http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12530891/

bursting forth like a hammer blow
beneath layers of dirt and poor
a smile to shame
our leather coated
air conditioned
fat bellied world
or not even a world
some commercial on tv
where hunger is an alien
and dirt is where you put
plastic trees
that look so real
that make us smile
when we’re forced to touch them
to see if they are real
good thing no one’s
touching us.

https://www.compassion.com/contribution/default
http://www.supportunicef.org/site/c.crKQI0PDIsE/b.1079857/k.BF4C/Home.htm
https://secure.ga4.org/01/support_now?stationpub=i_hpb4_s55

This poem will sound silly if you haven't read The Tempest. The Tempest, in my opinion, would have been better off a tragedy. So I rewrote the ending :)

The Death of Prospero

Prospero hangs his mantle now
And Sycorax cackles how
His magics cease to shackle her
To vengeance she will stir

Sycorax summons Caliban
Half devil and half man
She buys him with her promises
Miranda will be his

Together they slay Ariel
Weeping as he fell
And set for dauntless Prospero
A trap before he goes

Hearing his slain servant's voice
Prospero has no choice
Quickly gagged and tied up tight
Prospero cannot fight

In horror he is forced to watch
Miranda as she's caught
Caliban now makes a bed
Miranda will be wed

Yet Prospero has one last chant
He motions with bound hands
His life is lost as per the spell
His soul now bound for hell

Yet one more life the spell requires
And Caliban expires
Miranda takes his wicked axe
Dispatching Sycorax

Ferdinand at last arrives
Miranda falls and cries
For hanging there above her head
Her father now is dead.

OK, so it's silly anyways. It was fun to write though.

Righly divide the scripture?
It is the scripture that divides!
Depositing its discerners,
On such polemic shores.
Each one names the other side,
Each one names it true:
For there always is another side,
When God has more than two.

Seeing. I have heard it is believing, but I have seen nothing which I truly believe. God I have not seen, I have not seen a perfect love. Indeed, it seems that seeing precludes belief, because the moment something becomes tangible, manageable; believing resolves disappointingly into knowing, and knowing dies to imagination, dies to any hope. Perhaps this is why love is blind, for love believes, hopes, endures, and bears all things. Therefore, the syllogism "love is blind, God is love, God is blind" works! For what other God than a blind one, is capable of loving me?

As is inevitably the case in a modern study of literature, one must face the F word. And while Feminism is quite unsavory on the surface (especially to men who have been raised in the South), like a creme brulee, once cracked, yields intoxicating treasures. Here is a field which, like Liberation Theology, is all about the oppressed. You can argue with whether or not women are truly oppressed anymore, but when you realize how desperately good literature relies upon the Canon of the past (if sometimes only to subvert it), and when you realize that the Canon is composed of works written by dead white guys, you begin to understand how new being a female writer really is.

It also hit me that for almost two millennia, in order for women to "be absolved" or interface with God at all, they had to go through a man! Unless, of course, they became nuns. It has since become less difficult for me to understand the Feminist movement. Women eschewing society's idea of what it means to be feminine makes sense when you understand three things.

The first is that in order for women to be free to choose what it means for them to be women, they must throw off any pressures which force them to be a certain way. This is why some of them quit shaving their armpits, don't worry themselves so much about having children, and otherwise act like what seems to us men "more masculine". The problem is that in a binary system where they can only be male or female, as soon as they try for a moment to step outside of what it means to be female, they are immediately perceived as male. And while this "stepping out" of the female mold may be as simple as performing a mental exercise (i.e. imagining shaving their heads and not wearing makeup instead of having to actually do it), it is necessary for them to do so in order to look objectively at their situation.

The second is that the end goal of Feminism is not to permanently throw away all of society's ideas of what it means to be female. One purpose of Feminism is to attempt to objectively sift through all the things being female entails now that they are free from the pressures of a patriarchal society. As long as they understand why they want to become "stay-at-home moms" and as long as it is a conscious, voluntary choice on their part, accepting a more traditional female role does not violate the tenants of Feminism.

The third (how silly of me to have exactly three points) is that while Feminists seek an equality of rights, this does not entail androgeny. We are physiologically (and perhaps spiritually?) different, and in an ideal society, these differences are celebrated healthily.

The question for me becomes: how can a man participate in the Feminist struggle?

OK. So I figured out the psychology behind this particular bout of the Blogging Blues. Actually, I knew all along what was going on, so I have some fessing up to do. Recently, there has been quite the stir on Greg Kendall-Ball's site over the topic of homosexuality and the church, specifically his series of four "Purity and Disgust" posts. Seeing as how I spend 8 hours per day sitting in front of a computer and there's not much else [constructive] to be doing on the internet, I thought I would jump into the debate. As is usually the case with things I do, I became super self-conscious/defensive about my comments and ideas. This unhealthy fixation came to a head with this series of embarrasing comments on my part:

OK, sorry to repost my previous thought, but I’ve revisited and elaborated on it. Here is what I make of all this purity and disgust hullabaloo:

Process for a conversation about homosexuality:

1) Each party must exercise self-honesty and grace. Self-honesty by admitting emotive biases to the other party (homophobes admitting disgust factor, homosexuals admitting tendency to react). Grace by being willing to overlook words or actions generated by the emotional biases of the other party in order to focus on what is really trying to be communicated.

2) After exercising self-honest/grace, a humanizing realization occurs about the other party and the ability to dismantle emotive biases and develop the ability to empathize is gained.

3) Each party allows the other party within the “Moral Circle” where each party is given the benefit of the doubt. Now finding each other on the same side of the battle against uncertainty, the unified body can proceed to ask the appropriate questions with the appropriate attitudes.

The danger with #3 is that sometimes people become so comfortable with the “Moral Circle” that instead of continuing to engage in the debate, the common denominator of held beliefs becomes watered down and the discussion dies off. A second danger would be to forget the ethics of the debate and let discussion degenerate into a fight which destroys the Moral Circle. The key is to expertly walk the tension between disagreement and remaining within the Moral Circle.

Not bad right? I mean here I am laying out a pretty good process for moving past the disgust factor in the debate surrounding homosexuality. I started having fantasies about subsequent commenters posting about how clear I made things, and how as far as they're concerned I've truly resolved the issue. My bubble was burst with the next commenter's post:

I prepared a beef stew this afternoon. I started by browning the meat in a skillet with sunflower oil. As the meat cooked I chopped up carrots, potatos, onions, zuchini, cabbage, and garlic. I placed these chopped vegetables in a colinder and washed away their impurities. By this time the meat was sufficiently cooked, so I put the chopped vegetables and meat in a pot, filled the pot with water, and added salt, parsely, basil, and beef bouillion. I brought the stew to a boil, then let it simmer. It has been cooking for 3 hours now, and in a few minutes I will eat my delicious dinner along with a large bottle of Stella Artois, a Belgian beer.

First off, you have to admit that this is a very strange place to be commenting on your dinner. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more I began to think that this jerk was making fun of my step-by-step approach to the homosexuality issue at hand. I was deeply hurt! So hurt/angry in fact, that I responded rather hastily:

thanks JH. while quite hurtful to my pride, you make a good point that my comment was silly in its step-by-step format. next time i post a comment i will:

1) write as i normally do, which is in a very linear computer language sort of way which i have to do in order to grasp concepts because i’m slow.
2) ask you to rewrite it so that you can add that much more circular, flowing, and witty flair i’m so obviously lacking.

Can you taste the acid? I mean I really ripped this guy a new one. While still hurting, I felt a little vindicated by the wittiness of my reply. Ha ha ha ha! You can't best me! The next post made me want to vomit and hide under a rock:

Bryan, my comment had nothing to do with yours, be at ease. It was merely a matter-of-fact representation of the events of my afternoon, and an attempt to share the joy of cooking with my fellow commenters. The stew was delicious, btw, and I’m saving the remainder of it for a midnight snack tonight.

AAAAHHHHRRRRRGGG!!!!! I wanted to rip my head off and stomp on it. Here I was, preaching about how we should be giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt, when I TOTALLY acted like a 3-year-old. I sheepishly tried to make ammends:

what was that about me saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt… sorry JH! guess that’s what i get for being overly concerned with my comments. embarrassing… glad your stew was yummy.

I don't think it worked. JH didn't reply, and to make matters worse, this embarrasing [globally public] exchange seems to have killed the debate about the much more important issue of homosexuality at hand. Now you can understand why I wanted to throw away my blog, my computer, the internet, and chop off my fingers. Grrr. Still makes me upset. Anyhoo, this confession is cathartic. JH, if you're out there, forgive this idiot. Provide me with closure. Or not. Maybe I need to swallow my just desserts and learn what this commenter had to say:

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires...

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless...

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

I've recently felt pretty burnt out about the whole online community. I feel like tearing down my blog and never posting comments again. Haven't quite figured out the psychology behind it yet. Maybe like a baby throwing a temper tantrum I'm not getting the attention I want. Maybe it's sucking my time up and becoming an addiction. I guess like everything, there's a healthy way to interact online and then there's what I'm doing. I was hoping to subvert the blogging blues by posting about them. I don't think it's working. Don't be surprised if I quit posting for awhile.

I'm reading Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish and am being forced to look at just how institutionalized our society really is. Think about it. When you're born, your name, weight, place of birth, gender, race, etc. are all registered and kept in hospital or county records.

When you get old enough, it becomes illegal for you not to go to school. In school your grades, conduct reports, standardized test scores, health screenings, etc. are all also registered. In school you must sit still in a desk. You must abide by rules and stay in classrooms that are square and confining. When you go home you must do homework. This continues up through high school and for a lot of kids university.

Once you turn 18, you are also being monitored by the police. If you're a boy you sign a draft card. You have credit cards and records. You register to vote.

If you get a job, you have a job history you must report on subsequent applications. There your performance is judged and compensated accordingly. You must report your income regularly and get taxed. Death and Taxes. Your only other alternative is wellfare, which is another system of forms and record keeping.

If you break the law, you enter a different institution consisting of courts and metal cages. Endless forms. Paper work and permanent records you must always present any time you want a job.

If you get sick, more paper. You have a medical history. Shot records. Insurance companies get to know how many kidney stones you've had.

If you go mad, you go to a psychiatric ward. More paper. Meds.

If you get old, you go to a retirement home. The government gives you Social Security. People walking around in scrubs and take notes about the regularity of your bowel movements.

You die, and your time of death is pronounced and written down on a piece of paper. You are buried in a place where it is legal and regulated for you to be buried. Always square, confined spaces.

No wonder our culture relates powerfully to movies like The Matrix. No wonder words like "freedom" and "liberty" mean so much to us. For a lot of people the institutionalization is so far in the background that it doesn't really bother them. For others they appreciate the efficiency and control and sense of safety it provides. For others they feel like one stupid thing like having bad credit or a criminal record or being born black or with a heart condition is not something they can ever escape.

I'm wrestling with how I feel about it. Emotively, the rebel in me wants to look at the cameras and computer monitors like Nero does in Matrix II and give them all the finger. Not a very Christian response. A small part of me (the part that made me idealize my short career with Harding Security) believes in the utopic vision of justice and service to mankind these tools might potentially empower. The problem is that the systems are set up like an enormous machine where all the controls are organized into a neat control panel that sits in Washington DC. The machine isn’t inherently good or bad, but it certainly empowers whoever is pushing the buttons. This seems to be a strangely pyramid shaped power structure for a supposedly democratic society.

I know some of the consequences of this institutionalization can be pretty bad. It does funny things to ethics. Because the system is so surveillant, corrective, and automatic, instead of “doing the right thing” people are “doing the correct thing”. It’s like legalistic religion where people have forgotten why they have religious feasts and ceremonies. This is one among many complicated reasons that kids take guns and start shooting teachers and classmates. Have you noticed where all these shootings take place? They go into INSTITUTIONS like school, the workplace, and courtrooms. They don’t seem to have very personal indictments against the people they are shooting. They seem to be attacking something vague and abstract. They have lost any reason not to shoot people other than that it’s against the rules. “This is a classroom, not a videogame son.” The classroom, in my opinion, is just as virtual and constructed as videogames are.

As is typical of liberal ranting, I’m not really offering an alternative to institutionalization here. I am saying, however, that it’s important that we as individuals develop ethics based not on institutions but on morals. The reason we don’t run the red light in the middle of the night when nobody’s around should not be because we’re scared of being seen by the power structures around us. We might choose not to run it because as Christians we believe in submitting to authorities. We should not, however, be held by an invisible wall of fear. That, to me, seems evil.

Cain IV is up... somebody dies in this one. Email me for access. Also, Sunny has come up with the above image for Cain II. Can you imagine having to slaughter one of these guys?