Uncategorized

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

March 6, 2000

---

“EVERYTHING”?

The Texas Rangers baseball club just initiated its new marketing campaign to sell tickets. This year’s slogan: Attitude Is Everything

Personally, I’d react more jazzed if they had selected: Pitching Is Everything. The old baseball adage still seems true – that “good pitching beats good hitting”. The new baseball adage, at least in the American League, might go: “Yankees Beat Any Attitude.”

This recalls other former advertising themes … “Image Is Everything” … “Taste Is Everything” … “Winning Is Everything.”

Am I out of touch, or does it seem exceedingly silly to proclaim that anything “… Is Everything“?

---

AMERICAN BEAUTY

I almost responded to a letter to the Dallas Morning News last week in which the citizen writer criticized the movie American Beauty as a movie “only a critic could love”. Well, call me “Chanticleer the Critic” because I could say that I ‘loved’ it, as much as I can ‘love’ any artistic expression.

It’s easy to not like this movie if you, like the citizen writer, focus on the superficial “what-you-see-is-what-it’s-about” story line … it’s “about” a father’s infatuation with his teenaged daughter’s friend … it’s “about” a homophobic military father … it’s “about” a mother who worries more about selling someone else’s house than what’s going on inside her own … it’s “about” a rebellious teenage girl who wants a boob job … it’s “about” a teenage drug dealer … it’s “about” a murder … it’s “about” ….

The citizen writer failed to mention, perhaps because he failed to see, one of the themes of the Academy Award-nominated film – the American obsession with appearances: of success, happiness, normalcy, beauty.‘ I sat uncomfortably through parts of it due to the relentless honesty portrayed, and I laughed out loud and cheered in parts. I walked out of the theater looking at my world a little bit differently, and a little more hopefully.

While they’re both still in theaters prior to the Academy Awards, I highly recommend you see both American Beauty and contemplate appearances, and The Cider House Rules and contemplate moral ambiguity.

---

A PROPAGANDA PRIMER, THANKS TO PAT ROBERTSON

Perhaps you heard about the telephone recording by TV evangelist Pat Robertson that greeted many Michigan Republican primary voters the night before the polls opened. As played repeatedly on CNBC and CNN, in his unmistakable voice, Robertson exhorts (extorts?) listeners:

“Protect unborn babies and restore religious freedom once again in America. Tomorrow’s Republican primary may determine whether our dream becomes reality, or whether the Republican party will nominate a man who wants to take first amendment freedom from citizens’ groups while he gives unrestricted power to labor unions. A man who chose as his national campaign chairman a vicious bigot who wrote that conservative Christians in politics are anti-abortion zealots, homophobes and would-be censors. John McCain refused to repudiate these words. You may hold the future of America in your hands. With all the sincerity I can muster I urge you to go to the polls and vote in tomorrow’s election. This is Pat Robertson, thank you and God bless you.”

So who’s the “vicious bigot” whose words John McCain “failed to repudiate”?

Turns out that McCain’s campaign manager is former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, Warren B. Rudman. You might recall the famous/infamous Gramm-Rudman budget bill from the ’80s. Rudman retired from the Senate in 1992 after two terms. He wrote a book in 1996 titled Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate, in which he talks about his participation in four defining Senate debates: the Gramm-Rudman budget bill; the Keating Five ethics committee hearings; Iran-Contra; and the nomination of his close friend and associate David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his final chapter, prophetically called “Looking Ahead,” Rudman offers a variety of comments and suggestions regarding the country and the Republican party. On pages 269-270, Rudman says (without editing, except for highlighting one sentence):

“The excess of zeal shown by the House Republicans enabled Clinton to present them as radicals, and they were further weakened by their alliance with the so-called Christian right – which, it has been noted, is neither Christian nor right. I have in mind here Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and related groups that try to advance social and cultural conservatism in the garb of Christianity. I don’t even like the Christian Coalition’s name. The millions of Christians in this country reflect just about every conceivable political point of view. For one highly conservative group to proclaim itself “the Christian Coalition” strikes me as decidedly un-Christian arrogance.

“The New Testament speaks eloquently of love and compassion and forgiveness, but one looks in vain for those qualities in the political agenda of the Christian right, which allies itself with the rich and comfortable in our society, not with the needy and afflicted.

“In my experience, religious zeal and politics don’t mix. Look at Belfast, Beirut and Bosnia if you want proof. Does the comparison sound extreme? Not when doctors are being gunned down outside abortion clinics and innocent government workers are bombed in Oklahoma City. You can’t indulge in hateful rhetoric about baby-killers and government plots against freedom and then walk away when some people take you seriously.

“Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right. There are some fine, sincere people in its ranks, but there are also enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough to embrace such a group. In a sense the 1994 elections were misleading, because the country is more centrist today than ever – particularly the younger generation.

“If you have the good fortune to travel widely in our country, you soon realize what an incredibly diverse people we are. We reflect countless races, religions and lifestyles, and we often differ on questions of morality and behavior. The only way so diverse a nation can survive is by all of practicing a high degree of tolerance.

“But tolerance is not the way of the Christian right. Its leaders want to impose their one-size-fits-all morality on everyone. It won’t work. When any group tries to impose its values on everyone else, the result will inevitably be resentment, hatred and violence.”

Thus sprach what Robertson called the “vicious bigot”.

Before we get to the propaganda lesson, three more tidbits help establish the context regarding this Robertson/Rudman tango:

• Rudman ‘is’ Jewish; Robertson ‘is’, of course, evangelical Christian.
• After graduating from Syracuse in 1952, Rudman led an infantry platoon in Korea and experienced hand-to-hand combat during the final six months of the war. In his book he describes killing an enemy soldier. (p. 52)

  According to Robertson’s biography posted on the 700 Club website: “In 1948 he [Robertson] enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. After graduating magna cum laude from Washington and Lee, Robertson served as the assistant adjutant of the First Marine Division in combat in Korea He was promoted to first lieutenant in 1952 upon his return to the United States.” However, various news reports questioned the former Presidential candidate’s “in combat in Korea” experience. U.S. Congressman Pete McCloskey in 1986, according to Time magazine, alleged that:

  “In January 1951 [McCloskey] left San Diego on the U.S.S. Brekinridge along with Robertson and some 2,000 other Marines. The ship stopped at Yokosuka and Kobe, Japan; Robertson did not continue on to Korea. ‘My single distinct memory,’ McCloskey wrote, ‘is of Pat, with a big grin on his face, standing on the dock — saying something like, ‘So long, you guys–good luck,’ and telling us that his father [Democratic Senator A. Willis Robertson] had got him out of combat duty.

  “Several months later… Robertson [was] reassigned to Korea. McCloskey wrote that Robertson had served as ‘division liquor officer,’ flying alcoholic beverages in from Japan for his contingent.

  “The words ‘combat duty’ have been dropped from [Robertson’s] official bio sheet.” Robertson sued McCloskey for libel, then later dropped the suit.

• Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Rudman’s close friend, cast a deciding vote in the Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Robertson’s Christian Coalition vigorously – some might say virulently – opposes abortion.

So with all that as backdrop, Pat Robertson’s phone message serves as an almost-classic primer for propaganda:

1. Imply a current situation by professing the need for action.
2. Urging someone to “restore religious freedom” implies that religious freedom does not currently exist.
3. Grossly hyperbolize the impact of the listeners’ actions … “whether our dream becomes reality”; “you may hold the future of America in your hands”.
4. Refrain from specifically naming the ‘target’ … “a man who”.
5. Exaggerate the impact of the target’s positions using obviously emotional, all-encompassing language … “who wants to take first amendment freedom from citizens’ groups while he gives unrestricted power to labor unions”. (This due to McCain’s calling for campaign finance reforms.)
6. Attack an unnamed, yet readily recognizable, associate of the target by: a) partially quoting the associate; b) quoting the associate out of context, c) un-sourced and un-dated misquoting the associate by specifically omitting qualifying language.
7. Calling the associate an emotionally-charged epithet, preceded with an intent-ascribing adjective … “vicious bigot.”
8. Name the implied target (John McCain), not as “the target”, but as someone who “failed to repudiate” the words of the associate, obfuscating the proper name with the pronouns so that the undiscriminating reader/listener may mistakenly associate “John McCain” as the “vicious bigot.”
9. Invoke all personal sincerity and divine blessing.

I encourage you to invest a few hours reading Rudman’s book for, IMO, a fascinating insight into the upper echelon of legislature power in the United States. I also encourage you to spend some time on the Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition’s website: www.cc.org .

And by the way, not that it matters, but if it’s legally and logically appropriate to refer to “unborn babies”, is it not equally logical to refer to “unborn senior citizens”, “unborn unwed mothers”, “unborn starving artists”, “unborn insurance salesmen”, “unborn crack cocaine addicts”, “unborn singers who couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket” … etc.?

---

AND FINALLY – Your In Analysis

As part of a pre-employment screening process, I had to undergo drug testing at a local lab facility. This is the 21st century version of what the Air Force used to call “Operation Golden Flow” back in the ’70s.

Before I left my house for the lab, I drank two big glasses of water after having my normal coffee and juice. (Tang, actually, but I refer to it as “juice” since one of my friends got on me a few months ago – “TANG? I don’t think I’ve ever known ANYBODY who actually DRANK TANG!”) So I felt, well, you know, prepared for the task at hand when I left home.

However, after the short drive and not having to wait in line when I got to the facility, I found myself in the rather awkward position of standing there with a plastic cup in my hand and …. and … nothing.

I appropriately reconstituted my appearance and handed the empty cup back to the male clerk. “Sorry, performance anxiety,” I joked lamely. He humorlessly nodded me out to the waiting room, “There’s a water cooler, you’ve got two hours.” I swear he shook his head like he was thinking, “I hope the rest of the day isn’t going to be like this.”

So I go walk around the waiting room and nonchalantly gulp down a few dozen of those little 2-ounce cone cups of water cooler water.

A man walks in to provide a DNA sample for paternity testing. The male clerk asks him, “Did you bring your paperwork, the court order?” The man replies, no, he didn’t bring anything. The clerk shakes his head and grudgingly states, “Well, maybe the technician can call and get the information from the District Attorney’s office.”

A few minutes later the technician, a large black woman with silver hair, granny glasses and white lab coat, opens the door into the waiting room. “Did you bring your court order?” she asks the man. “No, nobody told me I was supposed to bring anything! Don’t you have my information?” the man replies defensively.

The technician mutters something, closes the door, and walks around the back office to the clerk’s window. I’m still walking around drinking water, and I hear her say to the clerk with some exasperation, “I must look like Dionne Warwick today … ”

Surprised, I glanced furtively towards the window. The technician, standing over the clerk’s shoulder, glanced up at me over her bifocals, noted my inquisitive look, and clarified to nobody in particular, “People coming in here thinking I’m manning the psychic hotline or something!”

Fortunately, I didn’t have a mouthful of water or I’m sure I would’ve lost it. As it was, I laughed so hard I had to …. well … YIP-PEEE!

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

February 17, 2000

---

GRASS ON CAMPUS

Just when I began to doubt the value of a college education, I run across a small bit of Dallas Morning News that renews my faith in higher education.

Fort Worth’s Texas Christian University (TCU) and Dallas’s Southern Methodist University (SMU) have a historical rivalry that reflects – or maybe contributes to – the competition between the two cities. The football fields of friendly strife have been responsible for a good deal of that storied tradition.
Now once again, the scene is the football field, but the story is not the teams – it’s the bands.

Last November 26th, the two teams battled at Amon Carter Stadium on the TCU campus. The SMU band performed during halftime, and, as is their custom, played one piece while standing in the school’s familiar “Diamond M” formation. And apparently, while they played in this formation, each band member also, uh, dropped seed on the field.

Specifically, they dropped winter rye grass seed, because now that the field’s Bermuda grass is completely dormant, the winter rye has sprouted into the unmistakeable green “Diamond M” formation in the middle of TCU’s home field.

---

CONFESSIONS OF AWARENESS, OR LACK THEREOF

Example #1

Two weeks ago I spent a weekend in Florida at a seminar. I took one of those shuttle vans from the hotel to the Tampa airport, along with four other Sunday morning travelers. I sat next to the left window, just behind a well-groomed older woman from Knoxville, Tennessee. We left the hotel and headed south, with the sun to our left.

The road we were on dead-ended at the bridge which would take us eastward across Tampa Bay, visible from several miles away.

As we neared the intersection to turn onto the bridge, the woman from Knoxville asked the driver if he could turn up the air conditioning, that she was quite warm. The driver replied that each row in the van had its own vent and blower control – she could reach up and adjust her own control. About a minute later, we turned east onto the bridge, and out of the sun.

Now, since I was sitting right behind the woman, I, too, was getting a little warm sitting in the sun. However, I was aware of where the van was in relation to the road, the bay, the bridge and the sun, and I could see that we would be turning out of the direct sunlight soon.

I found it interesting that if the woman had been more aware of her general environment, and the relationships of the sun, van, road, bridge and bay, she would’ve realized that even though she was getting warm sitting in the sun, within a minute or so the van would turn such that she wouldn’t be in the sun. And if she had been more aware of her immediate environment, she would’ve noticed her individual climate control and could’ve maintained her comfort level from the beginning of the ride.

This certainly was not a big deal in either case, but it struck me that we each probably encounter dozens of these little opportunities to exercise greater awareness each day.

Example #2

Last week I participated in a focus group organized by a new online bank. A moderator from a consumer research outfit led us (six men, six women) through two hours of complaints, suggestions, and general feedback regarding the services and execution of the bank from our individual perspectives.

By far and away, the biggest irritant mentioned was the difficulty in making deposits. Since the bank has no ‘physical’ presence – it’s 100% online – there are no local branches for making deposits. Therefore, as everyone complained, the only way to make a deposit was through the mail, which sometimes could take as long as a week to get a deposit posted.

I was amazed that I was the only one of the twelve who knew that you could initiate an ACH (automated clearinghouse) transfer via the telephone, which takes no more than two business days to post. They all looked at me like I was blowing smoke – “How did you find out about that?”

Well, I explained, right on the first screen after you log in there’s a notice to call an 800 number to make a deposit, and the procedure is explained in their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) under “How do I make a deposit?”.

It seems that everybody else was so locked in to their online routine that they overlooked or didn’t ‘see’ the information they needed because they assumed they could only make deposits by mail.

Example #3

However, yours truly also learned something at the focus group. It seems that everybody else was aware that, included in the monthly statement mailings, the bank included a pre-paid deposit envelope. As a matter of routine, I always throw away all that filler material in the statement envelopes and keep just the statements themselves. Maybe I should take a look at stuff before I throw it away instead of assuming I don’t want it.

Example #4

And the reason this segment is called “CONFESSIONS” …

Over the weekend I contracted a bothersome sore throat and sinus congestion. By Sunday afternoon I thought enough was enough, so I decided to resort to the pharmaceuticals. I went into my bathroom ‘junk drawer,’ found the box of over-the-counter antihistamines and a couple of loose tablets in their near-impossible-to-open individual clear packages, and took one. I took another one Sunday night.

When I woke up Monday morning I felt worse instead of better so I decided to double the dosage. As I fumbled through tearing off two packages from the new ‘sheet’ of pills, I noticed that the packaging was slightly different than I remembered from the day before. I looked at the back of what I was opening …. sure enough, it was a generic over-the-counter antihistamine.

Curious, I dug through the trash to find the packages from Sunday. Although they had contained a similar green-colored pill in similar packaging, I could barely make out the label: “ANTI-DIARRHETIC”.
No WONDER my nose had kept running, but … well, anyway. Another hard lesson in the hazards of not being aware.

---

CAUSE/EFFECT (?)

The Feb 13th Dallas Morning News reported that in New Iberia, Louisiana, the owner and the manager of a skating rink were arrested after the Iberia Parish Sheriff answered a call to break up a fight during a Saturday night teen dance. Sheriff Sid Hebert arrested the owner and manager because they were playing rap music that contained “racial slurs, strong vulgar language and lyrics with an anti-law message,” according to the Sheriff’s office.

The Sheriff blamed the music for the fight. “The music itself cranked the crowd up in a sense,” said the Sheriff. “I’m not saying it was fully involved, but certainly kicked it off.”

In an (apparently) unrelated incident, the local Irving newspaper displayed a photo of an overturned 18-wheeler under the caption “Pop go the pastries”. The driver of the rig carrying boxes of Pop Tarts says that the 30,000 pound load of Pop Tarts shifted while negotiating a sharp freeway exit ramp.

I assume the Pop Tarts themselves cranked the trailer over, in a sense. I’m not saying they were fully involved, but they certainly kicked it off.

---

OXYMORON, ANYONE?

I’m familiar with the term “social” to refer to such hot-button issues as abortion, gun control, gay rights, prayer in public school, etc. For example, I’ve heard someone say, “I’m a social liberal, but I’m a fiscal conservative.” Or, “I’m a social conservative.”

Perhaps because I’ve unfortunately had nothing else better to do, I’ve been watching a lot of the TV talk shows discussing the South Carolina Republican primary. Last night I heard a different term that’s used in South Carolina when referring to these “social” issues.

I heard a block of voters referred to as “cultural conservatives.”

Cultural conservatives?

---

READING LABELS, IGNORING LABELS

Clearly, I screwed up by not reading the labels on my pills in my bathroom junk drawer. In that case, I needed to pay close attention to the label.

However, in the case of politics – as I’ve said in this space before – we need to become wary of labels, probably to the degree of ignoring them. Particularly on the Republican side, there seems to be an intentional attempt to push voters’ buttons by screaming “CONSERVATIVE – GOOD! LIBERAL – BAD!”

One of John McCain’s recent commercials in South Carolina amounts to little more than him solemnly stating, “I AM a conservative.”

Liberal … Conservative … Pro-life … Pro-choice … Insider … Outsider … Reformer … Trustworthy … Big Spender … Compassionate … Responsible … Electable … Family Values … Iron Triangle …

Unfortunately, it appears to me that there are many voters out there who buy the label without respect to what’s in the package.

---

AND FINALLY – Divine Right of a King’s Name

The heir to the English throne previously, and currently, known as “Prince Charles” gave notice of his desire to – ala that other “formerly-known-as-Prince” dude – change his name. According to the London Sunday Times, the Dude of Windsor (I mean, “Duke”), aka Charles Phillip Arthur George, said he would prefer to ascend to the throne as King George instead of King Charles. According to a courtier, “Charles feels it would be more appropriate to follow in the footsteps of the Georges rather than take on the tarnished name of Charles when he become king.” Seems his grandfather, King George VI, led England through the terrible but triumphant World War II years, while King Charles I was beheaded after the English Civil War, and Charles II “fathered many illegitimate children but no heir.”

Here’s an unsolicited suggestion … the dude – I mean “Duke” – already has four first names, a few more wouldn’t hurt. So why not add “John Paul,” to maybe symbolize reaching out to Catholics, bridging the Anglican/Catholic divide, etc. Then he’d be King John Paul George.

So why not shoot the works and go for the worldwide populist baby-boomer support by adding “Ringo.”

I mean, he’s certainly got the family jewels for it.

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

January 21, 2000

---

BUSH LEAGUE WORDS

Some of this was printed as a Letter to the Editor in the January 20, 2000, Dallas Morning News. The edited/deleted comments are in red.
[2019 update: unfortunately the red color annotations have been digitally lost. Follows is what I wrote, not what was printed.]

Title: Bush league

When asked during the South Carolina primary about that state’s Confederate flag issue, Mr. George W. Bush revealed much in his reply: “The people of South Carolina can figure out what to do with this flag issue. As an American citizen, I trust the people of South Carolina to make the decision for South Carolina.”

One wonders if, had he been a candidate earlier in history, Mr. Bush would’ve responded similarly on other touchy issues:

“I trust the good people of Salem to make their own decisions on this witch issue.” (1629)

“I trust the good jurors of Tennessee to decide the proper fate of Mr. Scopes.” (1925)

“The people of Montgomery can figure out what to do with their public transportation policies.” (1955)

“As an American citizen, I trust the Ohio National Guard to make decisions for Kent State University.” (1970)

Sometimes national leaders must “march to the beat of different drummers” in the individualistic, non-conforming sense Thoreau intended. Sometimes they should be expected to pound out a cadence that the concerned, compassionate and conscientious citizenry can follow.

Mr. Bush missed a prime (time) opportunity to provide such leadership. Instead of hoisting his own baton and leading the march, he chose to shuffle along the GOPolitically-correct, play-not-to-lose path paved by the purveyors of public pabulum – the polls.

Two days after the debate, “several thousand” people gathered on the steps of the South Carolina Statehouse to advocate flying the Confederate flag. South Carolina state senator Arthur Ravenel was quoted as orating to the cheering crowd: “Can you believe that there are those who think that the General Assembly of South Carolina is going to … knuckle under, roll over and do the bidding of ‘that organization known as the National Association for Retarded People?‘”

Presumably, he was referring to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

One wonders if the crowd, and the rhetoric, would’ve been the same if the leading presidential contender had spoken out with the conviction of a conscience, instead of a politically-expedient whimper.

In baseball, the term “bush league” refers derisively both to minor league teams stocked predominantly with mediocre wannabes, and to the efforts of a big league player that don’t measure up to big league standards.

Perhaps the future political lexicon will list a definition for “Bush league”: “refers to a political candidate of average, common or mediocre leadership means, whose candidacy remains viable due to family fortune, legacy and means-unlimited political speculators (or MUPS).”

---

FORBIDDEN WORDS 2000

In case you missed it, Matt Groenig, creator of The Simpsons, did a great cartoon titled “Forbidden Words 2000” which appeared in the Dallas Observer, December 23-29. I arranged the words into four general categories. Be on the lookout for these FORBIDDEN WORDS:

Pop Culture Words … bigtime! … not! 24-7 and I’m all like as if! awesome! deal with it! get over it! get with the program go ballistic go postal hello?! I hear that! in your face! puh-leeze! sucks take it to the next level to die for way cool whatever! yessss! you go, girl!

Management Words actualize award-winning buzzword cutting edge done deal end result facilitate imagineering kudos matrix movers and shakers multi-tasking paradigm parameters per se please hold: your call is very important to us proactive subtext synergize to partner utilize

___-anything-___ Words anything for dummies anything is hell cyber-anything euro-anything new anything power anything techno-anything the ultimate anything ultra-anything virtual anything

Words in General ‘semi-colon closed parenthesis’ buttocks celeb chichi classy conventional wisdom croissandwich dysfunctional eatery eclectic edgy f-word got milk? hissy fit hooked on phonics in denial newbie partial-birth abortion retarded sassy tacky veggies

May I add one of my own?

Especially in an election year, politicians, pundits and the public at large should receive maximum penalty points whenever they begin a comment with “The fact of the matter is …”

As sure as the sun sets in Senegal, what’s going to follow will fertilize more than it will enlighten.

---

SHRUBBERY WORDS

If you aren’t famililar with the Las Colinas area, at a major intersection there’s a large clock built into an embankment, landscaped with surrounding shrubbery. The shrubbery has been pruned to spell out:

L a s C o l i n a s

I walked by the other day and wondered what the shrubbery would spell if left to its natural growth …

---

QUOTE ON WORDS

I say what I say. I do not say what I do not say. – Alfred Korzybski

---

ROCKER WORDS, ‘RACIST’ WORDS?

The house is still rockin’ over the rollicking reactions to Atlanta Braves’ pitcher John Rocker’s recent ‘racist’ comments in Sports Illustrated. In case you missed it, here are some of the more repeated quotes straight from my copy of the magazine:

So many dumb asses don’t know how to drive in this town [Atlanta]. They turn from the wrong lane. They go 20 miles per hour. It makes me want — Look! Look at this idiot! I guarantee you she’s a Japanese woman. How bad are Asian women at driving?”

(The woman driving was white.)

When asked about the possibility of playing for a New York team:

Imagine having to take the 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you’re in Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing.

The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. I’m not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get into this country?

Asked about another sports ‘bad boy’, Latrell Sprewell – the notorious basketball player who choked his coach last year:

That guy should’ve been arrested, and instead he’s playing basketball. Why do you think that is? Do you think if Keith Van Horn – if he was white – they’d let him back? No way.

During the interview, “in passing, he calls an overweight teammate ‘a fat monkey’.”

On New York Mets fans, with whom he has a running verbal, visual, and sometimes battery-throwing, beer-sloshing, battle:

Nowhere else in the country do people spit at you, throw bottles at you, throw batteries at you and say, ‘Hey, I did your mother last night – she’s a whore.’ I talked about what degenerates they were, and they proved me right. Just by saying something, I could make them mad enough to go home and slap their moms.
I’m not a racist or prejudiced person. But certain people bother me.

For these and other comments, Rocker commanded attention approaching the absurd, including an audience with home run king and Braves’ front office executive Hank Aaron, former Secretary to the UN Andrew Young, and the head of Atlanta’s NAACP. Bud Selig, the commissioner of baseball, has ordered Rocker to undergo psychiatric examination before determining his universally-expected punishment.

Now, I certainly don’t want to be perceived as an apologist for Rocker, either for his words or his actions. However, I believe it’s appropriate for discriminating individuals to spend some time considering not what Rocker said, but how have people reacted to what he said?

Some reactions I’ve considered: Compare the publicity generated by public persona Rocker’s comments, vs. those expressed by South Carolina state senator Arthur Ravenel in the Confederate flag article mentioned above:

Can you believe that there are those who think that the General Assembly of South Carolina is going to … knuckle under, roll over and do the bidding of that organization known as the National Association for Retarded People?’

Are the public reactions proportional to the two quoted comments?

Is someone who verbalizes his/her thoughts and opinions more worthy of condemnation than someone who holds similar sentiments but remains silent?

What does it mean to “be a racist”? Is it a function of what is said? Of what is felt, or thought, or believed?

Or is it based on actions?

What defines the boundaries for this label? What differences does it make if Rocker, or anyone else, declares himself to be, or not to be, a ‘racist’? What would you expect in either case?

Some people have felt that it’s a virtue to be a ‘stand-up guy’, to state what’s on your mind, to “tell it like it is.”

Remember how former Green Bay Packer defensive lineman-turned-preacher, Reggie White, righteously lambasted gays last year? Both Rocker and White expressed some comments which, accepted at face value, reflected strongly-felt emotions. Did anybody publicly suggest Reggie White should receive psychiatric examination? As with so many of these instances of ‘media mayhem,’ what I find worthy of dissecting and differentiating are the reactions of people to the news not the news itself.

I find some sobering truth in Rocker’s observation that “Just by saying something, I could make them mad enough to go home and slap their moms.”

Perhaps some attention, and spotlight, needs to shine on those people who can be so easily manipulated by someone’s mere words.

I also find it worthwhile to ponder a statement made by computer-industry observer, journalist and PBS commentator Bob Cringely. In his January 13th column, Cringely relates how he was contacted by a producer from ABC’s “Nightline” to provide his reaction to the AOL/Time Warner deal:

Whenever such a call comes in from “Nightline” or CNN or any of the other news shows where I appear from time to time, there is a kind of audition that takes place on the telephone. They want to know in advance what I will say on the air. Part of this audition is the producer (producers in this case) needing some quick education about what is going on, and part is their wanting to make sure that I am going to not only be interesting, but that I will say what they want to hear.

Something to remember in your skeptical assessment of what you see, hear and read from the media sources you use to establish your own opinions.

---

SHIP WORDS

Sign observed by yours truly at The Shipyard brew pub in the Orlando International Airport:

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder
And I bought my daughter the t-shirt: Ship Happens

---

AND FINALLY – CIDER HOUSE WORDS

I saw the latest movie based on a John Irving novel, The Cider House Rules. I never finished the book, but I’m a big fan of Irving’s previous novels such as The World According to Garp and Hotel New Hampshire. The movie received some favorable pre-release publicity, and since Irving himself wrote the screenplay, I decided to see it.

I heartily recommend it, if your heart and brain are up to the challenge. I found some of it gut-wrenching, some of it tear-jerking, a lot of it thought-provoking, and all of it well worth the time and cost of a ticket.

I won’t go into the unusual story or how the title fits, but I do hope that the term cider house rules will grow into the daily lexicon of usage such as Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 did. Here’s my impression of a definition for cider house rules:

Rules written by someone to whom the rules do not apply; rules written without consideration for those to whom the rules do apply; rules ignored by all; and yet, rules which remain ‘rules’.

Metaphorically, of course, these types of ‘rules’ are not limited to cider houses….

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

---

January 1, 2000

---

QUOTING BARRY MANILOW, SCARLETT O’HARA and ROSEANNE ROSEANNADANNA:

“Looks like we MADE it!”
The big event has come and gone.
I got up this morning and the birds are still avoiding my new bird bath.
The sun is still casting shadows on the leaves which keep falling, blown by the wind
that keeps blowing. My electricity is on, the water is running, I’ve got a dial tone, CNBC
is showing infomercials, my ISP is up, my online mutual fund, brokerage and bank
accounts appear to have the decimals in the right places (unfortunately),
my kitchen floor still needs sweeping, and I still have laundry to do.
And once again … “Tomorrow is another day-ee.”
And of course, “There’s always something ….”

Chanticleer and I sincerely wish you, your families and your friends health, happiness, security, peace, prosperity and self-actualization for 2000 and beyond. Cock-a-doodle-NEW!

---

GUIDES TO CHANGING YOUR LIFE

An article in the December 26th Dallas Morning News (DMN) modestly billed itself as “The Ultimate Last-Minute Guide to Changing Your Life”. (If it’s still posted, the online link is: http://dallasnews.com/lifestyles/10632_RESOLUTION26.html.) This guide offered tips and anecdotes related to:

1. Finding/dumping a mate,
2. Losing weight/accepting yourself,
3. Reading more,
4. Quitting smoking,
5. Making spirituality a part of your life,
6. Learning to laugh more,
7. Managing time,
8. Learning something new,
9. Giving back to the community,
10. Managing money.

While not commenting directly on the priority, completeness, appropriateness or ultimate-ness of this “ultimate” guide, I would like to offer an additional activity which could result in some positive changes as you go about your daily living: making better discriminations.

By which I mean, sharpening your skills at recognizing, acknowledging, appreciating, and ultimately behaving in accordance with the differences between:

• acts, and the consequences of those acts
• facts and inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.
• motivations and means
• what is implied and what is inferred
• symbols and the ‘things’ the symbols stand for
• maps of a territory, and the territory itself
• what is ‘learned’ and what is ‘taught’
• the assumption or premise
• and the resulting position, attitude or behavior the label you give a group, and the attributes or behaviors of individuals within the group, e.g., Baptist₁ is not Baptist₂| engineer₁ is not engineer₂ | teenager₁ is not teenager₂; etc.
• your expectations and your evaluations
• the current attitudes and behaviors of someone,
• and that person’s past attitudes and behaviors, e.g. Steve₁₉₉₀ is not Steve₂₀₀₀
• traditions and purposes
• what something or someone does, versus what we say something or someone is
• words and the things to which the words refer
• what you ‘know’ and what you do
• what you experience versus what you say about your experience, versus what you make those experiences mean
• what is printed in a book, paper or article versus your interpretation of what is printed
• this and that, etc.

---

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THESE LYRICS?

Controversy brews in Belen (New Mexico) High School, over the senior class choice of a “class song.” The local school board will decide this month whether or not the song, voted on by the majority of the seniors, can be mentioned (not performed or sung, but just mentioned) in the printed graduation program.

Here are the lyrics of the song at issue: Goodbye To Romance

Yesterday has been and gone
Tomorrow will I find the sun
or will it rain
Everybody’s having fun except me I’m the lonely one
I live in shame
I said goodbye to romance [yeah]
Goodbye to friends, I tell you
Goodbye to all the past
I guess that we’ll meet,
we’ll meet in the end
I’ve been the king, I’ve been the clown
now broken wings can’t hold me down
I’m free again
The jester with the broken crown
It won’t be me this time around
to love in vain
I said goodbye to romance [yeah]
Goodbye to friends, I tell you
Goodbye to all the past
I guess that we’ll meet,
we’ll meet in the end
and I feel the time is right although I know that you just might say to me
what you gonna do
what you gonna do
But I have to check this chance
goodbye to friends and to romance
And to all of you
And to all of you
Come on now!
I said goodbye to romance [yeah]
Goodbye to friends, I tell you Goodbye to all the past
I guess that we’ll meet,
we’ll meet in the end
and the winter is looking fine
and I think the sun will shine again
and I feel I’ve cleaned my mind
all the past is left behind again
I said goodbye to romance [yeah]
goodbye to friends, I tell you
goodbye to all the past.
I guess that we’ll meet.

Granted, these lyrics are probably more Beavis and Butthead than Lennon and MacCartney, Simon and Garfunkel, or Gilbert and Sullivan. But what does the school board find so objectionable about the song?
Actually, the controversy concerns not the song, but the song writer and performer – Ozzy Osbourne. The reporter refers to Osbourne’s, “… wild-eyed hard-rocker’s image, born of mysticism and the occult”. The article notes that “the aging heavy-metal rocker has offended some in the past for, among other incidents, biting the heads off of bats on stage and urinating on the Cenotaph outside the Alamo in San Antonio.”
One of the board members stated, “Ozzy could be singing ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’ and I would have a problem with it because of his history as someone who presents a negative message and negative world view.” The board member admitted that “he has never heard the song, but is concerned about the rocker’s ‘nihilistic world view’. ‘I don’t listen to the guy’s songs, but I’ve heard some and I’ve heard some interviews that were real distressing.’

[Insert Robert De Niro voiceover: “Tdings … I’ve hoid tdings … not TDIS dting … but tdings!“]

A senior defended the choice: “By choosing this song, our class isn’t saying we approve of everything Ozzy has ever done in his life. We chose a song; that’s all we did. The song isn’t about violence, lewd acts or gangs; it’s just a song … I think it’s simply about saying goodbye to friends.”

So where do you draw lines here? Can you evaluate a creative work irrespective of the creator? Does a reputation determine reaction? Can a reaction change a reputation? What’s being ‘taught’, and what’s being ‘learned’?

---

DRAFT DODGER₁₉₆₇ = DRAFT DODGER₁₉₉₉?

This letter to the editor appeared in the DMN last week in the wake of Muhammad Ali being named “Sportsman of the Century”:

Ali a draft dodger – I will always remember Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) as a draft dodger. We all had our duty, no matter who we were. – Rowlett, TX

---

ABSOLUTELY!

Just as a personal favor to me, would you please cringe everytime you hear someone say, “Absolutely!”?

---

RESPECT ME, OR ELSE!

Oklahoma state representative Tim Pope will introduce a bill requiring public school students to use “courtesy titles” when addressing their teachers. Pope’s bill is based on a recently-passed law in Louisiana; “I’ve checked with Louisiana schoolteachers and administrators, and they’ve had nothing but good things to say about it. [It’s] basically saying, let’s teach kids that they have to behave in a respectful manner towards their teachers.”

The law carries no penalty or punishment.

Carolyn Crowder, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, “questioned whether civility in the classroom is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Legislature.”

No mention is made of impending legislation requiring teachers to behave in a reciprocating respectful manner towards their students.

---

AND FINALLY

Beauty and Beholders
Does anyone disagree with the wisdom inherent in the old adage that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder“?

Similarly, but perhaps not so obviously, I would ask you to consider that plenty of other ‘things’ (or as De Niro would say, “dtings”) are determined by the “eye of the beholder.”

Do you agree or disagree with this partial list? … duty, success, esteem, prosperity, privacy, security, happiness, peace, anxiety, tolerance, loyalty, kindness, meanness, anger, casual, professional, trust, respect, disrespect, progressive, sensitivity, courtesy, righteousness, truth, blasphemy, joy, jubilant, uplifting, sickening, cynical, ridicule, appropriateness, humor, goodness, jealously, envy, stress, evil, patriotism, grace, wisdom, taste, obscenity, sin, hate …

Here’s to all your beholdings in 2000. May they be sane, appropriate and – most importantly – yours.

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

December 15, 1999

“Chanticleer* Calls”, a twice-monthly newsletter for discriminating readers, thinkers, feelers, speakers, listeners, and cogitators.

---

BLAME IT ON RIO, BUT NOT ON Y2K

When (if?) you get up on January 1st and your newspaper hasn’t been delivered, or if your milk has soured, or your door seems to squeak – before you blame it on Y2K, consider these statistical tidbits offered by the Dallas Morning News yesterday:

• Under normal circumstances, 1-2 percent of all ATM cash machines are down for either mechanical reasons or they’re out of cash.
• 8-10 percent of all initial ATM transactions fail, primarily due to user error.
• Since 1985, nuclear power plants have experienced nine weather-related events during the holiday period.
• U.S. electrical customers average 13 hours of failure per year, not counting major storms.
• The average length of a major storm-related power outage is 72 hours.
• An average of 424 commercial airline flights have been delayed at least 15 minutes on the last five New Year’s days.
• Pay-at-the-pump gas systems fail 1 percent of the time.
• At any particular time, up to 15% of the nations 180,000 stations run out of gas.

Personally, I have a feeling that a lot of Super Bowl watching parties are going to feature leftover freeze-dried meals and bottled water.

---

SURGEON GENERAL ON ‘MENTAL’ HEALTH

‘Mental’ health is in the news because of the recently-released Surgeon General’s report. Some reported findings:

One of every five Americans – adults and children – suffer from “mental illness” in any given year.

Only 15% of adults and 21% of children ages 9 to 17 receive some sort of treatment (SS: I assume these percentages refer to the fraction of 1 out of 5, referred to above)

“Mental disorders” are defined as: “health conditions that are marked by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior” repeating: “health conditions that are marked by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.”

Alzheimer’s disease, depression, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit disorder are all mentioned within the context of “mental health.”

In a separate report, the drug Ritalin was determined to be “more effective than behavior-modification therapy in treating children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”. However, the report also stated that 70 percent of the children in the study also suffered from other problems, such as depression and anxiety. In those cases, behavior therapy provided significant benefits, especially when used with Ritalin.

The report does not detail what constitutes “behavior-modification therapy.”

(… striding to his soapbox ….) Chanticleer comments:

Did you see the 80’s movie “Mr. Mom”, with Michael Keaton and Terri Garr? Jack’s been laid off, and his wife takes a job, and on her first day she’s rushing out the door and trying to give him some very explicit instructions for how to get the kids to school. And he’s all, “Sure, sure, no problem, you run along, I’ve got it under control ….” And then it’s pouring rain, the kids are in the back seat screaming, Jack’s to peering out the foggy windshield through the wiper blades, trying to see his turn-in at the school, and the kids yell, “No, Dad, not here, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!” And Jack is all, “Keep it down, I know exactly what I’m doing, I’m doing it Jack’s way.” And he stops at the curb as a yellow raincoated-volunteer flags him over, and he rolls down his window against the driving rain, and the neighborly volunteer says:

“Jack, you’re doing it wrong.”

Would it surprise anybody if I invoked the memorable works and names of Alfred Korzybski, Irving J. Lee, S.I Hayakawa, Wendell Johnson, Abraham Maslow, Benjamin Whorf, et al, at this point? For about seventy years now, since Korzybski wrote Science and Sanity, we have had the means to not only recognize the pernicious, insidious ways in we talk ourselves into ‘unsanity’, but to also diagnose and prescribe methods to become less ‘unsane’.

Hello? We’re doing it wrong!

Now, I’m not talking about severe ‘mental’ disorders resulting from chemical imbalances, brain damage, etc. I’m talking about those instances of depression, anxiety, stress, fear, paranoia, inattention, etc., which are generally considered to be ‘treatable’ through psychotherapy.

And what is involved in “psychotherapy”? From my three years experience, I can say that mine involved a lot of straightening out how I talked to myself. What was yours like?

At some point, SOMEBODY has got to catch on that Korzybski, et al, have some very relevant things to say about our language hygiene – not only for those fortunate 1 out of 5 who know they have impairments, but especially for the other 80% who, in all likelihood, have significant impairments but don’t know it!

Just as one example … for our first 10 or so years, or about 13% of our lifetimes, we are systematically, deliberately and thoroughly taught to believe – hook, line and sinker – in known falsehoods. Now it’s done primarily out of ‘love’, and generally out of compassion, and from good memories on the part of parents, yet still – almost every parent teaches his/her child to believe in things that don’t exist. Yeah, old ChantiScrooge here is talking about Santa Claus.

And you’re thinking, “Woah! Let’s not go overboard here, guy. You’re talking about … (revered hush) … Santa Claus! The Spirit of Christmas, Red-Nosed Rudolph, and Jimmy Stewart. The glittering sparkle of a child’s wondering eyes reflecting the lighted icicles of the family’s tree.”

To which I respond: If it were just Santa Claus – okay. Let’s spend the first ten impressionable years of a child’s life indoctrinating her to believe, and not even for one moment to doubt, that this fat guy from the North Pole will reward her once a year with gifts – only if she’s been nice, and not naughty – and then after the tenth Christmas, we just say, “Kings X – we were just kidding! Your mom and I bought the stuff at Wal-mart, put it together and put it under the tree while you were asleep. Nope, we didn’t drink the hot chocolate because it was always cold after sitting there for three hours. And yeah, I’ll take the blame that the second gear on your first bike never worked.”

No harm, no foul. Ollie-ollie-in-free.

But it’s NOT just Santa Claus. I’m talking about the Easter Bunny. And the tooth fairy. And since Charlie Brown, the Great Pumpkin. And I’m talking about fairy tales, and ghosts and goblins and unicorns and talking animals. And as we grow older, I’m talking about myths, and old wives’ tales, and superstitions, and jinxes. And psychic hot lines, and horoscopes, and Tarot cards. And then we’re adults and we’re listening to relentless, indiscriminate, unaccountable, incessant advertising claims and we hear, “Better ingredients, better pizza”, and we just shrug and we never, never, never even think to stop and demand, “Oh yeah? Prove it!”

You think I’m over-reacting? Do you think every fifth person you see on the street is a Forrest Gump or an R.P. McMurphy, or a Sling Blade?

I cannot help but believe that there are ultimate consequences from indoctrinating each successive generation to believe in things for which there is no evidence of existence, and that these consequences might correlate to the twenty percent of the U.S. population referred to in the Surgeon General’s report.

---

LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX: “Don’t!”

Headline in the DMN:

“A third of schools use abstinence-only sex education, studies say.” It goes on to say that a third of U.S. schools teach “just say no” as the only appropriate form of birth control. Janet Parshall of the Family Research Council: “We need to communicate the same no-excuses message with regard to premarital sex that we do with alcohol and drugs.” Sarah Brown, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy: “Most Americans would prefer that high school-age teens should not be sexually active. At the same time, most Americans also believe that teens who are sexually active should have access to contraception.” Texas governor, and presidential candidate, George W. Bush, Jr., “touts” abstinence-only education abstinence-only teaches students they should “wait to have sex until marriage or at least until they are older”. This approach does not discuss birth control, except to address its “shortcomings”. 55% of public school districts in the South require abstinence-only education in the Northeast, 20%; Midwest, 35%; West, 28% in 1996, Congress appropriated $250M over five years to promote sexual abstinence until marriage a 1997 poll by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that 22% of Americans believed that teens should not have access to birth control.

Chanticleer comments: Of course George Bush advocates abstinence…. now. I wonder what bounds, limits, qualifies, or otherwise constrains “…or until they are older”? 20? 30? 40? 60? I have some friends who are my age (45) and have never been married. I also have a daughter who’s 16, and so far as I know, not sexually active, which of course is alright by me. However, if for whatever reasons, my daughter doesn’t marry by the time she’s the age of my friends, would I want her to have abstained from any sexual activity for the next 29 years? Would you really want your daughter to be a 45 year-old virgin? Like many of our contentious, divisive issues, we have two groups that share a common, admirable, in-the-best-interests-of-all-of-us goal: We don’t want our (unmarried) teenaged girls getting (accidentally) pregnant. The rub is in the means, which result from basic value presumptions and premises. One group’s premise evolves from a moral mandate; the other’s from a pragmatic assessment of ‘human behavior’ and realistic expectations regarding those behaviors. One problem with some moral-based premises is that they allow no room for exceptions, no conditions, no gray areas.

If premarital sex is wrong just because it’s WRONG!, then it’s WRONG! all the time, no exceptions, no waivers, no deviations. Now, compare and contrast …. from the same section of the same paper …
“France unveils strict rules for ‘morning after’ pill in schools” school nurses may now administer the Norlevo ‘morning after’ birth control pill “only in exceptional cases and only if a doctor or family planning center cannot be reached immediately” 10,000 French girls under 18 get pregnant each year; 6,000 have abortions Norlevo consists of two pills, one taken within 72 hours of intercourse, the other 12-24 hours later Norlevo is available over-the-counter in France, and can be “bought easily because of the lack of side effects” Norlevo works by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus, which opponents contend amounts to ‘abortion’ The French government contends Norlevo is NOT ‘abortion’ since it “intervenes before the egg is implanted in the womb.”

---

QUOTE FROM EINSTEIN’S BULLETIN BOARD

Purported to have been tacked on Albert Einstein’s wall: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

---

MASTER OF WHOSE DOMAIN?

From a Washington Post story, printed in the DMN … advocacy groups such as the NAACP and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) are “racing to secure Internet address names that contain some of the most racist words in the English language in order to keep them away from hate groups. The NAACP has registered several address variations on anti-black slurs. Likewise, the Anti-Defamation League has purchased rights to numerous addresses that contain anti-Semitic epithets.”

(The article claims a seller with the handle “animius” was using eBay.com to auction off the domain name which includes the “n-word” for $1M. However, your ever-diligent Chanticleer scratched around the eBay site and could find no evidence of the “n-word” or “animius”. In case you don’t know, it costs $70.00 to register domain names, and fortunes have been made by ‘cyber-squatters’ who staked claims several years ago to certain high-value words and phrases.)

Words ….. words …… words ….. when we will ever learn?
(sigh)

---

AND FINALLY – “ART”

I had the thoroughly enjoyable privilege of seeing the Tony award-winning play “ART” recently. Judd Hirsch, from TV’s “Taxi”, starred as one of three middle-aged men in Paris whose friendships begin to unravel when one of them pays an outrageous amount for a white-on-white painting. One of the three, Yvan, has been seeing a therapist in advance of his approaching marriage. In an effort to quell the rising tension among the three, Yvan shares this wisdom offered by his therapist to his friends, Marc and Serge: (from the script, written by Yasmina Reza and translated by Christopher Hampton)

If I’m who I am because I’m who I am and you’re who you are because you are who you are, then I’m who I am and you’re who you are. If, on the other hand, I’m who I am because you’re who you are, and if you’re who you are because I’m who I am, then I’m not who I am and you’re not who you are.

READERS REACT

Great issue (IMO). Ever since the Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, Catholic Bashing as become a definite favorite movie theme of mine. I can’t wait to see Dogma now. I would like to know how you handle the following (and I believe most predictable scenario. I too believe I have integrated the concept of me as the observer for any event. For example if I have felt “jealous” at a party when my girlfriend has spent time “flirting” with other men, I tell her that I am feeling jealous and I realize it’s just me. (I know (or at least I make that strong assumption) that my brother’s threshold for jealousy is a lot more tolerant than mine so her behavior would probably go un-noticed by him in a similar situation). I find however that most of the time people skip past that distinction and get offended. Often I have been accused of playing semantics. In your opinion is it possible to explain that distinction without handing the person a copy of Science and Sanity (rather unsightly in formal attire don’t you think?) and wait for a few months while the distinction is made clear? – in Plano

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up. 

Henry David Thoreau

December 1, 1999

“Chanticleer* Calls”, a twice-monthly newsletter for discriminating readers, thinkers, feelers, speakers, listeners, and cogitators.

---

DOGMA

In this Tuesday’s Dallas Morning News (DMN), a letter regarding the new Ben Affleck/Matt Damon movie “Dogma” caught my eye. Co-signed by the President and Secretary of the Dallas Chapter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the letter labeled the movie “obscene” and “blasphemous.” Other descriptive phrases included: “ridicules Christianity in general and depicts Catholicism .. as cynical and hypocritical; uses expletives in nearly every sentence; is the evil antithesis of Pope John Paul II’s message of peace and charity;” and finally, “This sickening attack on Christianity, especially Catholicism, is the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue.”

[ASIDE: Is it a sign that co-signed letters usually go off on tangents? … think about it … sign, co-sign, tangent]

Wow! That sounds pretty bad …. “the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue!”

So after reading this, I had no choice. I put the paper down, finished lunch, and headed off to the theater to see it for myself.

My impressions of the movie will eventually follow. Note that all of my comments can be prefaced, or appended, with “to me”, or “in my opinion”, or “I believe”. In other words, whatever adjectives or descriptive phrases I use in reference to how I evaluated the movie are words and phrases that I choose to describe what I experienced, or how I found the movie … I do not ascribe or project or attribute these words and phrases as qualities inherent in the movie.

This disclaimer – this distinction – is not inconsequential, to me. I believe it makes a huge difference for the President of the Dallas Chapter of the CLFRCR to say, for example:

• this movie is blasphemous
• this movie is obscene
• this movie is the evil antithesis of the Pope’s message
• this movie is the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue

instead of saying, for example:

• I found this movie to be blasphemous
• this movie is obscene, according to my threshold of obscenity
• this movie, to me, is the evil antithesis of the Pope’s message
• in my estimation, this movie can be likened to painting a swastika on a synagogue

Do you see a difference in tone between the two sets of comments, which probably represent two different mindsets?

The first mindset states firmly that the movie IS “blasphemous, evil …”. There is no room for discussion, no place for disagreeing, no acknowledging any possibility for any other judgment. This mindset suggests the attitude, “It IS! You know it, I know it, everybody should know it, everyone should agree on it. It’s the TRUTH! It’s the absolute TRUTH!”

The second mindset still expresses a severely critical judgment, but it at least acknowledges that the evaluation (or judgment) is the result of an individual evaluator (or judger). This more appropriate (in my opinion) mindset allows, if not begs, another individual to reply with, “Well to me, it was extremely hard-biting, dead on satire. What did you find ‘obscene’?”

dog·ma n., pl. -mas or -ma·ta … 2. A principle, belief, idea, or opinion, esp. one authoritatively considered to be absolute truth.

Perhaps – just perhaps, “Dogma”, the movie, attempts to say something about this type of mindset exhibited by the letter co-signers. The irony, of course, is that the mindset precludes getting the message about the mindset. IMO.

Alfred Korzybski, author of Science and Sanity, observed that when we act as “dogmatists” or when we put too much emphasis on rigid, static categories (“categorists”) we copy the behavior of animals, at the expense of our more human capabilities. Clever pun. Accurate diagnosis. IMO.

So back to the movie and my impressions: The movie begins with a disclaimer I found humorously and irreverently sincere, which attempts to pre-empt the type of, uh, dogmatic reaction exhibited by the co-signers. (Maybe they came in late from the concession stand. Too bad they weren’t Baptists, and I could use the old “immersion vs. sprinkling” schtick regarding the popcorn and butter.)

Any movie with the (what’s the ecumenical version of “chutzpah”?) to cast George Carlin as a Cardinal gets off on the right foot with me. To me, the movie reflected wit, imagination, intelligence, creativity, research, insight, humor, sensitivity, and thoughtfulness. It also contained depictions of graphic violence which I could’ve done without, and lots and lots of what some might consider as gratuitous profanity. I found it more than a little ironic that people such as the co-signers would label a film as “blasphemous” whose premise accepts the basic Christian/Catholic beliefs regarding God, Jesus Christ and salvation, angels, demons, etc. I can understand some people might not like the human representation of God depicted by a woman … but I find it extremely, and dangerously, arrogant for anyone to hold such a dogmatic belief regarding something which, in my estimation, is unknowable. Come on, people – “You Oughta Know”! (Inside joke to anyone who’s seen the movie.)

Generally, I found that “Dogma” (the movie) succeeded as a very intelligent, thought-provoking, educational, and entertaining comedic and religious tour de force. To the degree that it prompts viewers to question and examine their own (dogmatic) beliefs – oh, but there’s that idealistic dreamer cropping up again.

---

GEORGIA BAPTISTS

The Associated Press reported that two churches in Georgia were expelled from the Georgia Southern Baptist Convention for allowing gay members to serve as worship leaders and performing a gay marriage. The Convention adopted language last year to exclude congregations that “affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior.” The President of the Convention stated, “It’s a heartbreaking thing to be put in a situation where you have to make a decision like this. We just decided to draw the line.” The churches, whose congregation consists of 20-30% gay members, argued that “their interpretation of the Bible led them to conclude that gays and lesbians should not be excluded from leadership roles.”

Supporters of the expulsions maintain that “homosexuality is a sin”.

---

OTHER BAPTISTS

You may recall that last year, the national Southern Baptist Convention adopted an amendment to their 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. The amendment, as reported by the Dallas Morning News, urges husbands to “provide for, to protect and to lead the family”, and wives to “submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ”.

Earlier this month (November), the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) voted overwhelming to affirm the original language of the Faith and Message – rejecting the 1998 amendment. Charles Wade, executive director-elect of the state convention, explained, “Baptists are very wary of those who would try to impose creeds on each other, and even our 1963 statement of faith has a preamble that expressly says this is not to be misunderstood as some kind of creed that hierarchal religious authorities can use to impose religious conformity on each other.”

[Except, I suppose, in Georgia with respect (er, uh, more like ‘disrespect’) to drawing lines between straight Christians and gay Christians.]

Wade continued, “The Bible doesn’t teach that the husband is the general and the wife is the private, and yet that’s how it gets interpreted.”

Begging to differ, Paige Patterson, president of the national Baptist convention, stated, “I am grateful that the BGCT leadership has made crystal clear for the sake of Texas Baptist churches where they stand on family and church issues. Now it is up to the churches to decide with whom they agree – with a liberal, culturally-acceptable view of family and church, or with a Christ-honoring, Bible-believing perspective.”

An amendment opponent from Corsicana said that the national convention, in citing the fifth chapter of Ephesians, “ignored the verse before … that says to submit to one another. They deliberately voted to start with verse 22 that says, “Wives submit to your husbands.”

An amendment supporter from Austin said: “God doesn’t value women any less than he values men because he was giving a pragmatic (SS emphasis) instruction to how to operate within a family. That’s where I think people are missing the point. There needed to be something that came out that we, as Baptists, affirm the God-given role of the father and husband to take that leadership and responsibility.”

The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky, called the BGCT action an “intentional rejection of biblical teaching. This is another lamentable sign of the determination of some Texas Baptist leaders to alienate Texas Baptists from the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Meanwhile, the newly-elected president of the BGCT said that Texas Baptists “have never been married” to the Southern Baptist Convention, and “sees no hope for reconciliation.”

Wouldn’t be prudent … or pragmatic, I suppose.

---

TALIBAN JUSTICE

On November 16th, the ruling Taliban government of Afghanistan held its first public execution of a woman. According to the AP report, “The woman, a mother of seven children, was convicted of beating her husband to death with a steel hammer as he slept” in what was described as a “family dispute”.

The three-shot execution was held in a stadium. “After the killing, shouts of “God is great!” were heard in the stadium, which was packed with men and women, many of whom had brought their children.”

---

EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM and PRAYER

The November 21st DMN reported: “the latest Texas Poll indicated that 82 percent of Texans believe students should be allowed to lead prayers over public address systems before football games and other sporting events.”

Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, is quoted: “When the Supreme Court struck down the right to pray in school, we saw an obvious result. Now they want to take prayer away in another arena. How far are they going to take this? Where is it going to stop? Is the school bus next and the kitchen table after that?”

The poll also revealed that 64 percent (or almost two-thirds, for you fractionally-challenged readers) said creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution. Mr. Mel Gabler, “conservative textbook critic”, says, “We just want evolution to be taught honestly. While there is evidence for evolution, there is also strong evidence against it. Let’s show kids both sides and let them make up their own minds.”

Interesting notion …. let kids make up their own minds about what they ‘should’ be taught. I wonder if Mr. Gabler and other conversatives would extend this ‘enlightened’ view to, say, the novels they read in English? (“No, Billy, I’m sorry you can’t read Lady Chatterly’s Lover for your book report! … Rufus has already checked it out and we only have one copy. How about Slaughterhouse Five instead? And when you’re done, would you like to use the library’s Internet connection with no restrictions and make up your own mind about what you want to look at?”)

Meanwhile across the river in Oklahoma, Gov. Frank Keating joined that state’s textbook fray by advocating the following disclaimer now mandated to be printed in all biology textbooks: No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

(Would anyone like to join me in a unison, Phoebe-esque, “Right … DUH!”)

Gov. Keating, ever the politician, declared, “This is a matter of sensitivity to a lot of people. There are ardent views on all sides. I think the better system is to encourage a variety of viewpoints.”

The article (DMN, November 28th) reports the same disclaimer has been ordered in Alabama. Several months ago, the state education board in Kansas voted to eliminate questions about evolution from all state-mandated standardized tests.

The article states that Pope John Paul II has “reaffirmed the Catholic church’s position that evolution is indeed supported by considerable scientific evidence, but does not disprove that God started the process.”

How would you like to be the researcher that gets stuck with that one? “Your mission, Morris, should you decide to accept it, is to incontrovertibly prove that God did NOT start the process.”
?
“No, you may not ask for a definition of what constitutes ‘the beginning of the process’.”

I don’t know … maybe instead of praying before football games, concerned citizens need to conduct organized prayers prior to high school biology classes in Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama. (No need to in Kansas, since it won’t be on the test.)

---

AND FINALLY … Believe it or not

Until Copernicus (c.1500) and Galileo (c.1600), humans really believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun rotated around the earth. The Catholic church decreed Galileo a “heretic”, because the church’s ‘infallible’ position was that the Bible clearly depicted the earth as the center of the heavens. Indeed, some clergy argued that, if true, Galileo’s theory “vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation”, and “upsets the whole basis of theology”.

This was a big deal – Galileo could not be right without contradicting the Bible, and the Vatican. Galileo was brought to Inquisition in 1615, convicted, and ordered to be kept under house arrest for the rest of his life. The Church forbade further distribution of his books, and forbade “all writings which affirm the motion of the earth” throughout all of Kansas. I mean, throughout the Christian world. (source:”The Warfare of Science with Theology” by Andrew White, ftp://sailor.gutenberg.org/pub/gutenberg/etext96/hwswt10.txt ).

“An investigation into the astronomer’s condemnation, calling for its reversal, was opened in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. In October 1992 a papal commission acknowledged the Vatican’s error.” (source: “Galileo,” Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

I believe it’s appropriate to critically evaluate (or assess, analyze, think about, question, etc.) our beliefs as beliefs, as conscious choices and decisions we make individually concerning how we view what goes on around us, how we make sense of what goes on, how we derive meaning from what goes on, and how we predict what will go on in the future. I believe it’s appropriate to differentiate between two distinct types of evaluations:

1. that which can be universally observed, demonstrated, agreed upon, etc.; and
2. that which cannot In the second category, I include “beliefs”, “assumptions”, “theories”, “presumptions”, “ideas”, “thoughts”, “feelings”, “opinions”, “estimations”, etc.

I believe that whatever beliefs, or theories, or assumptions, or feelings you hold most sacred, most inviolate, most undeniable – there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people on the earth who do not agree – who perhaps even ardently disagree.

Then again, I could be wrong. And your mileage may vary.

---