Saturday, April 30, 2005

Welcome back, Miss Piggy

Never once as a child did I think Miss Piggy was sexy. Not once did I think she was worth Kermie's efforts. I still think she's, well, pigly. But I guess part of what drew me into the dramedy of the frog and his suitress was that tension, the lady whom everybody else thought was attractive but the man she fell for. Eventually, Kermit would always wimp out as Hollywood convention would dictate, but somehow you knew we were laughing with them, not at them.

I wonder how they would update the Muppets. I still cringe at aspects of Sesame Street that have changed over the years, especially the kiddy/Casio/Kenny G travesty that has become of the opening song. The song I grew up with, at the least, seems to have teeth in it by comparison. I wonder if it was the PC culture that caused that song to change so much. More likely it was the softer, kinder, gentler approach of a large monolithic purple dinosaur (Barney as political commentary? I could see that.). In any case the Muppets I grew up with and that you grew up with have long been abandoned by us. Like in the Talking Heads song, "This is not my beautiful house / this is not my beautiful wife / these are not my beloved Muppets."

Let the days go by... I eagerly anticipate the Muppets coming back, but with a bit of fearful trepidation, like the last installment of the Star Wars saga.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

And now for a celebratory hula dance...

Daah Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls.


Daaaah Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls da Bulls

(Frightening silence)


Chaiman Mao or Jerry Seinfeld?

Try this nifty little game. It's like twenty questions to find out which popular dictator or sitcom character you are. For my money, it's a really tough quest. Most sitcom characters are based on the personality traits of dictators.

Say we need a revolution, well... y'know, we all wanna change the world.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Gloating. I'm gloa-ting!

The Bulls won and the White Sox are in first place.

Yes, it's early in the post-season for the NBA. And the Sox have like 10% of their season under-way. But, the lights are back in the Chi tonight!

(Mayor Daley rules with an iron fist. I can't say anything more about that. Good night.)

i'm gonna play this at letizia's

Who wants to play Hipster Bingo?

The scary part is, I fit about half these descriptions.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Moovies, baby. Yeah!

Don't you love it when you see a movie and you just get excited about it? It may not be your favorite, or your new favorite, or even what some would call a film (like in some fantastic distinction between fiction and literature) but it's got you wrapped around its fingers. And so you have to talk about it and think about it and talk about it s'more.

This last week I saw Stephen Chow's two recent global works and was really, really excited. Giddy, more like it. The last time I felt similarly giddy was the first time I saw a Jackie Chan movie after watching the Eraser or some dumb-but-not-in-an-entertaining-way Schwartzenneger movie. Rumble in the Bronx let me identify with the hero even as I elevated him, much the way I like to be drawn into the heroic epics. (The primal identity-hero for me has always been Luke Skywalker.) And I stinking enjoyed the movie. It was a thrill and I left my worries at home.

Shaolin Soccer is a keeper. It's an interesting piece of comedic action in line with the Hong Kong / Jet Li over-dramatic use of flying men and women doing the impossible as only movies can bring to life. But the film - unlike those of Chow's hero, Bruce Lee - is not about revenge, although that could have been the primary subject matter. Instead, the motivation of the plot is popularizing Shaolin and how the people can fully integrate Shaolin as a part of the every-day, the finishing touch on the mundane to draw it out of its banality.

In Kung Fu Hustle, the heroes are, in reverse, drawn out from Kung Fu and into the mundane, into the ordinary so that there are five masters living in the same slum tenements. Each of the heroes is eventually called out of their self-imposed retirements by nobler causes of self-sacrifice for the good of the people, the down-cast, etc. And yeah, Ebert was pretty darned close by calling it a mix of Quentin Tarantino / Looney Tunes / Jackie Chan / Buster Keaton with a bit of the Matrix thrown in for good measure. Though probably not so BK, Ebert is a big fan of ol' Stone Face so it's probably just an extra plug. Oh yeah, a little classic Hollywood musicals in the first few minutes and maybe too many filmic references to count (at least one being Shaolin and one being Spider-Man, followed by a quote, in English, from the Untouchables - which I never would have guessed had I not read it beforehand).

And good fun.

P.S. The Tarantino reference is quite apt. This last movie is not for the squeamish. It has a lot of cartoony violence in it and a lot of kung fu stylized violence in it, but a lot of the highly stylized style that Q.T. is famous for. Be forewarned.

Saturday, April 23, 2005


Jesus was an iconoclast, to say the least. He never shrunk from telling it as he saw it, which was always the right way and, different from other such hard-headed people, always the truth. And he made no qualms about shattering the icons, about breaking notions that the masses and the elite had about God, about God's relationship to us people, and about ourselves. When one looks at Jesus, one cannot help but to feel as if one's staring at the sun, an image garnered by John the Revelator in the first few lines of his apocalyptic vision, terrifying as it was. That is because, asides from Jesus, before and outside of Jesus, we are merely content to look at and observe shadows. We are blind. But Jesus comes with his spit-mud pies and tosses them into our eyes.

"What do you see?"

"I see men that look like trees walking around."

So, Jesus strikes us again and rubs the spit-mud confection under our brows.

Behold, all things are made new.

I get the sense that every time Jesus tells a parable, or uses some object as the focal point of a lesson, or makes a funny one-liner (If someone asks for your robe, offer them your tunic as well... The camel through the eye of a needle.... Get that log out yo' eye...), he is calling us to not just nod our head in agreement on an obscure truth, or to make us complete a sheet of some creedal screed, or to fill-in the missing points of our systematic theology so that we are complete and lacking nothing in our dogmology (Like that word? I wonder if I'm the first to make it up. Ahhh, I doubt it). I get the sense that he tells these tales, these sarcastic asides, these object lessons to cause us to contemplate, to consider, to hear with our ears if we have been granted that God-given ability. He calls into question our most common and common-sense assumptions and backs his own claims and stories on the power of God through his miracles and authority. Miracles that, obviously, no sinner can do but only one sent from God could. Because who had ever heard of a man restoring the sight to the blind? But he does it here, and he does it there. And he does it again and again. Furthermore, I believe that when Jesus told a story he intended, and generally got, his audience to internalize his point(s). It was sugar for his hard, gravelly - but ultimately satisfying - medicine.

This principle is perfectly exemplified in the story of the Good Samaritan. For where the lawyer questioning Jesus was merely looking to justify himself before the masses, before Jesus and before God by asking for the definition of neighbor - certainly, he thought, his neighbor would be Jewish, civil, highly religious, a priest or somebody in the ecclesiology, a good sort from decent stock - Jesu, the Joy of my salvation, had other things in mind. Jesus, as usual, messes with the man's mind, the man's preconceptions, the man's prejudices. But he does it in an underhanded way. He sucks him, and all would-be listeners, into a story, a good story that lasts for thousands of years in the forefront of the populace's pate. Not only is your idea of your neighbor corrupt, your whole notion of love is utterly screwed.

Peace and love.

Friday, April 22, 2005

You Can't Always Get What You Want

But if you try, sometimes...

Does anybody else feel like going to a karaoke bar and doing their best Jagger Swagger?

All together now, bend at your elbows to an approx. 70 degrees. Lay the outside of your palms on your hips. Now have one butt cheek lead the other in a forward motion. Left, right, left, right. Pout! Pout! Beautiful. Repeat!

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.

War on War

David Dark, who's Everyday Apocalypse was a great and original book that changed not so much my understanding of redemptive works of art (so-called high- and low-brow) but of looking at the powers and principalities that are near, has just released the next in the sometimes mediocre, sometimes exciting series of The Gospel According to..., starting some forty or so years ago with ...Peanuts and re-emerging with the supreme ...The Simpsons a couple years ago. (Was that all just one sentence? Who am I, C. S. Lewis? Oh, that's presumptious, I suppose.) The newest treatise is ...America: A Meditation on a God-Blessed, Christ-haunted Idea. Oh, I'm sure you hear the ghost of Flannery O'Connor having a scare with Presidents Bush, Homer the Simpson and the Mellville's (more of the author of Moby Dick and less Moby. Then again, I haven't but read 20 pages or so.) Anyway, on to the interesting - for me - parts, the quotes:

But to return to Paul's explanation of Jesus' new way of being human [cf. Gal. 3:28], it's easy to forget the social novelty at work in his letter and the quiet revolution that would come of it. Within a few decades of Paul's writing, the Christian communities of Asia Minor were sufficiently widespread to come to the attention of Pliny the Younger, governor of Bythinia. In letters to the Roman emperor, Trajan, Pliny the Younger notes that the sect includes people of every class and observes, after torturing a couple of deaconesses, "I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths." He also complains, "They have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master (N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 350)."

This pagan account of the visible convictions of the early Christians should give us pause as we consider how easily many Americans speak of their faith as a private, personal matter; a relationship somehow contained in the heart; an odd, airy thing called "spirituality." Such a characterization of the movement wouldn't have made much sense to the early church, and Pliny certainly wasn't describing a group of people who simply held an unconventional religious opinion or two. Admittedly, he doesn't find them especially threatening. They aren't about to take up arms against their oppressors, but they are holistically invested in a revolution. They are not apolitical. Their allegiance is to a different polity that is uniquely for all people. In this sense, we might think of them as multipartisan. They are not of this world's way of doing things, but their hope is still scandalously this-worldly. And the passion for a socially disruptive, enduring freedom won't be diminished, divided, or conquered by the prerogatives of any government. When brought before the authorities, they matter-of-factly refuse recognition of all other gods. (pp. 5-6)
A much larger excerpt (most of the rest of this chapter, which is titled after an America-referencing line in a Prez G. W. Bush speech, "The Angel in the Whirlwind") can be viewed through the Books & Culture site - or better yet, pick up a copy of their Jan/Feb issue. A type of introduction of the themes - mostly of democratic dialogue in a time of angry tv polemics - is named after a great and haunting Wilco song. "I'm the Man Who Loves You: On Not Being Finessed by Carnival Barkers or Someone Else’s Talking Points" indicates, in case you haven't figured it out yet, that this man loves subtitles, as well as a good kick in the head.

Ahh... we all need that every once in a while.

Is it just me...?

Am I off on something here? Am I slow? The American and Western European churches eulogized Pope John Paul II for a seemingly shorter period of time than the American left did Nixon. In an effort to provide some sort of "balance," media outlets anywhere from PBS, NPR, Chicago's own independent Reader, and the major networks are arguing that the Vatican is strictly out of line and time. The argument seems to go that John Paul (and of course, his successor / right-hand-man Pope Benedict XVI) wasn't hip enough with the modern times, that he settled and doggedly fought for such antiquated, barbaric, and perilously sexist notions as soft-patriarchy and male priests, while also curtailing women's rights in reproduction.

Again, there is a call that the Church must update its traditions (and Traditions) in order to be a meaningful and productive member of the modern / post-modern world. That the whims and winds of the contemporary age (in fact, the spirit of the age) dictate the flow of the Church. I believe, however, that we must apologize for the times when they have, eg., slavery, segregation, Apartheid, Imperialism, genocide, Anti-Semitism, class wars, culture wars, Holy Wars (maybe including this ongoing one?).

I am not Catholic. I have grave misgivings about any human saying that he or she is inerrant on any position, at any given position or place. Or that he is the conduit of the Holy Trinity. Too many popes have aligned and misrepresented their earthly kingdom political powers unilaterally against the will of the Heavenly Kingdom. However, having said that, John Paul and Ratzinger have had the Kingdom of Heaven on their minds and agendas, none more so, I would think, than with their concepts of the Culture of Life. It is this Culture of Life that, in principle and in fact, has stood the high moral and spiritual (for shouldn't those four always be connected at the hip: principle, action, morality and spirituality?) ground for the under-priviledged, for the impoverished, for those with disabilities, for the mentally ill, for the unborn, for the victims of war (those caught in the cross-fires, naturally), for the old, for the prisoners, in short, the widows and orphans of the world.

Furthermore, in Western Europe, the Catholic Church is primarily dead, a haunting skeleton of a large dinosaur that had decided to conduct itself in the tar pit affairs of modernity and relativism. The only hesitation that I would have to add the US to that is the large, and largely conservative, involvement of laity in the American Catholic Church, of which there is considerable good to speak of. But pundits don't know where and when to speak. More importantly, of what to speak. Then again, I'm just a blogger, and one of those frightening Evangelicals to boot.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Crash-Test Dummies that we are

This is one of those oft-heared, oft-copied quotes sometimes usurped by people like myself who aren't smart enough to read an entire book by somebody as obscure as an Annie Dillard.

In regards to our contemporary satisfaction with how the Gospels and life come together:
On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of the conditions. Does anybody have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies' straw hats and velevet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Mom, I NEED My 2 Dollars!!

what’s so hard

about writing about fun things

good times had

we would speak

summers sliding around some things

tongues on peach

hunger hidin’ between us thieves

coming ‘round

elotes, sno-cones, ice cream

candy bars, video games, Mad magazines


by the week, by the month, buy everything

Monday, April 18, 2005

I'm such a geek. Proof...

Even my favorite movies are rarely watched more than once. Honestly. And I haven't succumbed to the numerous-viewing-means-great-movie practice since the early '90s with movies such as Forrest Gump, Braveheart and in junior high, Rain Man - none of which I have seen within recent years. But I've seen Napoleon Dynamite some six times since I first discovered it (much like everybody else, Johnny Latecomers who waited until after it was released on DVD) and can pretty much recite the whole thing (I have the hardest time memorizing short passages of scripture). I'll save us all the embarrassment of doing so now (OK, I did say "pretty much," but at least I didn't say "basically.")

The First Regular Session of the Fifty-eighth Legislature of the State of Idaho, however, still has something more to say about it, through their Ways and Means Committee as seen in this bill, of which I shall copy a couple selections:

  WHEREAS,  the  friendship  between  Napoleon  and  Pedro   has   furthered multiethnic relationships; and
WHEREAS, Uncle Rico's football skills are a testament to Idaho athletics;
WHEREAS, Kip's relationship with LaFawnduh is a tribute to e-commerce and
Idaho's technology-driven industry; and
WHEREAS, Napoleon's tetherball dexterity emphasizes the importance of
physical education in Idaho public schools; and
WHEREAS, Tina the llama, the chickens with large talons, the 4-H milk
cows, and the Honeymoon Stallion showcase Idaho's animal husbandry; and
WHEREAS, any members of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Idaho who choose to vote "Nay" on this concurrent
resolution are "FREAKIN' IDIOTS!" and run the risk of having the "Worst Day of
Their Lives!"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session
of the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the
Senate concurring therein, that we commend Jared and Jerusha Hess and the City
of Preston for showcasing the positive aspects of Idaho's youth, rural culture, education system, athletics, economic prosperity and diversity...

It goes on, of course.
If this is part of a hoax, it's a great one. It looks fairly authentic and extremely tongue-in-cheek, which I enjoy from the mouths of politicians. (ND as subversive politics. Hey, now that's something!)

New way of thinking from the Old Testament

The following passages are from Phillip Yancey's The Bible Jesus Read and did not come from my pen or keyboard, originally. I wish they had.

If we had only the Gospels, we would envision a God who seems confined, all-too-human, and rather weak - after all, Jesus ended up hanging on a cross. The Jews objected so strongly to Jesus because, despite his audacious claims, he did not match their conception of what God is like; they rejected him for not measuring up.... [W]e need that background picture (of the picture of God in thee Old Testament) in order to appreciate how much love the Incarnation expressed - how much God gave up on our behalf.

Apart from the Old Testament we will always have an impoverished view of God. God is not a philosophical construct but a Person who acts in history. (pp. 26-27, Chptr 1, "Is the Old Testament Worth the Effort?")
And this, about the permeance of the Old Testament in our lives and thinking and the ways we approach history and justice:

So many of the concepts and words we use daily - new, individual, person, history, freedom, spirit, justice, time, faith , pilgrimage, revolution - derive from the Old Testament that we can hardly imagine the world and our place in it without relying on the Jewish heritage. A comic character in one of Moliere's plays suddenly discovers, "I am speaking prose! I am speaking prose!" Similarly, our roots go so deep in Old Testament thinking that in many ways - human rights, government, the treatment of neighbors, our understanding of God - we are already speaking and thinking "Old Testament." (p. 23, Chptr. 1)

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Couple notes on this here bloggy-thingy

For the most part, I don't like how I look on camera. Certainly not still photos. Then again, I've also taped myself running. Not a pretty sight -- not even for comedy. So I hope nobody's dissapointed if I come clean that, in all reality, I look nothing like Jar Jar Binks or mid-70's to early 80's Arnold. But I don't think I should have to explain myself on this one.

The one that I do, however, is on my proficient use of the lowercase. It's not a poetic thing at all or whatever; just something I picked up while emailing so much. I try to keep my grammar neat and clean (even though my sentances are much too long and circular), and I know I use too many em-dashes and commas, but I like not having too worry about using the shift key. Oh well, I figure that I tend to turn off pretentious writing (which mine surely is, but really, can I help that?) as well as bad and sloppy writing. So why would I want to visit my own site?

Let me rephrase that: Why would anyone else want to visit my site? (C'mon, I just googled myself. Boy, is my name being used in vain.) So, I'll try to use capitilization again. But I'm not too sure about making good and unpretentious writing... Or un-sloppy.


pigeon john was in town last night. at the metro. nobody told me. i guess that's what i get for:

1) not having friends who are into underground hip-hop

2) not reading the friday section of the sun-times until saturday.

besides, $21?? i don't have enough for his records at the moment. somebody wanna hire a freelance english teacher?


A trigger under my skin

sends shivers suffocating lent

new women kissing men

and time is upon us in sin

I traveled this newfoundland

unraveled packages of gin

got buried deep within

the cold ice and pink skin

Can no longer swallow spit

ice is dry and dense within

i need rescue once again

from the Man of Sorrow, the Risen

Friday, April 15, 2005

stupid gas wars

the following excerpts are courtesy of my all-too-happy-to-forward brother whom i love dearly and who usually gives good-to-decent forwards, if not intellectually stimulating than at least morally stimulating. this email about a gas pricing war may prove to be the exception:

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent united action. (emphasis mine)...

the writer than loses all credibility with this next line..

Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL.

I'm sorry, that's just lazy. super lazy thinking combined with super lazy action. we americans have been enjoying cheap gas (compared to europe and other industrialized nations) and now we are flooded, i mean FLOODED with sport utilities vehicles that are neither very functional nor very sports-man-like. one entire gallon of gas is wasted for every teensie, weensie mile, and in an urban, congested area like the great Chi, that gallon could go out waiting for the next stop sign (OK, not very scientific, but i don't think i'm far off).

somebody tell me the function of these things. the only lives they save are the ones driving them. suv's certainly don't protect whoever gets hit by them.

the killer is that this email was supposedly written by Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator in the Interventional Cardiology Research Laboratories Division of Cardiovascular Diseases with the University of Alabama @ B'ham.

i retract from my first paragraph. i am morally stimulated, since outrage is an indication of stimulae.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Accountability Re-imagined

Steve Gerali wrote these great words, the whole of which can be found here and in the latest edition of (the overpriced, but well-written) Youthworker Journal.

Accountability doesn't eliminate sin; Christ does. We forget that we stand righteous because of Jesus' sacrifice. We forget that we have the Holy Spirit in our lives to empower us to live righteously, not accountability partners or groups.

Accountability must be proactive for spiritual growth. Hebrews 10:24-25 should be the key verses regarding accountability. We are encouraged to meet together regularly and encourage, spur, literally aggravate each other into being more loving and doing good things. This proactive approach can push sinful habits out by replacing them with positive action.

Meetings of accountability need to focus on the person and work of Christ. Usually sin becomes the focal point. We become so consumed by the sin we must eliminate that we fail to fix our eyes on God. Any time sin becomes the consuming focal point of a Christian's life, we exchange freedom for bondage. Let's hold each other accountable to live free in the victory that Christ has already secured for us.

The majority of the article, which deals with our contemporary attempts at accountability groups (and why, honestly, I never felt comfortable in one), I could easily agree with and testify to. At least as far as male gatherings are concerned. Do others have similar/dissimilar approaches? Do the members of the "fair species" approach the topic on a different level than we men do? If so, how? (I imagine that there is still insecurity and possibly a level of competition, but I imagine also it looks different. On top of that, it's in my imagination.)

some ideas on communion

i've sensed a disturbing trend recently. maybe i'm only noticing more so now because i'm helping to administer the elements for the Lord's supper (not as an ordained minister, but as a deacon) and/or because of a particular and growing sensitivity to the issue. but the fact of the matter is - unscientifically - i would guess roughly half of our church members partake in our bimonthly communions.

now, on the one hand, i appreciate the non-participants solemnity in approaching the Lord's Supper. there is an understanding that we should not eat or drink of the elements with sin in our hearts, or without pondering the sacrifice of Jesus. it has a heaviness associated with it from the moment Jesus instituted the practice.

yet the truth of the matter is, when we say no to the Lord's Supper, when we say no to the spilled blood of the wine (or grape juice in our non-sacramental traditions) or to the broken flesh of the bread, we are saying no to Christ and his sacrifice. neither are we receptive of his grace over our sins. to clarify, i do not believe that partaking of the elements is an instrument of grace, for that is given to us sola fida and solo Cristo, but we represent our stance toward Christ and his redemption of us as individuals within the bodywork of the Church in our stance toward the cup and the bread. which is why i'd have a hard time substituting the bread for, say, twinkies or the wine for red kool-aid (i already have a hard enough time with our - hopefully expired - practice of using those insta-communion traveling packs).

i do not stand in judgement over anyone. i know i need to be more repentant before, during and long after Communion Sundays. but i think something needs to be said within the Body, for we are the Body (practicing Christians, that is), and if a part of the Body is injured, does not the whole Body suffer with it?

Let me tell ya somethin'

this is plumb hilarious. i cannot enter my own blog. i can't. i tried to go visit somebody else's blog, i couldn't get in there either. see, i use the computers at work to do this (no, not while i'm working, but that's a different story for a different day) and they are tied down to a blocking mechanism of some sort (i think it's called filterpak, let me check... yep, filterpak). don't get me wrong, it's actually a relief to have my only regular source of internet usage in a public space, tied to a place of worship and tied down by a -- sometimes oblivious and / or insipid -- internet blocking service. in the meantime, i'm wondering if there really is "pornography, recreational nudity" on my website and who put it there.

and no, i don't think it's the name, catchy and cheeky as it may be. it also didn't open for lookingcloser's blog.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Moralistic Therepeutic Deism

Christianity Today - through their main site today and through the superior Books & Culture late last year - ran a couple of articles about youth and what sociologist Christian Smith (I know, I know, it sounds like something from Hinds Feet in High Places or a Puritan fable. You can call him Goodman Smith. But actually, he's reknown in his field.) calls moralistic therepeutic deism. It's systematic and very, very troubling. But for those of us who believe that God is who he says he is in the Bible, it's also sad; our generations have brought this upon ourselves. Anyway, a synopsis can be found here and a longer interview here.

Love & Happiness, pt I

this is from a talk i'll be doing at a local high school this week.

Love & Happiness, pt. I
“Make you do right... love'll make you do wrong...”
Al Green, “Love and Happiness”

… or will it?

“I'm into having sex, I ain't into making love” 
50 Cent, “In da Club”

Although unhealthy, 50 was at least honest in regards to most of what we think of as love.

“Somebody’s poisoned the water-hole!”

Woody, Toy Story

Our culture(s) being poisoned, where can we find fresh water? Where can we find a good drink?

“First, however, let me tell you about something else that is better than any of them…”

St. Paul the Apostle, First Letter to the Corinthians

Paul as a hype-man.

“Real love is a ghost / talked about but rarely seen / except on tv screens / where they flash these caricatures / that on the down low / are meant to influence our character… / Yeah, I know what love is / and it just don’t stop / but I can explain it better / when I say what love’s not.”

Mars Ill, “Love’s Not”

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

St. Paul, First Corinthians

I don’t think Love is what we think love is.

“Love your enemies.”

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in the Gospel According to Matthew

This is some otherworldly stuff. It’s a freak of nature and, somehow at the same time, it’s how it’s supposed to be.

“Perfect love casts out all fear.”

St. John the Evangelist, First Epistle to the Church

If you don’t have enough love, you’re gonna try to find it or get it somehow, and it may not be healthy, the version (or perversion) of love that you find.

“God is love.”

St. John, First Epistle

‘Nuff said; that’s it.

I love technology, but not as much as you, you see

Technology is the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it.

- Max Frisch

more self-indulgent poetry


he constructs new meanings

from the top of the rim

and our ball dribbles

grinding elbows grit

and the moon orbits -- from the top of the air

as flies fly the grass, near

clothes baptized in sweat

pure eschatology, acts of apostles

sounds of barbecue

sifting through our nostrils

our shadows, they battle

wrestling within the asphalt

in the evenin’ they stretch

a yard for every given inch


our guests include the

Pistol’s and the Doctor’s legacies

and they laugh and they assume

shameful poses at their histories

some poetry, vol. 1

From time to time, I'll probably include some of my own, self-indulgent poetry. But, heck, why the heck not since i'm the only person reading this. by the way, this is all one poem despite the font changes (which i can't figure out for the life of me. again, ego-centric AND stupid!)

One Day We Shall All Be Free

We are slaves to captivity
In all reality we
Bite to bite
See to see
Maybe what could be
Maybe what is
Maybe to dream the dreams
That singers sing
But you live your life, I’ll live mine
In the meantime
We will spy
And despise what we each all have
What we each all ain’t

I intone in monotone
One day we shall all be free
While I’m smoking trees,
Cutting teeth,
Piercing holes
Into the darkest parts of me
Slowly I rise and sink back down again
If we can’t go far than there’s nowhere to go, men
Slowly I rise and sink back down again
If we can’t go far than there’s nowhere to go, men
If we can’t go far than there’s nowhere to go, men

I got stacks in my front pocket
But I’m restricted like a straight jacket
Like a fierce dog on a leash,
Like redd fox and gilligan on tv,
I’m sayin’ a lot but as sure as tomorrow I ain’t leavin’
I’m goin’ nowhere,
spittin lies that I
hide behind like
how you doin’
I’m doin’ fine
Why don’t we stop time and rewind
You and me, baby, we
in the place to be
Like wine and cheese
We was born to be
So how’s about a freak

In bondage to bonds men
They’re coming after me
Pickin’ all my locks, and
Like the SWAT on Cops
They’re runnin’ through my doors
no security buys me peace
sleep is a luxury I can’t afford
always on the run,
always runnin’ heat

I’m always in want,
I’m always in need
Like a dog in the summer in heat
Tearing down walls through claws,
through women like Jaws
Through hot nights under the Chi’s skyline
It’s too much more
too soon,
too fast,
too big to ignore
I choke on it,
like a dog on its bone
Like a palace that’s no home
Saddam in a spider-hole
And puff daddy with J-Lo
I intone in monotone,
One day we shall all be free
But in corners of my eyes I see
I ain’t smokin’ the trees,
The trees, they’s smoking me

Not much to say

this is actually an accident. but i figure it's a good accident to have, seeing as i need an outlet for my more metaphysical musings and that i have so little education and so much ADD. and i'd like to create a space for some of the quotes i come across and like a lot, as well as some random thoughts and maybe to some articles, journals, etc.