built even as he continues to outdraw them all combined. Indeed, we see many instances of organizations and individuals known and unknown, usually the latter, demanding those who are better known (at whatever level this might be) give them full and immediate access to their audience, followed by public temper tantrums when this is not instantly granted. I know I have at times played this “victim” card. There is neither honor nor correctness in having done so, and it is hardly to my credit this has taken place. All I can do is resolve to not do it again, instead of doing things the proper way. Others can, and will, do as they wish.

Who is genuinely creating a media force to counteract what we currently endure? Breitbart was on the path of doing so, but tragically died before his vision could be implemented. The only person moving the needle toward genuine media integration right now is Glenn Beck. I chuckled when I read how FreedomWorks is working with Glenn Beck’s media organization the Blaze to run the next BlogCon, scheduled for this May in Dallas. It takes no gift of prophecy to state that between now and then you will see a host of conservative bloggers who have previously kept Beck at arms length, if not openly derided him, having a sudden epiphany about how he is in fact the great and good leader we should all follow and uplift. This after months, going on years, of having either completely ignored Beck or ripped on him over accusations of routinely using the works of others without crediting the original source and the fact he and Breitbart were at loggerheads over same. So much for the #IAmBreitbart battle cry.

It all winds back to family and faith. Does family segregate itself from one another in order to declare who actually belongs, in the process of doing so puffing itself up over non-existent accomplishments? Does faith lead one such as Trevino, who has proclaimed loud and long his Catholicism-rooted devotion to God, to surreptitiously accept payment for promoting a foreign government that is no friend of freedom? Do we continue to kid ourselves that how we conduct ourselves is unimportant as long as we’re doing what we believe is vital work when in fact we evangelize no one but each other? Are these the ways of family and faith? Are these the ways of Christ? Is this the path of peace?

No.

There is a better way.

It is summarized in one word: honesty. Honesty about who and what we are, told to ourselves as well as each other. Honesty when we mess up. Honesty when we need to humble ourselves before those we have wronged. Honesty about our beliefs, whatever they may be. As to the latter, to those whose who insist separation of faith and politics is a must in order to gain an audience, or at the very least making little if any mention of faith when discussing politics so as to not overly antagonize and exclude potential listeners might I point out that being open about what they believe never crimped U2′s record sales. Or, for that matter, made the Call pariahs.

Everywhere I go I see God’s handiwork. It is regrettable when people in word and especially deed exclude and dishonor Him from so much that truly matters, in the process minimizing their potential impact to nothing.

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…