Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Dumbpire Strikes Back


This is really great news, because with Trump now out of the picture the Republican 2012 presidential clown car is in desperate need of a driver:

Real Clear Politics: Palin's Secret Weapon: New Film To Premiere In June/5.25.11

That's right. Not content to be simply the reality TV politician -- pardon, the Celebrity Rehab-era D-list has-been reality TV politician -- Palin is now stretching her wings and making the jump to the big screen in a film directed by conservative DeMille Stephen K. Bannon.

Here's the pertinent info for those who don't feel like even going so far as to scan the upcoming 6% rating at Rotten Tomatoes:

"The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run... Bannon, a former naval officer and ex-Goldman Sachs banker, sees his documentary as the first step in Palin's effort to rebuild her image in the eyes of voters who may have soured on her, yet might reconsider if old caricatures begin to fade. The film will also appeal to staunch Palin supporters who have long celebrated her biting rhetoric and conservative populism yet know little about her record in Alaska and have perhaps written her off as presidential material."

Because if anyone knows how to rehabilitate an unpopular brand in the eyes of the public, it's a guy who used to work at Goldman Sachs.

Either way, prepare yourself -- she's ready for her close-up. Again.

Yawn.

Quote of the Day, Jr.


"Rain, thunderstorms, winds getting whipped into tornadoes of horrific proportions. Hot weather, all of this stuff. And what are the Republicans thinking about? They're not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They're just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Missouri, on Sunday. But you know what they're talking about? Like this right-wing slut, what's her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama's doing it, they're working him over."

-- Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham

Let's see, is calling a woman a slut the same thing as calling Ed Schultz a fucking pinheaded boob who should've been bounced out of the MSNBC lineup about thirty seconds after he got there? No? Good. I didn't think so.

Quote of the Day


"One day after Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) stirred controversy by withholding funds for tornado relief, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took the extraordinary step of declaring Rep. Cantor a disaster area. Within hours of the declaration, FEMA officials were dispatched to assess the damage to Mr. Cantor’s status as a human being capable of empathy."

-- Andy Borowitz, in the Borowitz Report

Man, I hate to steal Cesca's ongoing refrain, but seriously -- keep it up guys, you're doing great. The supposedly mainstream Republicans have allowed themselves to be completely hijacked by the loud but relatively small contingent of tea bagging nutjobs at the fringe of their party -- and they're going to pay a huge price for it with the voting public. Need proof? Last night a nobody Democratic candidate named Kathy Hochul won a stunning victory in a special election in New York's 26th district; that's a district that votes Democrat about as often as Burlington, Vermont votes Republican. Hochul won by hammering home the point I made just a couple of hours ago: whatever this hyper-libertarian brand of politics is that the Republicans are now engaging in in an effort to appease the Tea Party dolts, it's metastasized into something that doesn't care one bit about the average American. From Paul Ryan's Medicare-decimating budget to unconscionable dog-shit like Cantor's willingness to hold federal funds for tornado victims hostage, the message is clear -- and if it keeps up it's going to spell destruction for the GOP, at least in the short term.

But now that I'm bringing it up, there's something else I've wanted to touch on for a while. Yes, it's true that stupidity, like shit, rolls downhill, and dumb parents will inevitably pass on their dumb traits to their kids, creating an entirely new generation to populate the Idiocracy. But the demographic make-up of the country is changing rapidly: it's becoming "browner," more multi-cultural, more of a true melting pot than it's ever been before. And if you don't think that the Tea Party, above all else, is a response to that terrifying scenario for white, Christian America, you need to have your head examined (provided it's still covered by your insurance carrier). I've said for a long time now that the Tea Party "revolt" is based not exactly in racism, per se, as much as profound xenophobia -- the knowledge by those who have traditionally been in power that "their country" is being systematically taken away from them. It's inevitable that eventually America will be not simply home to but in control of people from many different backgrounds (and nothing proves that more than the election of President Obama, hence the visceral hatred of him by some). What does this mean for the Republican party as it now exists and for what it now believes in? One word: doom. The Tea Party outrage is basically the death throes of the current GOP political model. What the Republicans have stood for, campaigned on, pandered to and enabled over the last several decades is, to put it bluntly, unsustainable. This isn't opinion -- it's fact.

DXM History Repeats: Television


We're just five days away from the official fifth birthday of this little experiment of mine -- and as we look back at some of the topics you've seen me return to over and over again here at DXM throughout the last five years we're finally winding down the television portion of things. The following piece is another of my personal favorites (I realize I've said that a few times during this retrospective, but I'm entitled to a couple of columns I really love among, what, 5,500?); it details an audacious and immensely stupid return trip I made to the Time Warner Center -- home of CNN's New York City offices -- four months after being shown the door of the place by security. Some behind-the-scenes bonus commentary on this piece: It actually got me into a little bit of trouble because of the inside info I revealed regarding my friend Jacki Schechner's own departure from CNN. After this thing hit the Huffington Post, it started a wave of indignant telephone calls in several different directions, all of it winding up in my lap -- or my Blackberry's lap -- during, of all things, a Lamaze class.

The DXM Fifth Birthday Jubilee

Topic: CNN

Number of Posts: 291


"The Outsider" (Originally Published, 6.9.08)

The look on Bryan Bell's face alone would've made the whole thing worth the effort.

A current senior producer on CNN's American Morning and, ironically, the man who moved me up to New York from the network's Atlanta hub -- unwittingly setting off a chain of events that would eventually lead to me being fired -- Bell was one of the first people I ran into upon faux-casually strolling into the lobby of the Time Warner Center last Wednesday morning.

"What the hell are you doing here?" he asked, sharply breaking his stride in my direction and contorting his face into a wide-eyed mask of appropriate surprise. He was, after all, suddenly standing face to face with a ghost -- someone who four months previously had been shown the door to the building and wasn't supposed to be allowed back in under any circumstances. Yet, there he was. There I was.

I shot Bell a smirk tinged with as much subversive attitude as I could muster -- which, given the situation and the level of insurgent impertinence required of me to bring it about, was quite a bit. "Going to the internet conference up on 10," I said as I glided past him, spinning and pushing a quick fist into his shoulder. "Good to see you, man."

He was still staring in some form of disbelief as I turned and squeezed between the closing doors of the elevator, locating the familiar button for the 10th floor almost involuntarily and punching it.

We're just about at the end of "Internet Week '08" here in New York City, the first of what organizers hope will be an annual event aimed, from what I can gather, at bringing together the powerful movers and shakers of the digital and media worlds in a concentrated effort to better understand and more fully utilize the internet to jack the American consumer. All week long, various seminars, panel discussions, cocktail parties, meet-and-greets and opportunities for hipster hook-ups have been going on throughout the city. And while Internet Week probably isn't the sort of boon to New York's prostitution industry that, say, last month's annual Fleet Week celebration was, it's admittedly allowing for an unusual confluence of ideas and cultures, as at least a few of the gaunt and scruffy Red Bull addicts of the internet underclass -- still basking in the post-orgasmic afterglow of Comic-Con -- are granted entrance to the Emerald City and afforded a rare audience with the mighty media wizards who usually prefer to remain safely behind the curtain of their office doors. For the people at the top, it means a chance to get a better handle on that whole "internet thing," while for the young upstarts on the bottom, it presents a host of opportunities to kiss a little Illuminati ass in the hope of landing the kind of job that will allow them to pay their hefty student loan tabs and fulfill their dreams of transforming themselves into that Ferrari-driving techno-smart-ass kid from the National Treasure movies.

As someone who violated the accepted protocol and did everything backwards -- slipping from the warm embrace of corporate media favor to tumble down and land in journalism's not-so-soft underbelly -- I haven't been sure of my personal place in the Internet Week festivities. Almost everyone in attendance has either already "arrived" or is looking to devour his or her way up to the top of the food chain; I've recently taken up residence near the bottom. A lot of them are nursing big aspirations of getting in; I still have a fresh shoe print on my ass from being kicked out.

In other words, I knew going into it that I'd probably spend a lot of time asking myself just what I was doing there -- regardless of where there happened to be at any given moment.

But the Time Warner Center wasn't like any other stop on my Internet Week itinerary: It's the building that houses CNN's New York studios, which means that it's where I worked for three years before being fired a few months ago for, of all things, blogging. Bryan Bell, my friend and former co-worker, was right in echoing and putting a finer point on my own sentiments: What the hell was I doing there?

I only had a few seconds to ponder whatever combination of brass balls and rank stupidity led me to venture back into the belly of the beast before the elevator doors separated, depositing me on the TWC's 10th floor for last Wednesday's "Conversations on the Circle" breakfast panel discussion, sponsored by Time Warner and moderated by CNN's porcine D.C. bureau chief, David Bohrman. As I stepped out of the recessed and muted lighting of the elevator, the first thing that struck me was the contrast. I'd never considered the Time Warner Center public office area from the perspective of a civilian and therefore hadn't noticed that everything a visitor sees -- from the moment he or she walks through the revolving door entrance and navigates security to the ride up in the high-speed elevator -- is covered in light-absorbing black slate and brushed steel. The whole place looks like the Death Star, only slightly more imposing. Walking in, you get the impression that somewhere in the building, there's a control room for a laser cannon mounted on the roof with enough firepower to destroy 30 Rock. But that sense of foreboding lifts the second you arrive on 10 -- the top visitor-accessible floor and the main conference area. It's almost as if the building's interior designers purposely aimed for a William Blake-style "heaven and hell" motif, with the dark and spare street-level lobby representing the heretical netherworld and the lofty heights of the 10th floor symbolizing the kind of elysian hereafter that awaits only the most noble servants of the mega-media ethos.

Put simply, everything on the 10th floor is so damn bright. The floors gleam with the polished reflection of overhead lighting, the halls are coated with an eggshell matte; there's even a surreal Vegas-like array of white pinpoint lights that flashes uselessly along one wall leading to the conference area, which is itself an awe-inspiring separate section of the floor complete with 20-foot high ceilings and massive picture windows providing spectacular views of the city beyond. At no point during time spent in the TWC's conference area will anyone cease to be impressed by its grandeur and reminded that he or she is being given a chance to converse with the enlightened beings atop Olympus.

I edged past the seemingly life-like welcome drones, the thin attractive women dressed in smart black Nehru suits waiting outside the elevators. Their job was to direct attendees to the Hudson conference room where the morning's seminar was being held, but I figured I knew where I was going and didn't need to ask directions -- plus, the further I kept my head down, the better. I'd already signed in downstairs, in hell, so when I arrived at my destination -- a spacious room dotted with several high, circular tables and featuring a spartan coffee and juice buffet station against one wall -- I dropped my shoulder bag and immediately made a bee-line for the food, my thinking being that if I was going to listen to Dave Bohrman for an hour-and-a-half, at least I could do it on a stomach full of high-quality freebies.

I had staked out a table and was engaged in a conversation with one of the morning's other attendees -- each of us about half-way through a cup of coffee and a blueberry muffin -- when the announcement was made that it was time to begin. Slowly, everyone around me picked up their things and began filing into a separate room, some grabbing a road bagel or final bottle of water off the food table as they passed it. I didn't say anything out loud, but the revelation that we weren't going to be forced to stand throughout the seminar drew a small sigh of relief out of me; up until that point, it had been impossible not to notice the giant screen on the wall opposite the breakfast table, upon which was the projected image of four empty chairs -- one would assume, the places where our esteemed panelists would soon be sitting. At one point, I wondered if they'd just keep us happily noshing while, somewhere far removed from the riff-raff, Bohrman and company addressed us via teleconference. Either way, the sight of those four empty chairs looming over me and my fellow guests as we snacked was more than a little unnerving. I kept waiting for the faces of the Kryptonian High Council to suddenly appear, bellow that we were all "GUILTY" and banish us to the Media Phantom Zone.

Especially me.

I was the guiltiest man in the room, after all.

But as I joined the herd pushing into the next room -- as I readied myself to come face to face with one of CNN's most powerful news managers -- I wondered if I was the only one who knew it.

I followed the crowd of a couple hundred into the conference room proper, and the first thing I noticed was the view.

In what seemed to be a deliberate effort to further impress upon the attendees of the "Time Warner Conversations on the Circle: Internet and News" seminar just who the hell they were dealing with, the guest seating for the event faced toward the giant floor-to-ceiling windows which made up one entire wall. Opposite the glass was a panorama of the West Side of Manhattan that was even more breathtaking than anything we'd seen previously. I made my way over to the far side of the room and took a comfortable seat in the third row, the raised platform and four empty panelist chairs now no longer a projected image on a screen but a three-dimensional reality just a few feet in front of me. I reached into my bag, pulled out a reporter's notebook and waited for the discussion to begin -- or at least for security to realize the mistake that had been made and forcibly escort me out of the building.

Thankfully, the former happened before the latter.

David Bohrman was introduced as an award-winning producer and the "inventor" of the CNN/YouTube debates by a grinning representative from Time Warner who then flitted away to grab a seat directly in front of the dais. Even for a company flack, the rep seemed a little too eager to be there -- particularly so early in the morning; as I watched him adjust his front-row seat, I found myself waiting to see if he'd suddenly produce a clear, watermelon-proof tarp with which to cover himself. My split-second reverie was broken by the sound of Bohrman's voice in front of me and booming from the speakers overhead, drawing my attention back to the stage.

Besides maybe salesman-of-the-month at a Hummer dealership, David Bohrman looks like he could only be one of a few things: the unhealthily stressed-out head of a newsroom, a noticeably overindulgent corporate shill, or the manager of a political campaign. The fact that he is, in reality, all three should come as no surprise to anyone. Bohrman's a large man, with a hairline that's receded to just about the very top of his head and a well-groomed salt-and-pepper beard. He wears thin-framed eyeglasses that all but vanish against his prodigiously round face, as well as the kind of suspenders and J.C. Penney tie combo that make it seem as if he's purposely attempting to be a walking promotion for Larry King Live. Bohrman would be intimidating if he weren't such a damn news cliché in the Jerry Nachman vein, only infinitely more acquiescent to the hatchet men in the adminisphere. His claim to fame when it comes to supposedly bringing CNN into the 21st century is twofold: He was the chief architect of The Situation Room -- that daily sonic onslaught and tribute to the short-attention span -- and of course, he was, as was previously touted and would be throughout the length of the event, the "inventor" of the CNN/YouTube debates. (For the record, to hear CNN refer to these debates and their place in history, you'd have thought the things had cured cancer and aligned the planets.)

Bohrman quickly took a seat, leaning back to allow everyone an inescapable glimpse at the desperate effort the buttons down the belly of his shirt were undertaking to avoid popping off one-by-one into the crowd. I started to wonder if I should've brought my own tarp. He introduced the rest of the panel, the members of which were all conspicuously younger than him: There was Nadira Hira of Fortune magazine, and, as we'd find out, the group's designated "Gen-Y" expert; Steve Grove, head of news and politics for YouTube (also, "the cute one"); and Michael Scherer, a Washington bureau correspondent for Time magazine who appeared, at least from where I was sitting, to be wearing a clip-on tie.

Bohrman started in almost immediately, posing the burning question "what is the internet?" to no one in particular. His own answer was hilariously ironic in its anachronism, given the subject matter.

"It reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live skit that asks, 'Is it a dessert topping or a floor wax? It's both!' Well that's kind of like the internet."

In my notes, I jotted down:

INTERNET = DESSERT TOPPING, FLOOR WAX

What I didn't bother writing down -- because I knew I'd remember it -- was that Bohrman started things off by referencing a gag that had been on TV at least three years before anyone on the panel was even born. It was readily apparent that this kind of just-not-getting-it would be standard operating procedure throughout the discussion -- at least as far as the CNN end of things was concerned.

For the next 20 minutes or so, the panel pontificated on the role of the internet not simply in politics in general, but in this particular presidential race. Hira, once again possessing a virtuosic grasp of "kids these days," brought up Obama's popularity on Facebook and compared the Obama campaign's use of the web and the McCain camp's to the Yankees taking on a little league team. Upon realizing that someone had broached the Facebook phenomenon, Bohrman interjected and reacted with surprise that people could actually forge any sort of meaningful bond with someone who's nothing more than a flat presence on a computer screen, then drew the only analogy he could, saying that a lot of people feel the same kind of connection to Wolf Blitzer.

"He's like a Facebook friend," he said.

I found myself wondering how Wolf would respond if I Superpoked him.

Bohrman then once again brought up the CNN/YouTube debates, just in case anyone had forgotten about them within the last two minutes.

What seemed to outright shock David Bohrman the most, however, was the notion that the panelists -- this new breed of journalists -- actually interacted with their audience, and did so free of many of the constraints that had previously been carefully put in place to shield both the members of the media and the organizations for which they worked. Bohrman may be a trailblazer when it comes to updating the philosophical mindset of the mainstream media, but both the technology and its true impact on what journalists do and what's expected of them is still well beyond his grasp. As I sat listening to him, I realized that likely without meaning to be, he was almost comically arrogant in his apparent belief that the multifarious corporate media giants could embrace the technology needed to thrive in the new world, yet still preserve the single most important necessity to their bottom line: control. Over and over again, the young panelists hammered home the fact that the internet has brought with it an unprecedented level of transparency in our society and culture, particularly when it comes to media organizations, and that the upcoming generation can smell marketed bullshit a thousand miles away, even through a broadband line. Bohrman, meanwhile, seemed to cling to the idea that the heavily-controlled CNN "brand" could translate perfectly to all forms of new media -- that those who are relying more than ever on the internet for their information will trust a big-profit-driven news organization without question the same way they did when they, quite frankly, had no other choice.

As the discussion went on, Bohrman seemed to sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand of an outdated way of thinking. He dismissed The Daily Show and defended the top-down model of information dissemination, which basically dictates that the organizations at the supposed pinnacle of the media carry the most authority. By the same token, he belittled -- probably inadvertently -- the news gatherers and aggregators at the forefront of the new media revolution, saying that the stories they break can be judged by whether or not they "percolate up" to the major networks -- whether the king-makers on TV and in print deem them worthy of a place within their hallowed ranks.

At one point, Bohrman even mentioned his excitement at reading a column on The Huffington Post which linked back to, of course, CNN.com -- ostensibly proving his point.

It was right about then that my hand shot up.

For the next 45 minutes, I sat quietly as Bohrman looked directly at me -- meeting my gaze several times -- but never called on me. This, despite the fact that there were rarely more than a half-dozen hands raised at any given moment as the forum morphed into a question and answer session.

I continued to take notes and continued to keep my hand up, but was strangely by-passed over and over again. Whether Bohrman was aware of just who I was personally and/or my status as an ex-CNN employee and current troublemaking blogger I couldn't tell (although I'd bet that if he reads HuffPost, he's familiar with me in name if nothing else). One thing's for sure though: The conference wrapped up without me being able to ask my question.

Which is why, as the event ended and invited guests began making their way toward the doors, I stood up and headed in the direction of David Bohrman.

"Hi Dave, my name's Chez Pazienza," I said, smiling and extending my hand. "I don't know if you know who I am -- I used to be a producer here at CNN."

He returned my smile and handshake, but seemed distracted. Later, while leaving the building, I'd call my friend and fellow ex-CNNer Jacki Schechner, who used to work closely with Bohrman, and ask her if he was always so nervous and twitchy; she'd say no.

"I'm just curious," I asked, my eyes glued to the face atop his towering frame, "you mentioned reading The Huffington Post and said you were thrilled to see links there leading back to CNN's website. Do you ever read the comments from HuffPost readers whenever someone writes about CNN or, I hate to use this term, corporate media in general?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, they're not usually very complimentary. A lot of people who get their news from the internet are doing it because they don't trust you guys anymore."

He shifted on his feet, his eyes darting well above my head before finding their way back to me. "I don't know -- I mean, I don't think that's true."

"My question I guess is, do you feel at all like CNN as a television organization -- your 'brand' -- is in competition with new media? How do you fight the perception that there's something very wrong with the mainstream media in this country?"

He paused for a moment, then gave me a relaxed smile. "I think organizations like CNN complement new media. There's a symbiotic relationship between the two. We don't see new media as some kind threat."

And with that final word, he took a step back, giving me the international symbol for polite dismissal.

"Alright, thanks for talking to me, Dave -- I appreciate it," I said, then, just for the hell of it, threw him a curveball: "By the way," I smiled, "Jacki Schechner says hi."

See, Bohrman was Jacki's immediate supervisor during her time as a CNN internet reporter, and despite having hired her, he was either unwilling or unable to take a stand in the face of network president Jon Klein's decision to fire her last August -- which might prove better than anything I witnessed at the "Conversations on the Circle" forum that both he and CNN have no idea what matters to those who subscribe to the internet ethos, as Jacki Schechner knows the blogosphere inside and out and was an incalculable asset to an organization attempting to assert its new media dominance.

Either way, I knew she'd be a sore subject, and watching Bohrman suddenly falter and fidget restlessly at the mention of her was even more satisfying than the look on Bryan Bell's face when I first walked in the door.

"Oh, well," he sputtered. "Yeah, I really miss her." He adjusted his shirt and ran his palms down the front of his pants.

"I'll tell her you said that," I said with a smile, turning and walking away.

Less than 60 seconds later, I was back where I'd been for the four months since being fired: outside the Time Warner Center and beyond the purview of CNN and mainstream media in general.

As I silently wandered the massive shopping area directly under the Time Warner Center's glacial blackened glass towers, I did my best to figuratively pat myself on the back for being willing to go back into the belly of the beast and face whatever I found there -- to stick to the ideals that might've gotten me fired in the first place.

I'd made it inside and back out again. I was safe.

So, to celebrate, I took the escalator up to the Bouchon Bakery and rewarded myself with a sandwich and a bowl of soup -- which I paid for with the unemployment debit card issued to me by the state of New York.

(Photo Credit: Time Warner Center, from southwestern corner of Central Park, by Braesikalla. More of his photographs can be found at Light Infusion. They're all fantastic. Please, you buy.)

Wind of Change


One of the reasons why the utter devastation caused by, say, the Joplin tornado doesn't often sink in at a visceral level is ironically because these storms do so much damage that it's almost impossible to imagine what the affected areas looked like in the hours leading up to them. It's simply unimaginable that the barren wasteland you're now seeing on TV was once a thriving neighborhood or town; our minds can't comprehend that level of destruction. Maybe that's why the above before-and-after image is so jarring. Any of us could have lived in this comfortable middle-class area -- the one that's now nothing but a memory. As usual, if there's anything you can do to help please give to the Red Cross.

Also, I really do hate to bring politics into this but I was looking for a way to mention a recent series of interviews and the Missouri tornado hands it not just to me but all of us -- because it matters to all of us -- on a silver platter. A couple of weeks ago, during a two- or three-day press tour that came off like a greatest hits of sociopathic Randian objectivism, Doctor Ron Paul spouted a whole litany of predictably terrible ideas cast as nuggets of libertarian wisdom, all of which confirmed his role as the mayor of the fringe right. What struck me the most, though, was this statement -- made during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer -- in which Paul said he'd abolish FEMA because, well, it's big government, and in case you haven't been paying attention, "Big government bad, take away freedoms. Argh! Paul smash!"

"Well, if you want to live in a free society, if you want to pay attention to the constitution, why not (abolish FEMA)? I think it’s bad economics. I think it’s bad morality. And it’s bad constitutional law. Why should people like myself, who had, not too long ago, a house on the Gulf Coast and it’s –- it’s expensive there and it’s risky and it’s dangerous. Why should somebody from the central part of the United States rebuild my house? Why shouldn’t I have to buy my own insurance and protect about the potential dangers? I mean it’s –- it’s a moral hazard to say that government is always going to take care of us when we do dumb things. I’m trying to get people to not to dumb things. Besides, it’s not authorized in the constitution."

The irony is almost too delicious that a couple of days after he made this asinine argument, thousands of people living in the ostensibly safe "central part of the United States" saw their lives wiped-clean and are now in desperate need of help. But hey, screw them, right? They chose to live in an area that can be hit by tornadoes so why should I have to pay for their colossal fuck-up? Suck it, you needy parasites.

It's really staggering when you think that this is the direction in which the center of the Republican party is being forced to move in 2011: toward not caring one bit about the citizens of this country as a mission statement.

(Adding: Oh yeah, then there's this.)

Listening Post



Still one of the best rock songs and albums of the 80s -- or pretty much ever.

Here's the Plimsouls' A Million Miles Away.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

End of Days and Confused


As I would've expected, my weekend piece on the non-Rapture resulted in a pretty good amount of entertaining back-and-forth from the Huffington Post peanut gallery. Since this is HuffPo we're talking about, quite a few people agreed with my take on things -- namely that regardless of whether you tout an actual date for Jesus's return or simply believe in a divine entity called Jesus at all, the belief is equally ridiculous. But there were quite a few dissenters (or, "decenters" as one irate commenter might say), and they generally alternated between the over-thinkers, who truly believe that the more big words they use the more likely it is their opinions make a lick of sense, and the God-said-it-I-believe-it types. Here's the best of the bunch.

"Too many people have seen Left Behind and follow Kirk Cameron's belief that the Rapture is a one time thing. Well, lets take a look around us. I am from Birmingham­, AL and three weeks ago many were killed within 100 miles of my current location. Massive Floods down the Mississipp­i River, Tsunami's in Asia, Earthquake­s in India, Asia, and Haiti. Big Brother, Wars taking place everywhere for different reasons, we are living in the end times. There isn't one day set aside for 'All Believers to ascend into Heaven' Alot of those that will be Left Behind will be believers as well as non-believ­ers. The prophecy is a long one and all this will not happen overnight."

-- Idries King

In other words, it's what Harold Camping said: the Rapture is already upon us so he and his followers weren't actually wrong. Yeah, that's it. Never mind that there have been earthquakes, floods and so on since the dawn of time.

What I just said about using a lot of Triple Word Score language in an effort to supposedly lend academic heft to what's essentially horseshit? Read on:

"This blogger offers an overly reductioni­stic and conflated view. A belief in something called the 'rapture' as an event within history has historical­ly been a minority view. It is only since the late 19th century (Darby) and early 20th Century (Scoffield­) that this view gained popularity­, reaching its height in the cold war (Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth) and reprising again in the 90s (The 'Left Behind' series). Many Christians never have ascribed to such a belief... you cannot claim that religious beliefs are unilateral­ly irrational­, baseless, and frequently contradict­ory to the "normal rigors for determinin­g truth." I'll give that most might meet the last criteria, but they are not baseless nor irrational (empericis­m, for all it's benefit, does not have a corner on the rationalit­y market). The final criteria, while generally true, is not unequivaca­lly so. There are many religious beleifs founded upon historical evidence and thus subject to the same rigors, the only difference is that they don't reject supernatur­al explanatio­ns prima facia, and might be more prone to them than others (but that doesn't mean they reject "normal rigors for determinin­g truh and fact.") It also is just plain false that they are frequently contradict­ory. People, as a whole, are not that stupid and if religions had been around for 1000s of years they are probably at least ineternall­y consistent (so this is really a ridiculous claim). Let's at least be honest about the facts of the matter instead of making broadly sweeping and unnecessar­ily derogatory remarks. "

-- George Medley

Say this for Professor Medley: Of all the arguments in defense of religion that you've ever read, his was the most recent.

"It's all about truth. What is true? Each person has to decide."

-- syntax facit saltum

No, actually. There has to be an agreed-upon set of facts that we all understand to be true (or false). If each person decides his own reality what you get is chaos. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

This next one, by the way, could be my personal favorite -- simply because I can't imagine what the hell a hardcore Christian is doing at the Huffington Post in the first place.

"Where are the Christians­? When I look at the banner at the top of this page, it says Christiani­ty. Yet, the first story I see in the corner is some ventriloqu­ist talking about porn. We as Christians need to get these infidels off our page. Find your own page. Preach your blasphemie­s somewhere else. Maybe, the net. can give you a page called 'anti-chri­sts.' I have no more need to hear from adulterers­, fornicator­s, liars, thieves, the high-minde­d rich, blasphemer­s, covetous, self-servi­ng idlolators­. Are you so insecure in your on self-worth that the only way to value your own life is to tear down the beliefs of others. I believe, so. Go elsewhere and preach your doctrines of descent."

-- rankinkri

I like this next one as well because it presumes that I'm rich, which is honestly the most laugh-out-loud conceit you'll find on the HuffPo religion page right now. It's probably because my mini-bio has me listed as the CEO of DXM Media, which I technically am -- but trust me, there's a CEO and there's a CEO. Guess which one I am.

"This post seemed remarkably glib. Granted, one does not generally expect a serious treatment of such a subject in this sort of forum, but it's horrifying to see how the author roped in 2 billion Christians with Harold Camping's group. I suppose that this much at least was expected. What is particular­ly nutty is action, not generally beliefs. After all, one man's lunacy is another man's logic. Camping's group was defined as nutty because their belief system created dangerous behavior. The author of this also fundamenta­lly misunderst­ands why people are drawn to doomsday prediction­s, and this is common from people who have wealth and status in the world. For him, people are drawn to this because the world is so mysterious that we are desparate answers. I'm sure for a CEO, the biggest problem on his plate is the world's mystery. The less fortunate, who live pay check to pay check and cannot logically expect much else from this world have a real reason to yearn for an escape... It's not the religious alone who need to pull their heads out of their collective asses; it's folks like this guy who don't seem to understand that it's suffering, not mystery, that has created this yearning for heaven."

-- mmccathron

By the way, mmccathron makes an argumentative mistake that a lot of supporters of religion tend to make: he draws a distinction between belief and action. Yes, people are entitled to believe whatever they want and if faith gets you through the day then the argument can be made that it does some good. (Approaching it from that angle, however, doesn't in any way make the subject of your belief-system real.) But the thing about belief is that it doesn't happen in a vacuum; it informs your actions. Everything you do in life you do because you have a specific set of beliefs and values backing up each decision. To assume that someone will simply "believe" in something without it ever having a real-world effect is ludicrous.

These next two, just -- good luck.

"My intuition of the "Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" idea is just that--it is at hand, present with you, within you, and you have access to it, here and now, if you will only see it. You must use the "eyes of the spirit" however. Looking out into the world, paying someone else to proxy for you--this misses the point completely­. Rapture happens to each person when they let the ego-based, me me me world drop away and allow spirit to be fully present to you (within you, as you). It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing. It doesn't mean you're better than anyone else. It gives you no right to condemn anyone else. It just simply means you realize and directly experience your intimacy with God, that has, in fact, always been here. You just allow the scales to fall from your eyes, and directly experience what Jesus was saying. God so loved the world...Yo­u are saved. Accept it, be with it. And everyone else is saved, too. Your job is simply to fully get it for yourself. Directly experience divine love in the here and now--that is rapture."

-- fatafalena

"The reason anyone can miss when the rapture takes place is the scriptures haven't provided them with a vision. There's a cycle vision of civilizati­ons, morning's [this] and evening's [Revelatio­n 21], with short transition periods between them. There are two mass raptures, the first two days of Genesis 1 one is an all-at-onc­e and the one-person­-at-a-time (Matthew 20:1-16) while replenishi­ng of the earth (Revelatio­n 20:5) for Revelation­'s. The 6 days of creation and rest day was the transition from Revelation­'s, Revelation 20:4&5 are the 7 days [millenniu­ms] reverse going into the next civilizati­on. The first day's 'waters' the spirit moved upon symbolizes people, the light and dark was separating them and the firmament between the second day's 'waters' was the all-at-onc­e rapture of the people who couldn't die (Revelatio­n 21:4) which Adam brought upon us. Igniting the sun on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14) [therefore extinguish­ed on the fourth millennium before the earth is rejuvenate­d anew like a plowed field becoming flat again after a time] was for a "signs" to put the Bible's message into as KJVs replenish (Genesis 1:28) and Ecclesiast­es 1:9 tells us. In doing that we see what the 'narrow way with the straight gate' is, the transition­s between civilizati­ons, where the 'saved' ascends into the true promised land Jesus is scouting (John 14:3) to return and take us into one-at-a-t­ime after this civilizati­on is over... And if I'm the last prophet, Elijah (Malachi 4:5-5), whose purpose is to figure it all out and what's required to be part of the rapture, am I not fulfilling my purpose? We don't know who that Elijah is but we do know (Isaiah 49:1) it's his birth name, as mine is. We do know (Isaiah 58:12 & Matthew 17:11) he's to restore all things which he must know what has happened to do. I do know my vision does present an idea of what has and will happen time and time again, so if I'm he I am fulfilling my purpose. Who knows I'm not he except me, whose not saying it here, and what is termed god? "

-- Elijah A. Alexander, Jr.

This next person apparently didn't like my somewhat mocking tone (go figure) and then went on to miss the point entirely.

"Although the logic of this article is sound at a certain level, the author nonetheles­s assumes a certain level of 'of course this is ridiculous­' to certain beliefs but presumably not to others. Strictly logically speaking, one could amend the author's take home message to say the following: 'Believing in Jesus Christ as the resurrecte­d son of the creator of the universe who will eventually return to Earth equals crazy; NOT believing in Jesus Christ as the resurrecte­d son of the creator of the universe who will eventually return to Earth equals not-crazy.­' I'm sure many would protest that there is of course a difference between these views (which ultimately probably reveals little more than what one personally believes) -- and yes, that's exactly my point. There are also VERY important difference­s in the two beliefs the author discusses, and his differenti­ation only has cash value among those who already want to see anything that they don't believe in as lunacy. Summing them up in the reductioni­st way the author does, does not get us very far, nor does it clearly differenti­ate from ANY set of beliefs, at least not without assuming a certain level of what OF COURSE is crazy and is not (laugh, laugh, snort, snort)."

-- dw30

And then there's this:

"'So the Rapture turned out to be a bit of a bust.' ??? HELLO! It hasn't happened yet."

-- Marlyn

Oh, and one person who apparently got the check I mailed.

"Chez is one of the few reasons I even come to HuffPo anymore."

-- Rumi South

Yeah, dude -- I rock.