Brutally Honest

Moonwalking to Babylon

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

I know that just about everything that could be written about Michael Jackson has already saturated your brain over the last couple of weeks but if you will allow it, I would like to plant just a couple more ideas in the soil of your cerebrum.

I will start with three questions from my thirteen year old daughter as we were watching one of the last interviews with the King of Pop. Her first question was, “Who is that?” I’m still patting myself on the back. Even though I’ve made a lot of mistakes raising her, I’ve done something right in keeping her innocent of this little part of pop culture.

Next she said, “What is wrong with his face?” Most of us cringed as we watched the gradual self-mutilation of this fine looking young man. But even someone unaware of how Michael looked before was still struck by that pathetic, plastic façade.

Finally, after a bit of explanation, she exclaimed, “You mean he was black!?” Yes, my dear, he was.

So, we went on the internet and looked for videos of how he was and the bad example of what he allowed himself to be turned into. We saw little Michael with the Jackson Five, the Moonwalk and a few other hit videos. One song almost flattened me with irony. It wasn’t one of his biggest hits but perhaps you remember The Man in the Mirror.   

  “I’m looking at the man in the mirror.
    I’m asking him to change his ways
    And no message could have been any clearer.
    If you want to make the world a better place,
    Take a look at yourself and make the change.”

Now, that’ll preach! What a powerful expression of the human need for transformation! Sadly, the message would have been so much clearer had not the messenger looked at himself in the mirror and decided to change… his face and his race. His face and race? Isn’t the song really about changing the twisted human soul? Yet that twisted soul could not be content with the way God had made his body?

Then there is the Moonwalk. I still remember the shock and delight the first time I saw him slide backward across the stage. He had perfected this fascinating visual illusion. He seems to be walking forward. But the reality is; he is walking backward. But hey, don’t confuse me with reality. That dance move is the coolest.

Could our cultural fascination with Michael Jackson be summed up in that optical illusion? We identify with the moonwalker because we want to appear to be moving forward. And to us, like Michael, appearance is what matters. We want to be seen facing Jerusalem even as we continue walking further and further away.

Yeah, I think that’s it. We like what we see in Michael Jackson because that’s what we are doing to ourselves. We keep up appearances while we slip slide away. We are moonwalking to Babylon.

VBS: Ya'll Come

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

Hey boys and girls are you having fun during summer vacation? Are you enjoying staying up late and sleeping in the morning? Well, I want to remind you that since it is summer it is also time for VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL!
Churches all around McLean County have been hosting intensive classes in Biblical values with themes designed for children. Everything creative, from jungle safaris to futuristic space travel, will amaze children in order to make the messages and meanings from the Bible memorable and fun.
But let me tell you about the Marketplace. For a couple of years now, St. Sebastian and St. Charles have joined with the Calhoun and Rumsey Methodist churches to put on a Marketplace Vacation Bible school. We transform the church grounds into a ancient market with vendors selling their wares and teaching children how to make them. For example, there’s a brick maker who lets the children work just like the children of Israel did for Pharaoh. And every year the "tribal mothers" (remember there were 12 tribes in Israel) explain what it was like to live in those days while the children fetch their own water and make their own bread with their tribe.
This year our theme is the Exodus (the children of Israel leave Egypt), the Ten Commandments (handed down from Mount Sinai), and the Tabernacle (designed by hand of God.) The grounds around St. Sebastian has plenty of room for all of the shops, the tribal dwelling places, the well, the games and the storytellers. Also, this year, the good people Calhoun Christian Church are joining with us, bringing their enthusiasm, their expertise and their children.
By transporting the children back into the ancient days when the Bible was written, the stories of deliverance from slavery and death, the personality of God described in the Ten Commandments, and God‘s plan of salvation expressed in the pattern of the Tabernacle, will be planted in their heads and hearts.
It all begins at St. Sebastian next week, Tuesday through Thursday, July 14-16. We‘ll start Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. for registration and go each day until 1:00. Wednesday and Thursday we‘ll start at 9:00 a.m. When the children are picked up on Thursday at 1:00, we’d like the parents to stay and tour the grounds to see what their children have been doing in the Marketplace.
It’s a great deal of fun for the children and the adults who pretend to be skilled ancient artisans sharing their knowledge with the next generation. But, of course, that is what Bible School is about whatever the theme around it may be. Faithful followers of Jesus pass on their faith to the younger followers who then pass it on to the next.
But perhaps the greatest thing the children will learn through this Marketplace Bible school, is not what it WAS like in ancient times, but what it IS like today when churches of Jesus Christ work together. That’s something it wouldn't hurt us all to learn!

The Double Standard This Way Comes

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

Consider how far out of the loop of Republican politics I am. When I first saw the headline, “Where is Sanford?” I thought of the sitcom, Sanford and Son. Why ask about Redd Foxx? Now we know that Mark Sanford, Republican governor of South Carolina and presidential hopeful, is mired in a scandal after disappearing a few days to visit his mistress in Argentina. Will he remain governor? Are his presidential aspirations over?

Democratic governors, McGreevey from New Jersey and Spitzer from New York, resigned after sexual scandals. I was surprised that McGreevey resigned. Since his was a homosexual affair, I thought the Democrats would celebrate that sort of thing. Perhaps more was going on than we were told about. Now Spitzer had made his reputation by harshly prosecuting people who were doing the same kind of thing he was doing. Hypocrisy! Who can tolerate that?

So, are Democrats finally finding political scandals that are unacceptable? Are Republicans starting to lighten up and acknowledge that their leaders are not going to be pure as Ivory soap? Perhaps.

But the double standard that judges Republicans more harshly than Democrats is deeper than just self-righteousness versus libertarian license. That double standard is rooted in the definitions of the words “democracy” and “republic”.

“Democracy” means “people rule”. Whatever the people want, that’s what they get. So a leader who gives the people what they want, even if he is flawed, will be successful in a democracy. At least they will be until the people decide that that particular flaw is unacceptable. It’s not what they want.

“Republic” means “thing of the people” and that “thing” is the Law. So, you could say that “republic” means “the Law rules”. The Law is more important than what the people want. So, you see, people of a republic are properly outraged when a leader violates the Law. Since the leader has moved outside the Law, they are no longer worthy to lead a republic where the Law rules.

The distinction helps explain a lot of political tensions. Democrats tend to celebrate “activist” judges who express the will of the people. Republicans tend to see such activism as violating the Constitution; the law. Republicans want to be sure that election rules are followed, whoever wins. Democrats study hanging chad to read the voter’s mind so they are sure that the election expresses the will of the people.

Benjamin Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, “Sir, what kind of government did you give us.” He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Can we continue to bend and often break the rules; social rules, economic rules, moral rules, and keep our republic? I’m convinced the answer is, no. Without the stability of law, grounded in the ultimate Law, our government and we as a people are doomed.

Surely some Democrat out there will take exception to what I’ve written. Well, write a letter.(or comment) Let’s hear it.

If at First They Don't Succeed...

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

Apparently, they didn’t get it done. The legislature is going back to Frankfort to try again.

The issue the governor used to call the special session which starts next week was a projected budget shortfall of about one billion dollars. It seems the legislators in February didn’t feel the shocks in the economy that we’ve all been experiencing for the last nine months. Perhaps they wrote their budget while wearing rose-colored glasses. So, now the governor says they have to try again to fill a billion dollar gap.

But a lot of people think that the REAL reason for the special session is to try to pass laws which would allow video gambling at race tracks around the state. The argument goes like this. Horses are being attracted to racetracks in other states which have larger purses. Those large purses come from other forms of gambling allowed in those states. In order to compete, they say they have to have more gambling like video poker or video slot machines. The income from those machines would allow larger purses for the horse races and “save the horse industry in Kentucky.” Hurray!!

But they (the racetracks around Kentucky) also say they would spend about 1 billion dollars to buy the machines and renovate their tracks to make room for them. Wow! They will spend a billion for video poker but not spend that money to raise the purses in order to attract better horses. Seems to me that a billion dollars might be enough for the horse industry to save itself.

Now, back to that other billion dollars; the shortfall in the budget. Did you know that Kentucky is supposed to receive about three billion dollars from the federal stimulus package? I am no economist but it wouldn’t seem too hard to stretch three billion dollars over a one billion dollar gap. But the governor needs the legislators to help him do that. At least they will try again.

You’ve got to give them credit for persistence. The governor says that the lawmakers didn’t get the budget right. So try, try again. The horse industry is determined to get more money from poor slobs who believe the lie that anyone can win (might as well be me!) So, if they keep the purses low, they can make it appear that they need more forms of gambling. They have the money to raise purses all by themselves. But no, they want to spend that money on video slot machines. They haven’t been allowed to yet, but they are going to try, try again.

Yet here is an idea that hasn’t been tried yet. If those in Frankfort are really concerned about Kentucky money going to other states through gambling, then why not authorize the attorney general to sue those states (or the casinos) on behalf of the poor slobs who have lost their homes through gambling debts. That’s something I’d like to see them try.

Wanna Play Bingo?

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

I spend quite a bit of time at Riverside Manor (a local nursing home, ed.). It is fascinating to see how the residents cope with their ever-growing lack of independence. Some accept it with a kind of realistic optimism. Some fight it with all they’ve got. Unfortunately, they don’t have much to fight with. That’s why they are at Riverside.

Those who accept their state are the happiest. They express gratitude for the food (such as it is) and the community that forms with the staff and other residents. All their needs are met and they don’t have to worry about a thing.

Others want freedom. They sit by the door remembering how they used to decide whether to stay or leave. Sometimes they will head for that door as an outsider enters or leaves and alarms pierce the air. A staff person will gently usher them away from the door and back into the warm welfare of the home. “Come away from there, Ethel. We’re gonna play Bingo in a little bit. And we’ll have ice cream. Don’t you wanna play Bingo?”

It is sad to watch. You wish that they could be free. But you know that their condition is such that it cannot be. Whatever they think, their safety is more important than their liberty.

What about you? Is your safety more important than your liberty? Are you willing to be happy and content with whatever is decided for you? Or are you willing to fight for your freedom with all you’ve got? How much have you got?

Years ago I heard a very conservative teacher of the Bible say that, “Communism is ninety percent true. And if the ten percent error wasn’t so very bad, it would be a wonderful thing.” I always thought that the ten percent error was the atheism and materialism of communism because that leads to coercion and control of people. No doubt that is a big part of the error.

Those who are attracted to socialism in this country are (I hope) attracted to that ninety percent that is true. They want unity and harmony in the social contract. Then there would be no need for coercion and control, right?

Lately I’ve decided that the ten percent error that is so very bad includes a naiveté that ignores our human tendency to abuse power and take freedom from each other. You cannot escape that tendency. If you ignore it, like a gullible guy in the used car lot, you get taken for a ride.

The most troubling thing I find in our new president is his apparent naïve attraction to socialism. I don’t believe he actually wants to control everything (banks, auto industry, healthcare.) He just wants things to work right and is arrogant enough to think he (and his friends) can make that happen.

In every speech I can almost hear him say, “…and we’ll have ice cream. Don’t you want to play Bingo?”

Where Do You Stand?

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

As one of his school assignments my sixteen year old son is writing an essay on the Constitution of the United States. It deals with whether the Constitution is a “living document” or whether a literal interpretation; “strict construction“ is appropriate. Like most of us, he is struggling with balance between stability and adaptability. He would be content to just jump on one side of the issue. I want him to understand and appreciate both sides so that he will be able to argue forcefully from whatever position on the spectrum he decides is right.

So, I’ve been thinking myself about the myriad of issues that face human beings which polarize us into extremes, even while some are looking for middle ground. Here are just a few examples, Liberal/Conservative, Reactionary/Progressive, Spend/Save, Work/Play, Think/Feel, Justice/Mercy. The list could go on and on and on.

Some would say that we should always seek the middle and avoid the extremes. That sounds good until you recall the words of Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Moderation itself can be an extreme to avoid!

So, where does one find their place to stand? If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to suggest a song with the unlikely title, “The Maker of Noses.” In two verses, the singer/songwriter, Rich Mullins describes the time and the place which we crave.

“I believe there is a place/ Where people live in perfect peace/ Where there is food on every plate/ Where work is rewarded and rest is sweet/ Where the color of your skin/ Won't get you in or keep you out/ Where justice reigns and truth finally wins/ Its hard fought war against fear and doubt.”

“I believe there'll come a time/ (Lord, I pray it's not too far off)/ There'll be no poverty or crime/ There'll be no greed and we will learn how to love/ And children will be safe in their homes/ And there'll be no violence out on the streets/ The old will not be left alone/ And the strong will learn how to care for the weak”

Obviously, that place and that time are not here and now. So, how do we get there? In the chorus Mullins lists the advice he hears. Follow your nose. Follow your heart. Follow your dreams. Yet he finds each answer is nebulous (“misty notions“), selfish (“led me down into my chest“), unstable (“the direction changed every time I went and turned my head“) or perhaps all three.

Mullin’s answer (and the one I suggest to my son and to you) is to follow the Maker of noses, the Father of hearts, and the Giver of dreams.

In a rut, stagnant and stuck? You need the Holy Spirit to blow you away. On stormy seas, tempest tossed and terrified? You need your feet on the Rock of Ages. But when do you need which one? God knows!

Change Ain't Necessarily Progress

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

If you follow the workings of the United Methodist Church in Kentucky (and I’m not surprised that most of you don’t) you know that we have a new bishop, Lindsey Davis. Bishop Davis was elected from Kentucky about eight years ago and was sent to serve in Georgia. Now he has returned to us and we are hopeful that the changes he makes as he leads over the next four to eight years will move many into the Kingdom of God.

Bishop Davis tells a story of a young, energetic pastor who was appointed to a small church in Georgia. There was a large tree in front of the old church which had grown so close to the building that it literally blocked the entrance. The pastor felt it sent a wrong message; that it was keeping people from entering into church. So, in his zeal, and probably with the maxim that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, he took a chainsaw and cut down that tree. Turns out that old tree was special. It had been planted by Francis Asbury; one of the founders of Methodism in the United States. You would be forgiven for not knowing about Asbury, but the young pastor wasn’t. He didn’t last a year at that church.

I pass along that story because I am concerned about some of the changes that are being foisted upon us by our political leaders. The changes run from the definition of marriage, to more government involvement in business (actually firing some executives and trying to set salaries), to the expansion of gambling at horse tracks in Kentucky.

All of these changes are coming from leaders we used to call “liberals” but many now have taken the name “progressive”. Sounds good doesn‘t it? Who would stand against progress? We all hope they mean well, like the young pastor did. But experience teaches that most change isn’t progress.

Consider marriage and the changes made a few years back for “no fault” divorce. Perhaps some individuals are better off getting out of extremely difficult marriages. But is the whole of society (especially children) better off with a 50% divorce rate?

Consider the growth of government. Do you think politicians in Washington, most of whom have never paid an employee, know best how to design, build, and market automobiles? Should they decide who should and should not get a loan from a bank? Most of us complain about insurance companies deciding who our doctors will be and what treatments we can take when we get sick. Do you really think it better that politicians and bureaucrats will decide?

Consider gambling. Has the lottery brought prosperity and improved education in Kentucky as was promised?

Our governor is talking seriously about a special legislative session to expand gambling at racetracks in the state. I’m not sure what to do about the other changes but you can call Governor Breshear at (502) 564-2611 and tell him that more gambling is not progress.

We Now Mispronounce You...

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

A couple of years ago there was a movie called “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.” I haven’t seen it but its premise raises some interesting questions. In the movie, two manly men; firemen, in fact, claim to be domestic partners because of an improbable insurance regulation. An investigator doubts the reality of their relationship and so… hijinks ensue. It seems most of the jokes in the movie center around the men pretending not to like girls, if you know what I mean.

Again, I haven’t seen the movie but a synopsis describes the conclusion like this; “the well-intentioned con men discover that sticking together in your time of need is what truly makes a family.” Everybody say, “Aww. How sweet!”

The interesting questions for me are, “Why does the insurance investigator care about the nature of Chuck and Larry’s relationship? Does it matter?”

The conclusion of the movie seems to indicate that the producers think it doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t matter. It is no one’s business. We should all stay out of each other’s bedrooms, right?

But it does matter. Most of us don’t want to think about what Chuck and Larry might do in a bedroom. And none of us should spend too much time thinking about what even Chuck and Louise might do there, either. But when Chuck and Louise get married, we all know what happens next. Because they are married, we celebrate and honor what they do (even while not thinking about it.) We also anticipate the possible result of their union coming to join us in the human race several months later. If Chuck and Louise are not married (and yet do what we don’t think about) we feel a bit of unease and worry about the result. We used to call it “illegitimate.”

In the movie, Chuck and Larry were committing fraud. The comic premise is they’re pretending to be something that they are not. We should care because the whole notion of “domestic partners” is also a fraud. It is a con foisted upon a deeply confused public which is unclear about the meanings of love and marriage and sex and family.

The fact is, lots of firemen (like Chuck and Larry) do love each other. They are willing to lay down their lives for their friends. That is the greatest love. You might even call them a family. But they are NOT married. Their relationships might save children’s lives, but they cannot create those children. Society bestows benefits upon married couples BECAUSE those relationships could bring children into the world. Domestic partnerships are a fraud attempting to gain the benefits of marriage without being married.

Iowa and Maine (and not California?) recently have decided to honor gay relationships with the benefits of marriage. As more of us accept the fraud that gay sex is just as wholesome (if not as fruitful) as straight sex, I wonder if there will be a new term for “marriage of convenience.”

Homophobia: Pathology or New Path?

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

A number of clinical psychologists are finding a persistent group of patients who are unable to overcome their condition despite years of therapy. These psychologists are beginning to suspect that the condition is not a pathology but actually an undocumented expression in human behavior. The condition: homophobia.

Dr. I. M. Fine, an unofficial spokesperson for these psychologists, describes the typical patient with this condition. “They come to us with a great deal of guilt. Family and friends have been telling them for years that they need help. So they are highly motivated to change. While a few have made progress after sensitivity training, there is a persistent core group that never gets it. We’ve decided that it must be normal for them.”

Those suffering with this condition come from all walks of life. Stereotypes of poor red-necks no longer fit as homophobia can be found everywhere from night clubs and churches, to country clubs and ghettos. In fact, you can find it almost anywhere but university faculties. Dr. Fine explains how the condition has gone unnoticed for so long. “For most of our history people could live their whole lifetime without encountering fear inducing stimulus. Nowadays it seems our patients can never find a safe place.”

One patient of Dr. Fine, who asked that we not give her name, told us, “I used to go years without an incident. Now, I’ll be watching TV and a Richard Simmons infomercial comes on, or a re-run of Will and Grace, and BAM! I’m talking to Ralph on the big white phone!” (She means throwing up in the toilet. Ed.)

Studies of the phenomenon are rare since this perspective on homophobia is still in its infancy. Dr. Fine tells of a "twin study" to determine whether there is a genetic cause. But there is a lot more work to be done. He explains,  “I have a colleague using DNA sequencing to find genetic markers or even a specific gene which determines homophobia. But he is having trouble getting the necessary funding. He suspects that 90-100 percent of the population could have that gene. If so, that would explain why isolating the gene is so difficult. Actually, my friend is homophobic himself but hasn’t come out of the closet, yet. You can imagine what people would say about his data if they knew he had the condition. He is a courageous man but he is afraid he would lose tenure if people knew.” (Dr. Norm Allmann refused to be interviewed for this article. Ed.)

Gayle Esbienne, spokesperson for the National Deeply Confused Individuals Task Force, believes Dr. Fine and his patients are “mean-spirited dweebs who should shut their %$@#& mouths.”  The NDCITF recommends mandatory isolation of homophobic people in camps which will provide re-education and re-programming… or death.

But Dr. Fine is still speaking up for the tragic victims of this pernicious social stigma. He asks, “Did you know that in almost every state, a homophobic person can be denied service in a restaurant? It is so unfair. These people can’t help the way they were born!” Another patient echoes this sentiment. “Do you think I want to live like this? I want to get married and raise a family like everyone else. Why won’t people just let me be me?"

One troubling development is that some of Dr. Fine’s patients have taken a militant stance. Last week we found a few in front of a cable news channel with signs which read, “Straight isn’t Twisted” and “Homophobic! Loud and Proud.”

As the question of homophobia plays out on the stage of America, one thing is sure. The more controversy we journalists create, the more money we make.

Miss California Did Good (Could Have Done Better)

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

By now I’m sure you’ve seen or at least heard of Miss California, Carrie Prejean’s response to a question about gay marriage during the Miss USA Pageant. But just in case, here is what she said.
 
"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."
 
Yes, it reads almost as awkwardly as she said it. She knew the question was explosive and her demeanor showed her fear. She has been roundly condemned by supporters of gay marriage and applauded by its opponents. We who applaud understand the enormous pressure she was under to be politally correct. You can see that pressure in the opening of her statement. “Ain’t it great that we Americans can do whatever we want?” Then she decides to take a stand. But she is so frightened by the inevitable backlash that she doubly emphasizes that it’s just her opinion; “…I think that I believe that…” When she finally puts it out there; “marriage should be between a man and a woman”, she pleads with her detractors, “It’s how I was raised. Blame my parents!”
 
Personally, I wish she had said something like, “Throughout human history marriage has been a social construct around a man and a woman to support the procreation of the species. Society has no equal interest in supporting same-sex relationships. While some view same-sex marriage as an issue of fairness, it is really about acceptance. But there will always be some behaviors which society should not accept. That isn’t my opinion. It is just the way things are.”
 
Of course, that answer also would have cost her the crown. But at least it would have given reasons for her belief. Still, I am grateful for her courage to stand and continue standing after the pageant. She probably knew the crown was lost the moment the question was asked. The judge tossed her a hand-grenade and watched it blow up. The other contestants were not asked such a politically charged questions. That she retained First-Runner-Up, is amazing.
 
Why did the judge toss that hand-grenade? Well, had she given the politically correct answer expessing tolerance for all (except the intolerant), it would advance his political aims. Yet this explosion of truth from a nervous candidate was even better for him. He could (and did) rant against the truth and reveal himself as a mean, ugly little man. You and I would call that a loss. But as long as people use his name, he doesn’t care what they say. Vilifying a worthy woman is a small price for another extension on 15 minutes of fame.