I do not usually write about politics. As a Christian, I would hope that many of my positions and inclinations would be clear from the Bible, particularly the New Testament. I certainly don't disdain the Old Testament: it is the father of the New: the Son shines in a different way. The Cross, that central signpost in human history, points the Way for us with painful clarity. It is becoming clear to me, however, that our new President is choosing a different direction to go in. He sees the brightly lit exit, the feeder road going to the superhighway. The traffic is heavy but the pace is fast. The destination? Who cares! They say it leads to paradise. . . . Who wants to take that old goat-trail that heads into the mountains--probably need four-wheel drive anyway.
The Senate, as a sop us dumb-ignorant-stupid-conservatives ("Idiots probably listen to Rush, anyhow"), agreed to not legislate the "fairness doctrine". Well, we're okay, aren't we?! But Dick Durbin (the other senator from Illinois) managed to save the day for Hussein I: Amendment 591, "Diversity in Media Ownership". I believe this only applies to radio stations. Most television stations and newspapers are already quite liberal. I won't go into the free-market tirade again; suffice it to say that conservative stations don't have to be subsidized.
Now, as I understand it, what this seemingly innocuous amendment means is pretty clear ["Hey, you know, we'll even let one of them own a station--long as he has the money, and we don't have to have lunch with him!"]. It will allow the FCC to determine who is licensed to run a radio station, i.e., who can own it. And since El Presidente is picking the commissioners and since Rush and Doc Savage and those other wackos are such pains in the ass . . . It doesn't take a Buchanan to spot this one.
They're building the superhighway already, starting from the coast of Tejas and going straight north to Canada. It will be a mile wide, and where American highways cross it, there will be customs stations, with a major "port" in the Kansas City area. It will split the country in two. Of course, we'll be a part of the North American Union, so that won't matter. Now, be still, boys and girls, this won't hurt--just a little chip in the backs of your hands. Then you can never get lost; we'll know how you're feeling; and you won't need money, or even credito facil, any more. Until then, use these ameros; they're just like the urals they use in Eurabia. Remember to face east, and remember, the telescreen can always see you. . . .
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Prosody
And what, you ask in all innocence, is a "prosody"? Is it some minor technique, like flower arranging? Need one wear an apron, perhaps a bit of makeup . . . ? No, Grasshopper! It is the anatomy of poetry, the body politic of epiphany and theophany [but, you ask, aren't those the same?], the arms and legs and fingers and phallus of poetry! If you ask what is poetry . . . "Oh, do not ask, 'What is it?'/Let us go and make our visit." [Eliot.] It is the body of technique that makes verse into poems. It encompasses meter and rhythm, line and stanza, figures of speech and sound coloration, types and forms. If you think that poetry is made by breaking up prose into indiscriminate line lengths and random stanzas, then read no further. If you think poetry is an irritation that ought to be smacked with a flyswatter, then go back to reading your refrigeration manual or the latest Clive Cussler (though Clive is a hell of a storyteller--he just seems to be poorly translated from German) from the bestseller list.
There is an esthetic conundrum that needs to be dealt with at this point. I will use painting (visual art) as an example (my wife is a painter and sculptor). Traditionalists (and I am one) think that one ought to be able to master the basic tools of a medium, before experimenting. A painter must be able to represent what he sees in a way that someone else can recognize it. He must know how to use the tools and methods of his trade: brush, paper, canvas, easel, pigment, color, line, perspective, composition, and so forth. Only by knowing and reacting against what has gone before can he create something new and fresh. As Uncle Ezra said, "Make it new!" In the case of "modern art", much of what I have seen strikes me as the equivalent of what Woody Allen (in Love and Death) called "practicing in my room". I am no painter, as my wife often reminds me, but when I don't understand what I'm looking at, even when the artist explains it, I am suspicious and have an impulse to ask the artist if he can paint a portrait of his cat. The poet e. e. cummings produced what looked like word salad sometimes, but he knew exactly what he was doing (I think). You have only to read "Epithalamion" or one of his other early poems to see his complete control. Gerard M. Hopkins, who was way ahead (or outside) of his time, did things to English poetry that we're still trying to figure out--but he had mastered available technique (in English and Latin!). One of my favorite influences, W. S. Merwin, has strained syntax, punished punctuation, and done extraordinary things with line and stanza, but his early work is more traditional and magnificently controled.
I was fortunate to have several good poet-teachers in my formative years. The first, Robert Watson, made us buy Prosody Handbook, by Shapiro and Beaume. We hated the book! We felt our teacher was conspiring with Masters S. & B. to torment us and prevent us from expressing ourselves freely. But, by S&B, we knew what a villanelle and both sonnet forms were--and could write acceptable examples of them. Later, Dan Langton, Mark Linenthal, and Stan Rice (late husband of Anne Rice) put the polish on my poetic education. If you don't know your past, you may be condemned to repeat it.
I am not going to go into the mechanics of prosody. There are, as noted above, a number of good books available. Instead, I will offer a small poem, a little reminiscence:
There is an esthetic conundrum that needs to be dealt with at this point. I will use painting (visual art) as an example (my wife is a painter and sculptor). Traditionalists (and I am one) think that one ought to be able to master the basic tools of a medium, before experimenting. A painter must be able to represent what he sees in a way that someone else can recognize it. He must know how to use the tools and methods of his trade: brush, paper, canvas, easel, pigment, color, line, perspective, composition, and so forth. Only by knowing and reacting against what has gone before can he create something new and fresh. As Uncle Ezra said, "Make it new!" In the case of "modern art", much of what I have seen strikes me as the equivalent of what Woody Allen (in Love and Death) called "practicing in my room". I am no painter, as my wife often reminds me, but when I don't understand what I'm looking at, even when the artist explains it, I am suspicious and have an impulse to ask the artist if he can paint a portrait of his cat. The poet e. e. cummings produced what looked like word salad sometimes, but he knew exactly what he was doing (I think). You have only to read "Epithalamion" or one of his other early poems to see his complete control. Gerard M. Hopkins, who was way ahead (or outside) of his time, did things to English poetry that we're still trying to figure out--but he had mastered available technique (in English and Latin!). One of my favorite influences, W. S. Merwin, has strained syntax, punished punctuation, and done extraordinary things with line and stanza, but his early work is more traditional and magnificently controled.
I was fortunate to have several good poet-teachers in my formative years. The first, Robert Watson, made us buy Prosody Handbook, by Shapiro and Beaume. We hated the book! We felt our teacher was conspiring with Masters S. & B. to torment us and prevent us from expressing ourselves freely. But, by S&B, we knew what a villanelle and both sonnet forms were--and could write acceptable examples of them. Later, Dan Langton, Mark Linenthal, and Stan Rice (late husband of Anne Rice) put the polish on my poetic education. If you don't know your past, you may be condemned to repeat it.
I am not going to go into the mechanics of prosody. There are, as noted above, a number of good books available. Instead, I will offer a small poem, a little reminiscence:
What Has Been Planted
I started reading the unabridged
dictionary when I was twelve
it was the best novel I had seen
I took the words
singly and in groups
and planted them in the yard
not knowing what meanings
what shapes what colors
would sprout
and a different crop
would come up every year
casting their connotations to the wind
and flowering with new sounds
before the syllables went to seed
What has been sown
will be reaped long after I have
gone to rest
Daniel Moore
1-10-09
I started reading the unabridged
dictionary when I was twelve
it was the best novel I had seen
I took the words
singly and in groups
and planted them in the yard
not knowing what meanings
what shapes what colors
would sprout
and a different crop
would come up every year
casting their connotations to the wind
and flowering with new sounds
before the syllables went to seed
What has been sown
will be reaped long after I have
gone to rest
Daniel Moore
1-10-09
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Race
Well, here I go again, stirring up the natives! I may have to violate my rule of no-guns-in-the-house (instituted for the safety of the kids long ago; my father kept the family arsenal) soon, if they start coming down the street. I was always a pretty good shot, especially at closer range with the twenty-gauge.
There is no such thing as race in human beings. I repeat, for the farsighted, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE IN HUMAN BEINGS. As a Christian, I base this on the first book of the Bible, "Genesis". As I have said before, rejection or adulteration of any of the Bible, but particularly the first and last books, makes the whole of it moot. Either God created the universe (not the "multiverse"--though it's a neat concept for stories) and us, or we might as well give up and join the Dawkins Dunderheads with their "millions and billions of years". Ken Ham, of "Answers in Genesis", first electrified me a few years ago with a short radio sermon on race and Genesis. The argument is simple: God created us in His "image". I put the latter word in quotes because we do not look like God physically; that is impossible. God is a spirit being and has no physical form; or, conversely, He can take any form He likes (remember Moses . . .). What this means is that we are created with an immortal spirit, intelligence, and free will. We are locked into one form (though one wonders about "shapechangers"--the subject for another essay) at this level of reality.
Now for the next sticking point. . . . Humans display mild variation just like housecats. This is natural and is called micro-evolution. Given the fact that we have only been around for, perhaps, twenty-thousand years (though the strict creationists will dispute this), some differences in size, pigmentation, hairiness, and so forth are to be expected. Genesis speaks of God creating "kinds": human kind, dog kind, etc. Biblical taxonomy is simple and to the point. We seem to have varied less than other kinds; perhaps this is due to our tripartite nature and possession of an immortal spirit. In any event, it puts paid to the concept of "races" of humans. Genetically, we can all be traced back to one set of parents. Thus, there is no need to classify people by race; we are all from the same stock. While I'm at it, let us dispense with the nonsense of other or earlier forms of humans, as contained in that odious term "hominids". We are the only hominids; there have been no others! Current research has shown that "Neanderthals" were genetically so close to the average living person that there is no differentiation--no speciation. The existence of "Bigfoot" and other bipedal apes, or "cryptids", might explain the "fossils" touted as missing links between humans and apes. Some of the cryptids are pigmy forms.
The division of humans into races, such as caucasoid, negorid, mongoloid, etc., is inherently artificial and is always done with the intent of creating division and paranoia. Indeed, the adoption by different groups of cultural identities based on race can be divisive and can limit the work of God in establishing the Kingdom of Heaven. I am not talking about groups speaking different languages or coming together from very different cultures. Multiculturalism should be a natural process of blending, a respectful exchange of flavors. It cannot be forced. This country was founded on the blending of cultures, languages, and creeds. It has produced something greater than the sum of its parts: the United States of America. Vive le difference!
There is no such thing as race in human beings. I repeat, for the farsighted, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE IN HUMAN BEINGS. As a Christian, I base this on the first book of the Bible, "Genesis". As I have said before, rejection or adulteration of any of the Bible, but particularly the first and last books, makes the whole of it moot. Either God created the universe (not the "multiverse"--though it's a neat concept for stories) and us, or we might as well give up and join the Dawkins Dunderheads with their "millions and billions of years". Ken Ham, of "Answers in Genesis", first electrified me a few years ago with a short radio sermon on race and Genesis. The argument is simple: God created us in His "image". I put the latter word in quotes because we do not look like God physically; that is impossible. God is a spirit being and has no physical form; or, conversely, He can take any form He likes (remember Moses . . .). What this means is that we are created with an immortal spirit, intelligence, and free will. We are locked into one form (though one wonders about "shapechangers"--the subject for another essay) at this level of reality.
Now for the next sticking point. . . . Humans display mild variation just like housecats. This is natural and is called micro-evolution. Given the fact that we have only been around for, perhaps, twenty-thousand years (though the strict creationists will dispute this), some differences in size, pigmentation, hairiness, and so forth are to be expected. Genesis speaks of God creating "kinds": human kind, dog kind, etc. Biblical taxonomy is simple and to the point. We seem to have varied less than other kinds; perhaps this is due to our tripartite nature and possession of an immortal spirit. In any event, it puts paid to the concept of "races" of humans. Genetically, we can all be traced back to one set of parents. Thus, there is no need to classify people by race; we are all from the same stock. While I'm at it, let us dispense with the nonsense of other or earlier forms of humans, as contained in that odious term "hominids". We are the only hominids; there have been no others! Current research has shown that "Neanderthals" were genetically so close to the average living person that there is no differentiation--no speciation. The existence of "Bigfoot" and other bipedal apes, or "cryptids", might explain the "fossils" touted as missing links between humans and apes. Some of the cryptids are pigmy forms.
The division of humans into races, such as caucasoid, negorid, mongoloid, etc., is inherently artificial and is always done with the intent of creating division and paranoia. Indeed, the adoption by different groups of cultural identities based on race can be divisive and can limit the work of God in establishing the Kingdom of Heaven. I am not talking about groups speaking different languages or coming together from very different cultures. Multiculturalism should be a natural process of blending, a respectful exchange of flavors. It cannot be forced. This country was founded on the blending of cultures, languages, and creeds. It has produced something greater than the sum of its parts: the United States of America. Vive le difference!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Censorship and Suppression
Forgive me, fans, I have been preoccupied--or post-occupied (why, he's uninhabited!)--lately. I've been writing poetry; have, in fact, joined a poetry group in Tehachapi. I think perhaps it's nearing time to get a real website set up and post Selected Poems. . . . [Thomas . . .?]
I try to stay out of partisan politics here, usually, although my Christian conservatism is in-and-of-itself inflammatory, I suppose. I believe there is a strong possibility B. Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and has abrogated the Constitution in this matter. Be that as it may, he is starting to come against talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. Whenever Franken (who is busy trying to steal Minnesota) or some other liberal comedian tries to break into talk radio, he expires from disinterest. Obama has publicly denounced Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of media conservatives. I listen to Rush. He is sane and patriotic. I wish I could say the same for some of our elected leaders. At least Bragojevitch has been deposed (what an insult to Slavs he is!)--although if I were Governor Quinn, I would have him searched for weapons periodically!
Now to the heart of the matter: The Democrats are going to revive the "Freedom of Choice" act. Reagan killed it in '87. This misnamed FCC rule would mandate equal time for opposing viewpoints in broadcast media. Sounds fair, eh? What it really does is make it uneconomical for radio stations to carry conservative and Christian shows. Rush and company only rose up in the twenty years since Ronnie killed it. In a free marketplace, liberal commentators have to compete for the airwaves. They have failed miserably. I don't know anyone who listens to NPR; I seldom watch PBS. They have to be subsidized. Conservative media don't. Economics aside, I believe the Democrats are going to try to muzzle conservative commentators. This is contrary to the First Amendment. I repeat, THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Our Constitution is the thing that separates us from tyranny and balkanization. I hope our Kenyan-American President realizes this. We need to pray for him. God bless America.
I try to stay out of partisan politics here, usually, although my Christian conservatism is in-and-of-itself inflammatory, I suppose. I believe there is a strong possibility B. Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and has abrogated the Constitution in this matter. Be that as it may, he is starting to come against talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. Whenever Franken (who is busy trying to steal Minnesota) or some other liberal comedian tries to break into talk radio, he expires from disinterest. Obama has publicly denounced Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of media conservatives. I listen to Rush. He is sane and patriotic. I wish I could say the same for some of our elected leaders. At least Bragojevitch has been deposed (what an insult to Slavs he is!)--although if I were Governor Quinn, I would have him searched for weapons periodically!
Now to the heart of the matter: The Democrats are going to revive the "Freedom of Choice" act. Reagan killed it in '87. This misnamed FCC rule would mandate equal time for opposing viewpoints in broadcast media. Sounds fair, eh? What it really does is make it uneconomical for radio stations to carry conservative and Christian shows. Rush and company only rose up in the twenty years since Ronnie killed it. In a free marketplace, liberal commentators have to compete for the airwaves. They have failed miserably. I don't know anyone who listens to NPR; I seldom watch PBS. They have to be subsidized. Conservative media don't. Economics aside, I believe the Democrats are going to try to muzzle conservative commentators. This is contrary to the First Amendment. I repeat, THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Our Constitution is the thing that separates us from tyranny and balkanization. I hope our Kenyan-American President realizes this. We need to pray for him. God bless America.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Lou Reed
"And I thought you were a Christian . . . ! Shouldn't you be listening to Michael W. Smith or [insert your own favorite Christian music]?" WHAT WOULD JESUS LISTEN TO? How could we know? I have a hunch he would be listening to Lou Reed, Bob Dylan, and Tom Petty (insert your favorite singer-songwrtiters here). After all, the gentry (i.e., the Pharisees, etc.) excoriated Josh for hanging out in the wineshops with tax collectors, whores, thieves, and other riffraff. These were the people who were telling him what was really going on. I'll bet if there were poets and singers to be heard, he listened to the ones describing the underside of life. Of course, he was on a mission from his Father, so he was trying to keep them from going down in flames--showing them the Kingdom of God.
I'm not saying Lou Reed has been preaching the Kingdom of God . . . far from it, sometimes. What he's been doing for the last forty or so years has been picking up the rocks under our feet, turning them over, and showing us the things we've hidden, kicked under there. Then he's been searing them across our hearts with words like hot branding irons in songs such as "Sweet Jane", "Heroin", and "Waitin' for the Man", anthems to the underside of life, messages from the black holes beneath our society. Like Dylan, Lou has never sought lasting popularity. He has constantly changed and experimented with his music. I don't like all of it; I think Lou would be surprised if anyone did. My favorite is Rock 'n' Roll Animal and Lou Reed Live! recorded at a concert at the end of 1973 in New York. Of all rock concerts, this is the one I wish I had been at. Steve Hunter and Dick Wagner fronted a five-piece band, playing magnificent, symphonic, dual-lead guitars. Hunter's "Intro" to "Sweet Jane" is "arrogantly long", as one critic said, and brilliant--worth the price of admission itself. After all these years, it still sends shivers through me. The rest of Lou's noble and comic characters show us everyday life, as she is lived at the street level. Thank God for Bach--and thank God for Lou Reed. Rock on, baby, rock on!
I'm not saying Lou Reed has been preaching the Kingdom of God . . . far from it, sometimes. What he's been doing for the last forty or so years has been picking up the rocks under our feet, turning them over, and showing us the things we've hidden, kicked under there. Then he's been searing them across our hearts with words like hot branding irons in songs such as "Sweet Jane", "Heroin", and "Waitin' for the Man", anthems to the underside of life, messages from the black holes beneath our society. Like Dylan, Lou has never sought lasting popularity. He has constantly changed and experimented with his music. I don't like all of it; I think Lou would be surprised if anyone did. My favorite is Rock 'n' Roll Animal and Lou Reed Live! recorded at a concert at the end of 1973 in New York. Of all rock concerts, this is the one I wish I had been at. Steve Hunter and Dick Wagner fronted a five-piece band, playing magnificent, symphonic, dual-lead guitars. Hunter's "Intro" to "Sweet Jane" is "arrogantly long", as one critic said, and brilliant--worth the price of admission itself. After all these years, it still sends shivers through me. The rest of Lou's noble and comic characters show us everyday life, as she is lived at the street level. Thank God for Bach--and thank God for Lou Reed. Rock on, baby, rock on!
Friday, December 12, 2008
Merry Christmas, Richard!
This column is dedicated to an author I encountered online recently. Your website is highly interesting to me, dealing with what I call "protohistory". In particular, your expertise in anthropology and linguistics inspire me. You have published several books in the general area. In addition, you write very well, which is a rarity. I assumed we had some common ground, so I initiated an e-mail correspondence with you. You thanked me for being a "fan". This is a term I will gladly suffer for someone I really respect. For instance, I am happy to be a fan of the great writer Gene Wolfe. Then I made the mistake of telling you I am a creationist. My few readers know this--and still read me, apparently!--even though their views are not necessarily the same. You have taken the trouble to read my columns in this blog, Richard, and have responded by telling me I know nothing about science, history, or anything else and that I am a bigot. Please! I am opinionated, stubborn, and sometimes facile, but anyone who knows me knows that I try hard to rid myself of unreasoning prejudice. We Christians call this quality humility. You told me--warned me--that you were neither atheist nor Christian. This should have tipped me off. I still assumed we could share some common ground in our interest in a previous great civilization. I was wrong. I see from Wikipedia that you are in your mid-seventies; I am 60. I guess that as one ages one's views either harden, like arteries, or become more open, more accepting--though one must beware of gullibility. I have been accused of being overly credulous, and I have had to admit I didn't know what I was talking about. It hurts. What hurts even more, Richard, is unreasoning rejection and the imputation of narrow-mindedness. I know when I am wrong, and have done wrong, Richard; do you? I know you will not read this; you have cut off any communication. But I will try my best to pray for you, Richard. Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Nephilim
In Genesis 6:2 it says, ". . . the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." In 6:4 we are told "the Nephilim [giants] were on the earth in those days. . . the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." This is from the New American Standard translation, perhaps the most literal of tranlations. Some of the older ones have "giants" instead of Nephilim. The root of the word means "fallen". Whether this is in the sense of fallen angels, or demons, or men who "fall" upon women, is debatable. The term "sons of God" seems generally to mean angelic beings. There are, as far as we are told, two classes of created beings: humans and angels. Demons are angels who rebelled against God. Demons seem to be able to take physical form and interact with humans; there are a number of instances in the Bible. The resulting offspring might well be giants, "mighty men . . . of renown".
Aside from Biblical references to Goliath and other giants, there have been numerous discoveries of giant burials: great skeletons measuring seven to twelve feet in height. They were often buried with armor and weapons of great size and weight. I believe these were descendants of demon-human interbreeding: nephilim. They originally possessed great intelligence and strength. The pantheons of "gods" refer to these nephilim. In other words, Zeus and Thor existed as actual beings. Any preternatural powers they might have possessed would have come from their demonic sires. Great intelligence, demonic knowledge, and great physical abilities would have been enough to dominate their world. Several epistles of the New Testament, Peter and Jude, indicate that God chained some of the fallen angels responsible in deep pits (i.e., Hell).
The fabulous creatures of myth, legend, and folklore (MLF), such as pegasus and centaurs, were actual beings created by demonic manipulation of genetic material. This, I think, is perhaps the main reason why God chose to wipe out most life on Earth. The Enemy perverts, but only God can create. "There were giants in the earth in those days . . ." Until the Flood. . . .
Aside from Biblical references to Goliath and other giants, there have been numerous discoveries of giant burials: great skeletons measuring seven to twelve feet in height. They were often buried with armor and weapons of great size and weight. I believe these were descendants of demon-human interbreeding: nephilim. They originally possessed great intelligence and strength. The pantheons of "gods" refer to these nephilim. In other words, Zeus and Thor existed as actual beings. Any preternatural powers they might have possessed would have come from their demonic sires. Great intelligence, demonic knowledge, and great physical abilities would have been enough to dominate their world. Several epistles of the New Testament, Peter and Jude, indicate that God chained some of the fallen angels responsible in deep pits (i.e., Hell).
The fabulous creatures of myth, legend, and folklore (MLF), such as pegasus and centaurs, were actual beings created by demonic manipulation of genetic material. This, I think, is perhaps the main reason why God chose to wipe out most life on Earth. The Enemy perverts, but only God can create. "There were giants in the earth in those days . . ." Until the Flood. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)