Gentle Fudge

Can We Handle the Proof?

2009-06-01T11:08:00.008-04:00

Controversy surrounding the photographic evidence from 'alleged' abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners of war are now pushed to the forefront of our minds and demanding to be dealt with in this new presidency. What has been repeated over and over in proverb have again prophetically rose from the ashes: Deeds men do in darkness and shadow will be shown in the light of day for what they truly are.

But dare we publish these disturbing images? Could we actually suggest that there are those in our own ranks that have sunk to the basest of things and taken on nothing more than animalistic behavior, nothing more than something befitting of a sociopath seen in a WWII movie or horror flick? Surely not in our own military. Not one of ours. They're the Good Guys. Only those who side with The Terrorists would use such tactics as raping an innocent woman or torturing a man beyond his capacity for pain. Yet somehow there is evidence of this. Or alleged evidence. But it could be misplaced. Or taken out of context. Or perhaps that person could have asked for such abuse, if information was being withheld. Always the victim's fault. (S)He asked for it.

And of course, if these images were to get out, then all of our own troops would be in danger. Eye for an eye. That's the way that side of the world works. So it would be best to keep this information behind closed doors and let our military keep to itself and discipline itself. Just as it disciplines the men who rape or abuse the women in our own ranks. Don't ask, don't tell, right?

So yes, we should just cover it up. After all, I'm sure we all would have been better off without the pictures of Auswitz and the gas chambers and East Germany with the Berlin Wall and Russia during the Cold War. Life is far better with repression and false memories of the Golden Years. After all, we never do anything wrong.

And we should never apologize because the U.S. never makes mistakes.

See also: Pro Liberate: "Again, May God Forgive Us"
Additional information from The Rutherford Institute can be read in their report here.

In A World Without The News...

2009-04-09T11:23:00.003-04:00

I can hear that voice now. Which is why I chose that title. We're talking print here, people. Newsprint. Getting lost in a paper. Not network news, not celebrity trash shows, not talk radio, not satirical spin as fun as those are. Real news. This made it onto a couple blogs I follow over the last few days as we have been witnessing the death of the Press in state after state. Sure, we can make the case that some papers are biased one way or the other. Still, the reader stumbles across stories that would otherwise not see the light of day if browsing a website or watching TV. Or unless one had a really good friend who dug up international stories from unusual sources -- apart from The Drudge Report.

The Rutherford Institute has an excellent commentary, calling out to bring back localism to government which is what local papers were established to do. Currently, only national news gets attention and citizens neglect to see how they can be of use in their own communities, resulting in political isolation and apathy. Not to fluff my own pillow here, but every editorial letter I've sent in to our local paper was published. One was featured on the first facing page of our free weekly. Try keeping that record up in the New York Times. Fantastic... now I've jinxed myself...

In The Daily Heller's A Note To Our Readers, Steven Heller points a spotlight on the gorgeous redesign of the International Herald Tribune. The commentary from the progressive designers, however, steal the limelight -- voicing their preference for tactile paper.

So go out and support your local paper. The writing is excellent, the layout takes time (and a lot of thought goes into it), and the paper is recycled. And can be recycled. Get lost in the quest for a good story. Buy a Sunday edition for the coupons even. I won't tell.

The Worth of Faith

2009-02-20T23:29:00.006-04:00

Back from a lengthy sabbatical due to health issues. Bleh. Anyway... a little something to read about churches, how to market your church, and my own opinion on how this has gotten somewhat out of hand because, well, I think we're missing the point of what the Church is supposed to be about anyway.
---------------------------------------

The Value Principle

A marketing professor holds an item up in the air and asks his class, "what's this item worth?" His students suggest one dollar, ten dollars, three hundred, and so on. The professor's response surprises them. "Well, you're all wrong." He sees the class show their frustration and finally says, "The item is worth whatever someone will pay me for it." He then explains to them that this is universally true with any product.

Make sense? It's like when you hear someone say "All you're paying for in that product is the name." An expensive car, a set of golf clubs, a purse, or cosmetics—we try to justify these purchases but most of the time we're buying the name or the style. Sometimes the product truly is different and really more valuable but sometimes it's just the packaging that gets us. Sometimes it's the sense of belonging.

So here's my question… what do people perceive about the worth of your church? How much are they willing to "pay" for the product? In their minds, is church worth not sleeping late on a Sunday morning? Now, remember, man looks on the outside, so they don't always see the amazing product that we're actually providing—they think they are paying for the package that it's coming in. How do we make church valuable to them?

Published on Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 2:23 PM CST

From the blog Beyond Relevance

-------------------------------------------------

Now, here's where my two-cents comes in. This is what irks me. I get the whole "sense of belonging" and "searching" and "reaching out..." But we always are waiting for Them to come to Us. Christ didn't do that. He went out. And things were a little different, too. Religion was different. The state was different. Saying Jesus was Lord and G-d was considered heresy as well as treason; it would land you in jail because Caesar was Lord (and a god). That was his title. It would be similar to refusing to address the President with his official title and instead addressing someone else as such. And revering that individual with presidential power. Ok, enough history......

In this day and age -- and by that, I mean the past 100+ years -- we have been "marketing" Christ. As a product. You go to church. You say the right words. You "receive" eternal life. You "get" the product of Jesus. Pray and receive a different response than the one others expect. Read the Bible and learn the future; discover the past right there in black and white... all like some mystical crystal ball. Exchange of tender or product in anticipation for receipt of goods and services. Basic concepts of capitalism. Gone was the thought of wrestling with the Scriptures as the ancient rabbis once did, being captivated by the words instead of trying to captivate and understand each concept.

We sell Christ as a commodity like a car or toothpaste that will change your family, your workplace, your career. There are promises that you'll live a better life, become happier, have less worries and troubles, maybe get more money ("blessings"), all backed up with biblical verses or studies or testimonies. (I for one will tell you this is all a Great Lie. You will experience nothing but loss. Be prepared to lose everything; you must if you are to die to self. Now a sense of peace, contentment, and joy -- which is NOT happiness -- that I do agree with.) A great sense of individualism also sets in, which permeates the American culture. It is how we are -- strong, rugged, can-do attitudes, pioneering spirits. However, it also starts to isolate. This, I believe, is the reason more and more people -- individuals -- see the Church as merely church and as "their church." It's hard to be the Body of Christ -- the Bride -- with so many little bridezillas parading around. There has been a small revival that began around 5-10 years ago and is starting to catch fire -- I'm not talking about the nearly defunct Emergent Movement, but it was a catalyst. It looks at the teachings of Christ historically, contextually, and questions how Christianity is being "sold" now.

One of my favorite quotes is from Shawn Claiborne's Irresistible Revolution: "Christ is coming back for a Bride, not a harem." This is one of the things I keep in the forefront of my mind when I deal with difficult people and also when people ask me why I still attend church: Because I'm still a part of It and because, for some reason, I can't give up on It yet. (I haven't been told it's an option. Really.)

A Kinder, Gentler Nation

2008-08-30T16:06:00.011-04:00

The following commentary was published in my local paper this past Sunday. Of course, I was not able to find any links. The paper rarely archives any commentaries regarding religion and politics, thus I decided to retype it in its entirety here. Mr. Whitehead is the local watchdog for religion, politics, law, and civil rights, the founder and president for The Rutherford Institute. Fabulous organization.

When Pastor Rick Warren decided to hold a 'forum' on August 16, 2008, at his mega church Saddleback and invited both presidential candidates to avoid losing his tax-exempt status. This I'm certain of. Due to millions of Christians leaning away from the Religious Right and becoming more 'loving' and 'forgiving' -- thus of the evangelical persuasion -- Warren saw his opportunity and took it. The Purpose-Driven Pastorprenuer opened his arms and welcomed both sides -- surely a thing Christ would do, right? -- and asked questions... and charged tickets, to make sure this was not confused with a church event. Some went as high as 2 grand, from my limited websurfing.

was truly pointless, spineless, and lacked purpose, something Warren should really have some knowledge, considering his empire of books. I agree. Warren should have asked the tough questions instead of worrying about offending the evangelical masses. He is known for avoiding hot button issues and instead focuses on uniting the peoples. He avoids the issues of abortion, or specifically what causes abortions, and instead focuses on world poverty. A wonderful thing when you live in a rich country and the American Way is to fix problems with your checkbook... when the problems are thousands of miles away... when we are known for ignoring our neighbors down the street who are struggling financially or emotionally.

Christ was never worried about being offensive when it came down to it. He confronted the church leaders of his day who lived lavish lifestyles. He went out to find the poor and oppressed. He challenged the comfortable who thought they had done 'enough'. He wasn't afraid to die for what he believed, for those he cared for, which is what ultimately happened. So why is this pastor afraid to lose his earthly kingdom when he should be more concerned for his soul?

Commentary from "The Daily Progress" (Charlottesville, VA)
Sunday, August 24, 2008

by John W. Whitehead

America, meet your new evangelical leader

I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don't believe politics is the most effective way to change the world. Although public service can be a noble profession, and I believe it is our responsibility to vote, I don't have much faith in government solutions, give the track record. --Rick Warren

The recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was a wash. Both candidates, who claim to be Christians, spent much of their time pandering to the nearly three million television viewers who tuned in. But in terms of what presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama had to say, their responses were largely lacking in content.

However, the Saddleback Forum wasn't insignificant. Its significance has less to do with what the two candidates had to say than in what the person asking the questions, Rick Warren, signifies for the future of Christianity.

The fact that it was Warren and not James Dobson, the Christian Right's de facto Godfather, is particularly telling. It speaks of a decided shift away from the rigid, right-winged mindset that has dominated evangelical Christianity in America over the last three decades. Warren, pastor of the 23,000-member Saddleback Church in California and the best-selling author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," seems to be about as far as you can get from the stigma of the Christian Right while still calling himself an evangelical Christian.

The Christian Right, represented by such prominent figures as Dobson, Pat Robertson and the Late Jerry Falwell, among others, has long stoof for the erection of a Christian State. As David Kuo, who served as special assistant to President Bush documents in his book "Tempting Faith," these Christian leaders worked hard to maintain ties to the Bush White House, complete with weekly conference calls to keep them updated on ever facet of the president's policy and political agenda.

However, the dismal failure of the Bush presidency has led inevitably to the decline of the Christian Right -- and can be credited with contributing to Warren's rise to prominence. According to a 2005 Nation article, Warren "disassociates himself from the religious right, noting that he shares its position on social issues but doesn't want to focus on them. He focuses on poverty, disease, and aid to Africa."

It's not difficult to see why Warren, a mainline evangelical in the Billy Graham mold, is enjoying such popularity. Disillusioned by the power-hawking, war-mongering of the Christian Right, the nation's 80 million evangelical Christians would have little trouble with the feel-good Christianity that Warren sells -- non-confrontational, congenial, and polite. That isn't to say that it lacks substance, merely controversy.

As a recent time article observed, like Graham, Warren "projects an authenticity that he helped him forge an exquisite set of political connections -- in the White House, on both sides of the legislative aisle and abroad. And he is both leading and riding the newest wave and change in the Evangelical community: an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing torture and combating global warming.

"The movement has loosened the hold of religious-right leaders on ordinary Evangelicals and created an opportunity for Warren, who has lent his prominent voice to many of the new concerns."

Warren has avoided much that is controversial, such as abortion and gay marriage (what he refers to as "sin issues"). Instead, Warren focuses on issues that "unite," such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human rights. Warren is, whether consciously or unconsciously, shifting the national faith dialogue back to a pre-Regan era, before the small group of leaders that have come to dominate the Christian Right turned Christianity into a synonym for right-wing theocracy.

Sidestepping the siren call of politics, Warren has taken aim at what he calls the "five global giants": spiritual emptiness, selfish leadership, hunger, sickness, and illiteracy. Empowered by his publishing success and with the support of his megachurch, he launched his PEACE initiative -- an acronym for Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation. Since coming up with the plan, he has taken his PEACE plan global, with Rwanda as his testing ground.

Warren is now being looked upon as America's pastor. Suddenly, Christianity appears somewhat appealing again. Yet while there is so much to commend this so-called New Evangelicalism, with its rejection of politics as the answer and its emphasis on carrying out Jesus' mandate to care for the poor and helpless, there is also an important lesson to the learned. The rise of the Christian Right came about at a time when the evangelical church in America was doing its best to be non-controversial an inoffensive. The evangelical church's subsequent failure was to morally impact the culture and the legalization of abortion can be directly attributed to the emergence ot the Christian Right.

The Christian Right was, without a doubt, a semi-militant reaction to a society that seemed to be lacking a moral compass. And as journalist Chris Hedges points out in his book "American Fascists," if a real crisis rises again across this country (such as another terrorist attack), it would not take much for the country to revert back to such a militant fundamentalism.

This brings us to the current presidential election. No matter who ascends to the White House, it's clear that Christians will not enjoy the kind of access that laid claim to during the Bush administration -- whatever good it did them. For example, abortions didn't decline under Bush, and it's doubtful that whether they would under either Obama or McCain.

The lesson to be learned is this: what is needed now is not a return to the overly polite Christianity of the pre-Regan era. Nor is it the politically charged Christianity of the Religious Right, but a brand of Christianity that does not shy away from speaking truth to power. In other words, the type of Christianity Jesus practiced.

John Whitehead is president and founder of the Albemarle County-based Rutherford Institute, a civil-liberties organization. He can be reached at johnw@rutherford.org

It's There If You Look For It

2008-08-22T08:17:00.013-04:00

Being raised with exposure to the Chinese culture while growing up in the Midwest is hard to explain to the average American. You don't really fit in either world. Especially when none of your family is Chinese. Except your cousins. Your half-Chinese cousins. While everyone else is either all Finnish or an American mix.

Try to buy fake Olympic merchandise... ?
"The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor.

So the Beijing Olympics were a mix for me. The culture was as I remember from my childhood, visiting my grandparents. The respect, the culture toward foreigners, the 'strange' food. Giggling while watching anchors and reporters attempting to eat with chopsticks. And all the red. Everyone was talking about how polite the Chinese were. Of course. That's how you act. You respect your elders. You put others first. And -- if I dare say -- the government can and will make play nice to your visitors. They spent billions of dollars putting on this show. They have the people power to pull this off. If you do not follow along, you are expendable. Do not protest. Do not talk poorly about the government. Remember that. You are only one of a billion people. Remember that. After the earthquake, the government dished out paperwork to grieving parents, making them sign so the parents wouldn't investigate if there was shoddy workmanship in the schools that had collapsed. They also reminded parents that they could have another child, as the only one that they had had died. Their flesh and blood was, yes, replaceable, just like that.

I saw subtle (and not-so-subtle) propaganda in the imagery. There were posters around Tienanmen Square that got very little face time. I was able to see them a bit longer in design magazines that I subscribe to. It would take a little longer to explain to those unfamiliar to Chinese culture, where image, color, and tone all have meaning. But if you are familiar with Communism, you can pick up on some of the nuances. One article I would recommend is Party Games from Print Magazine, which describes Beijing's carefully calculated iconography, incorporating both ancient meaning with governmental propaganda. The main icon, the Dancing Beijing logo, is one such icon. It is taken from the second Chinese character for the city, jing (below left), which is often used shorthand for 'capital'. Beijing itself means literally 'North Capital' (bei = North, jing = Capital). The Dancing Beijing logo is made to look like a chop, or block, which is a seal. Governments use them to stamp official documents. I personally own one that my grandmother used to sign her paintings. Every artist had a chop made specially to signify his or her work and to prevent counterfeits. They are highly prized and not duplicated. They are still used today, from business to government work.

Also, religion is still not tolerated in this 'progressive,' modernizing city. Churches are driven underground. Tibetan monks are imprisoned and tortured. Buddhists practice... hesitantly. To a degree. And all without question of the infallible government. Big Brother knows best.

You can buy anything you want in China, especially on the black market. Even the police and government officials. Corruption is everywhere. There is question about the age of the Chinese girl gymnasts, which government workers could have can easily altered certificates and official papers. But if try to buy fake Olympic merchandise? Nope. "The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor from the Print article.

The good side to the Olympics were the athletes. Pure, unadulterated sport. No background or superimposed banners for Nike or Adidas or Budweiser. Yeah, you still have to sit through commercials. And the opening ceremonies were done in the spectacle and grandeur that I expected (constantly interrupted by the freeking commercials). Artistry, imagery, music, ancient instrumentation, illuminating light, technology never seen before, everything incorporating all senses. Plus the elements of wind, water, fire, wood, metal... Holistic, that everything is interconnected. And reminding the world -- and the Chinese -- of the power of the human. The sheer mass. The largeness. One of many -- so very many --and yet, just one of many. And more subtle propaganda woven in here and there. You wouldn't see it if you weren't familiar with the history or culture of China. Proud history. Thousands of years. Luxurious costuming and fantastic attention to detail -- jewels, posture, makeup, facial expression. Then we incorporate the new with old, strength with weakness, power with control, chaos with order, balancing opposites without clashing. Americans have a terrible time of doing this. We tend to forget our past or forget to set time aside, remembering that the dishes can wait for tomorrow -- we want to leave it behind and just live in the future. We forget about today. China accepts its past and brings it forward, incorporating it into today.

Now if it would let its people forward instead of letting the few rule the many under an iron fist.

Minority Report

2008-04-17T10:02:00.006-04:00

On Sunday, it was announced in a local paper that UVa would alert parents of students if students showed signs of mental illness, focusing on those who were "a threat to themselves or others." To make sure that this policy did not violate HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that all competent adults are entitled to, UVa's Visitor's Bureau made sure that their clause read that they would only allow notification if there was " 'substantial likelihood' in the near future that their child will harm himself or others, as evidenced by the student's recent behavior or any other relevant information."

This reactionary invasion of adult privacy comes in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting from a year ago. Again, understand that the shooting hit home for me. It was mere hours away from where I live. I knew friends who attended, people who lost loved ones, people who almost lost loved ones. It isn't something I take lightly. But 'criminalizing' those who have mental illness or those who express frustration and then labeling those individuals as "unstable" -- as our medicated society is so apt to do -- will only create more walls and close off communication from the still-developing mental health field and those who are considering pursuing treatment for multiple reasons.

THE PLAYERS

The Individual
Anyone who has considered that something has been wrong knows how long that thought has lingered in the back of the head. And how long it took to come to the personal realization that something actually was wrong, that it all wasn't just in the head, and to start looking for help. How many voices, both personal and professional, sneered to the contrary. How many medical tests proved the opposite. How many doctors have been seen. How many insurance payments have been made. How many years were been wasted. How many different diagnoses were made. How many miles were driven. How much hope was lost. How many different drugs were tried. How much sleep was lost. How much money was spent. How many friends were lost. How many relationships were strained or dissolved. Sometimes it works. Sometimes you wonder if it ever will.

The Family & Mate
Anyone who has had to break the news to family that they have a mental illness knows that there are as many reactions as there are species of butterflies. Some are accepting and stay the course throughout treatment. Some deny everything. Some tell you it is your fault and walk away. Some tell you if you had prayed more or had more faith, G-d wouldn't have deserted you with this illness. Some run hot and cold. Some are too caught up in their own world to care. Some ignore it and don't do anything. Some make fun of it. Some try to exorcise your demon. Some are just as ill and don't see it themselves. Some are confused and don't know what to do. Some lecture and become self-righteous.

The Friends
Friends often have similar reactions as family, depending on closeness. Many feel helpless and don't know what to do. Many go on and pretend the illness doesn't exist because they don't know any better.

HOW THEN SHALL WE LIVE?

I've been through this mass production myself, as I'm manic depressive lite. (Bipolar II to the less poetic.) And that's as personal as I'm getting in this edition. It's right back to the usual chewy news and religion after this.

Sure, this sounds all romantic and mysterious, but it can be absolute hell -- or heaven. I couldn't blame any friend or family member for any reaction. It is very much like a death and there is a grief phase. But could you imagine a stranger giving you this news instead of your loved one? There is no way I would want my school giving such personal news in place of someone I knew. I prefer to be in control of who in my family I tell. I know who I can trust and who will shun me.

I sought feedback on this in the political scene, from those who know Delegate Rob Bell, the head of this policy. Of course, this would only apply to 1% and not the 99% who eventually seek treatment. Tangent: it reminds me in a way of the parable of the 99 sheep and the 1 who gets away, lost, who was chased after through rocky crags and prickly thickets, and brought back in. (Why is it always 99 and 1 with politicians? With bipolar, the stats are around 97% normal and 3% irregular. Maybe the math needs to be easier...) And of course a judge has to make the determining factor that the individual is a danger [to society]. Duh. I know that. But I also know that if you are in a psychotic state, you can be committed temporarily without a judge's order. To be committed permanently, you need a judge's order. Without the family's permission. And even then, there is room for debate. All this was looked at based on Cho, who was court-ordered to get help. But he didn't want to. You cannot force someone to get help who does not want it. Anyone ever live with an addict?

Oh, and the policy would only qualify for those students still qualifying as dependents and would only go to the custodial parents. So again, privacy is not an issue. Right? And of course, if a friend or family member mentions to one of the 99 that (s)he needs help, (s)he will get it. Because that's what all the research from the parents, patients, advocates, mental health professionals, police, school officials, and others had showed... goddIlovestatistics. Everything is happy-happy and this is the perfect plan. They all lived happily ever after.

But again, how do you determine 'dependent'? On a tax-return? Or someone who is a minor? Any parent of course would want to know about his or her child, because you will always be a kid to your dad or mom. Or step-parents. Or grandparents. Or whoever raised you. Come to think of it, who qualifies as the 'custodial parent' in this policy? I detest legalese.

And an energy efficient light bulb will suddenly appear over an individual's head once a friend or family member sees something wrong and suggests getting help. "I never thought of that..." Hmmm... ok, in some cases, usually with depression, that does happen. In most cases, there is an inkling that something could be off and no one else sees a damn thing because it's easy to mask or con out of or ignore. And it can take years for reality to sink in.

Anyone who has been through the mental health system knows that it needs some serious tweaking. It can take years to get an accurate diagnosis in many cases, let alone getting around to deciding to seek help. As the old joke goes, it only takes one psychiatrist to change a light bulb, but the light bulb has to want to change.

The last thing we need from The Powers That Be is heaping those who wish change for themselves into the same basket as more dangerous disorders. Someone with major depression is different from general depression is different from schizoaffective disorder is different from an anxiety disorder is different from a compulsive disorder... and there are all different colors and flavors and mixtures of each of these and we all get different treatments.

Have any of these representatives pushing policy been through any of this themselves or read the actual bills instead of getting briefed by aids, well-meaning parents, school officials, and lobbyists? Are they aware of the personal implications for the individuals, the time it takes to go through the system, the backlash once a diagnosis is made, once the family or friends have been told? And now there is the added fear that someone will see something, label it as a 'danger,' and tattle to mommy and daddy without telling us. That's how I interpret the policy.

There needs to be better dialogue regarding mental health and mental illness and the stigma needs to be taken away instead of being feared and again associated with Bedlam, jackets and/or restraints, and psychotic killers like Jeffrey Dahmer and Cho.

Those in legislature and pushing these policies have little understanding behind what they are pushing. It isn't going to be a quick fix. It isn't black and white, cut and dried, or easy. Not everything is prevented or seen, especially mental illness. We can always look back with our 20/20 hindsight and hypothesize on how things could have been done differently and prevented. Not everything can be predicted. Humans are entirely too unpredictable, unstable. The wiring is faulty. For the most part, it works. But every once and a while, there is a glitch in the Matrix. We find it, we use the duct tape, solder a little here and there, and we move forward.

I'm getting tired of taking my shoes off at the airport, wasting good shampoo, and trying to figure out if hair sculpting wax is a liquid or a solid according to whichever random NSA agent. This is the same instance. We are reacting to a random, tragic and violent event that happened instead of seeking prevention through good dialogue and looking at our available resources, improving them.

Please petition your House Representatives, letting them that this is a very slippery slope regarding personal privacy, mental health and treatment of it, and encourage them to look at alternatives.

Those in the Virginia who supported this policy:

Del. Rob Bell, Chief Sponsor (R, 58th District)
Del. David Toscano (D, 57th District)
Governor Timothy M. Kaine
Patricia M. Lampkin, Ed. D. (UVa Vice President for Student Affairs)
Russ Federman (UVa Counseling Director)

Tears for Tech

2008-04-17T09:33:00.006-04:00

It's been a year and two days. Technically. It's a leap year. Virginia Tech is going through mourning. Yesterday marked the anniversary of the massacre of 32 students and teachers killed in a thoughtless shooting. Life truly is grey.

I've visited the campus and memorial. Everyone is chatty around the quad. Looking around, there is no sign that a killer walked the grounds. Life goes on.

You walk up the sidewalk to the stones marking the names. There are signs saying not to leave memorials or pictures. Of course, they are ignored and there is solitary poem here or a faded photo there. Then all conversation stops. Just stops. It doesn't dribble away. It just stops. Dead silence. You hear the scuffing of shoes against the concrete. If the person in front of you pauses, you pause. No one is in a hurry. If someone sneezes, you let it fly away in the breeze. The space is sacred and all who visit know this. When you leave, you stroll slowly and talk of the event, where you were, what you were doing. Life looks backward and to today. You forget what you were doing up until that point. Tomorrow doesn't matter anymore.

And now politicians, bureaucrats, and officials muddle over what to do elsewhere to prevent this from happening. But that's for another time.

Xyience to be Sold for $15 Million

2008-04-08T17:47:00.004-04:00

The latest in our little saga is that Xyience is to be sold. My many thanks to Mr. Bergeron for his assistance in this unraveling of an energy empire in the great City of Sin. As my cable hasn't been hooked up for over a year, I had to wait for months, catching old fights off Netflix, to see the switch on the MMA center mat from the usual slimline can -- and I did look for a switch. I listened for new sponsors. I watched for sponsor changeovers from fighters. That's pretty much the only reason I checked in from time to time while the other half indulged his guilty pleasure of watching ultimate fighting. Truth be told, it is a fascinating sport. I prefer it over boxing. Human chess wits mixed with the gladiator gore of ancient days.

But enough pithy prose... on to the meat of the matter:

Xyience to be sold for $15 million

Posted: 4/3/2008 10:21:46 AM

A Nevada bankruptcy judge approved the $15 million sale of Xyience Inc. Tuesday after rejecting a last-minute offer for $15.5 million.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Judge Mike Nakagawa rejected the bid from Medici Group Holdings of New Zealand because the company failed to meet the bidding deadline. The Journal reported that the company called 90 minutes before the hearing and failed to send a representative to the court room.

Jim Morgan, the attorney for Xyience’s unsecured creditors, urged the judge to accept the larger offer, the Journal reported, saying that it represented a better deal for the company’s estate.

Manchester Consolidated Corp., whose offer was approved, will pay $200,000 in cash and assume $14.8 million in debt, the Journal reported. Medici reportedly offered $15.5 million in cash.

Morgan also asked the judge to delay the sale of Xyience for two days to give another potential bidder time to respond, but Greg Garman, an attorney for Zyen, opposed the delay. The Medici offer should not be considered because they failed to meet bid requirements and make a deposit, he said.

"All we have is a ghost (bidder)," Garman said.

His client, Zyen, stands to benefit from the sale. The company – controlled by Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta – signed Xyience as a sponsor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, which the Fertittas also own.

Zyen extended two loans to Xyience totaling $14.7 million ahead of the sale. The Journal reported that the terms of those loans gave Zyen the right to recover debt before other creditors.

Source: BevNET.com Staff

Don't Ask Don't Tell

2008-04-07T12:15:00.004-04:00

I will rarely post anything personal on this site because everything online is a public forum -- how quickly we forget that. Teens post their innermost thoughts and whine when parents discover a crush's name, not respecting 'privacy'. Employees are fired when opinions are posted about the competition or those at the workplace.

This is not an online diary. It is meant to be informative and opinionated -- and self-therapeutic-- and from time to time I will drift into the realm of the current state of the Church at large.

My opinion is made known, usually by the slant of my writing or articles chosen. Example from an OutofUr blog. I pulled the article and a few choice comments from both sides of the fence as well as my own. Understandably, the discussion was a little heated as this is a big red button in mainline xtianity.

There have been many "changes" in the faith and this is one of those things that I'm sure you can disagree with me on and still go to heaven. That's not the point. The point is to Love the LRD your GD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you can't do that, then you have made yourself G-D and are committing idolatry. And last I checked, there weren't two different G-ds for each half of the Bible.

But that's another sermon for another time. I just live what I believe. Conversion by concussion doesn't work. It only leaves others with bad pain.

February 27, 2008

A Big Can of Worms

David Swanson reports on opening events from the National Pastors Convention.

David Swanson agreed to leave frozen Chicagoland to labor in sunny San Diego at this year's National Pastors Convention. He'll be sending us updates throughout the week of the goings on there. This is his first post.

I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists—Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones—addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism.

These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator’s repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations.

Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. “Since high school, I’ve been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible,” he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for “then” and what is for “now.” He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The “return to restore” method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the “return and retrieve” method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her “sacred tradition,” allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the “primacy of Scripture” method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming.

If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he’s correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, “Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction.” Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, “which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us.”

While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to “remember the human side—these are people, not theories, we are talking about.” Scot added, “The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship.” The evangelical church, he said, “has mostly failed in this area.”

Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, “Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?”

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony’s question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?

David Swanson is pastor of missional ministries at Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Posted by UrL on February 27, 2008

Comments

Sounds like some good questions to me! Especially as a seminary trained gay Christian!

Posted by: PomoProphet at February 27, 2008

"Should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership".

I guess I am totally misunderstanding the question here. And I think I've misunderstood this in churches for a little while now. I'm not understanding the use of the word "gay" or "homosexual". Is the question asking if someone is allowed into leadership who struggles with the temptation of homosexuality but doesn't actually commit an act of homosexuality? Or are we assuming that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are people who are actively practicing this behavior?

If someone struggles with the temptation but does not give in, then allow them to lead and show the rest of us how to have that strength in our own lives as well. But if it means people who are actively participating in a homosexuality then I wouldn't say that they should have any level of leadership.

Now this doesn't mean I don't want them to come to my church. I've known many decent, good people who are practicing homosexuals. But I know I would not ask them to teach, preach, or give any sort of spiritual direction.

But why do churches always make things into a "gay" vs. "straight" issue? The places of our worship should be safe for anyone with any issues to come and feel free to connect to God. It doesn't matter whether you struggle with homosexuality or pride or jealousy. Do we all agree that people sin?

But while I write this down, I know there is someone who will disagree with me on the issue of struggling with homosexuality. Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to what other have to say.

Posted by: Thadd Sparrow at February 27, 2008

"Should gay members of your congrgation be allowed some opportunity of leadership?"

You have gay members? That is a problem in itself. Gay attenders, no problem. Membership should not be offered to anyone engaged in flaunting a sin, whether they be homosexuals, straight adulterers, or something else abhorrent to God.

Posted by: Richard Dennis Miller at February 28, 2008

Why is homosexuality the ultimate test of deciding who can be in leadership and who can not? What about a person in leadership who is exposed as being addicted to pornography? What about an adulterer?

In the latter two cases many times pastors or leadership are allowed to stay provided that they work on restoration. (of course this varies some) Why not work the same way with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a sin, we know that. We know that ultimately we are to work at loving the sinner and helping them be restored to being more like Christ.

The question really being asked here is "will the church be mute about homosexuality, or will they look at it the same as any other sin?"

What Tony Jones and the others in the Emergent movement are articulating is (at least I think) a position of love and acceptance to the homosexual who feels they would never fit in a church. Ultimately them being allowed into leadership is a church by church decision. Only the local body will know the character of the person, where they are with God, how they are working on the sins in their life etcetera.

Posted by: Carl Holmes at February 28, 2008

Why do we want churches to be safe places to worship?

Light and truth and mercy are risky and dangerous and threatening.

Posted by: Nate at February 28, 2008

"should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?"

this sounds like "should we allow the children to ride elephants during the sermon?"

there is a lot of don't-ask-don't-tell going on in churches. we have become so afraid of being honest with each other and being real that no one will let any one in any more. one reason I like my church is because the music group I play in is full of "real" people. I hate defining them as that. but there are too many churches full of the usual self-perfecting congregations who believe you have to clean up before you can get through the doors. this is why my generation is leaving in droves.

homosexuality is a hot-button and it shouldn't be. it is becoming less and less of an issue with my generation and the next one coming up.

cue: you can begin warming up your Bibles to start quoting from Paul and Leviticus now.

south africa condoned apartheid for decades, citing the biblical stories of Cain and Noah as the "mark" placed by G-d and by the curse from Noah, thus creating the black race. slavery was condoned for years because of verses in the Bible. women and their places in leadership (or lack of places in leadership), inability to own property, keeping quiet in church, and being a physically and mentally weaker sex because of verses in the Bible. financial prosperity is condoned by numerous preachers due to a select few verses in the Bible and woe to those who do not believe because it is their lack of faith. And then there is 'biblical' marketing...

we often read what we wish to read. I have not read anything regarding homosexuality from Christ, for or against. really, he spoke more on the Kingdom of Heaven and money more than anything. I think these were far more important, so I've focused more on showing Christ to those who need him than focusing on someone's sexuality.

I have seen many circumstances and issues "change" due to culture and time. we no longer stone non-virgins, grow our beards long, or call ourselves 'people of the way'. we even adorn our places of worship with one of the ghastliest ornaments of torture known in history. homosexuality may be one of those things that is changing. I accept my homosexual brethren and sisters because I am told that I am to love my neighbors as myself. I cannot judge them because this is a gray area for me and because I have a hard time seeing G-d as some angry Zeus character.

let the casting of stones begin.

Posted by: Sara at March 4, 2008

In responce to Sara, your generation is not leaving the church in droves in fact the Evangelical Church is thriving because they teach truth concerning scripture. And they are not saying get your act together before you come to God we all come to him sin and all, but upon coming we confess our sin and repent of them.
Your sarcasm concerning Lev. and Paul is surprising coming from one who claims to be a believer. Do we throw those scriptures out because our culture has "evolved" beyond them? God forbid, let me cling to his words all of them rather than the winds of cultural change. You mention treatment of blacks, but true believers could not condone the slavery of blacks in this country, it was scripture twisted to fit what sin people wanted to justify. The beards and calling ourselves people of the way, outwardly , surface things, not the things of the heart God is looking for. Take away the scriptures about Homosexuality and view Gods creation on its own and you'll see Homosexuality is unnatural, our bodies were not made for it, any Doctor can tell you that. Lets stop making God in our image, he is a God of love but also a jealous God, a Just God, a Holy God and a God of Wrath among countless other attributes.

Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2008

Sara,

I also love my church because people are not afraid to be real and don't have to be perfect. As someone who works with sexually broken people, I can say that I believe sexuality is deeply important to who we are as humans. Jesus showed great compassion for sexually broken people.

We can talk about whether homosexuals are sexually broken (I happen to think they are); but if God is indeed calling people out of homosexuality, then it isn't because he is angry, but because he is compassionate.

All this being said, I really agree with where you are starting: God calls us to love our neighbors. And we love because he first loved us, not because he threatens us into submission. I hope I can love in the same way you aspire to.

Posted by: Nate at March 5, 2008

Rich:
We are not called to be perfect and holy and blameless. We are called to love others and to come as we are, without judging others that we don't know. It is then that we receive grace and forgiveness. We judge and rebuke others that we DO know -- Christians -- because we are to hold each other accountable. If you find my method a little rough, that is your perception. And Christians CAN use sarcasm and satire to make a point, especially those who "claim" to be believers. Seems I tweaked a nerve with you, sweetie. But be very careful how you go about ministering to others lest you lose out meeting some fascinating souls. Don't forget that we are all eternal beings (C.S. Lewis).

Until then, see you on the other side. I'm sure you'll find many surprises.
S

Deut. 6:4,5; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 12:29-31
" 'Hear, O Israel, The LRD our GD, the LRD is one. Love the LRD your GD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself' There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

Posted by: Sara at April 1, 2008

The Plot Thickens

2008-02-26T11:33:00.005-04:00

I'll be interested to see if anyone touches this company with a ten-foot pole. Or 20. What happens in Vegas, right? Riiiiiiiiigggghhhtt.

As of February 2, Adam Frank and Kirk Sanford, the leading executives at Xyience, announced their resignation from the board of directors. According to prominent sources, they were not even paid employees. According to my favorite source, MMA blogger Rich Bergeron, Frank and Sanford were brought on under questionable circumstances "with Frank having a serious breach of contract lawsuit hanging over his head and Sanford wrapped up in an internal investigation at Global Cash Access Holdings after he suddenly and suspiciously vacated his position there as President and CEO."

Greed breeds corruption, but we don't "know" the whole story. So they say. (Can you sense the sarcasm here?) My pal Rich--well, I refer to him as such as he is one of the few media sources I trust in this whole story--has been following this scandal from the beginning, has been sued, and is still rising to the top, in search of the truth. A few associates of mine have even been in contact with Adam Frank, at his request. What a small, small world...

More info on current press coverage reads:

This case continues to develop and raises more questions with each passing day. So far, only a select few independently driven fight news Web-sites have dared to delve into the really meaty details. The Las Vegas Review Journal has published only flat reports about the bankruptcy and what appear to be one-sided allegations of death threats claimed by the current Xyience brass.

The Review Journal's lack of any hard-hitting or critical coverage of the real heart of the story here may be related to the close ties between the Fertitta family and the Greenspun Corporation. The Greenspun-owned Las Vegas Sun is distributed in The Las Vegas Review Journal. 50/50 partners on the development of a 2005 hotel and casino community called Aliante Station, the Greenspun Corporation and Station Casinos go way back. It is also not the only project they've corroborated on.

Anyway, the latest link to the pending sale of Xyience--known as the Enron of the UFC--and all the rest.

Neil Young's Epiphany

2008-02-13T19:44:00.004-04:00

How many people does it take to change the world? Back in the 60's, it just took one. Just one guy (or gal), an acoustic guitar, and a dream. At least, that's what our parents generation wanted to believe. "All you gotta do is believe in yourself, man," I can hear them drone in that dusky, hazy voice that best sits behind oversized shades. "Just believe that you can do it... don't let anyone tell you that you can't do anything... you can do anything you set your mind to..."

I see this sermon preached again and again to over-indulged, tone-deaf GenY kids who exit the American Idol audition room, sobbing into a parent's arms. "There, there... you are a good singer... you will make it..." the lies ooze. "You will make a difference. You can do anything that you want. You just need to try harder."

But if you can't carry a tune in a bucket, how much practicing will it take?

Lie to me... go ahead and tell me everything is alright...
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...

Great songs. Now quit lying to your kids.

Despair.com a great little snippet of wisdom on this--"Incompetence: When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."

Which brings me back to the original singer-songwriter, Mr. Young.

I'm not ragging on him. He is an excellent lyricist, a musical legend. Not my style of music. Still a great musician. But he just realized what GenXers have known most of our lives -- music can't change the world.

Duh.

He made this statement to the Associated Press February 7, 2008: "I think that the time when music could change the world is past. I think it would be very naive to think that in this day and age... I think that the world today is a different place, and that it's time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and try to save the planet."

The rest of the article, Mr. Young portrays himself as a cross-breed between an aging, crotchety hippie who wants the youngins to git off his lawn and a Nirvana burnout stuck in 1991, still angry and angst-ridden, beating it out in the garage.

From my limited and biased view of history, I remember the Me Generation boldly going forth into the 60's and 70's, proclaiming that they were going to "make a difference." And they did, don't get me wrong. The civil rights movement happened. But building blocks had been put into place before then by previous generations. Women's rights and women's lib happened. But again, a foundation had been laid thanks to womens suffrage and other progressive thinkers generations before. A spiritual awakening took place and freedom of thought began to flourish. But this again was not new. The turn-of-the-century previous brought new ideas in religion. Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement, revivalism, spiritualism, spiritism, and even a short rebirth of interest in the occult and mysticism. Many forms of religisiosity were laid down which brought the birth of fundamentalism and is now presently fighting underneath new emergent movements.

The quick fire of the Boomers died out when they discovered that the ideals were not easy coming and the fading youths found that money and fame did not come from this brave new world overnight. The Boomers soon were over 20 and 30, whom they had warned themselves not to trust, found that had children, and had to make money, so they settled into business and politics, and decided to make change that way.

The world was not the way they had envisioned. Music would not change the world as they said it would. People would not sit around in hippie drum circles, sharing everything they owned in one big happy commune, singing Kum-Ba-Yah. Instead, money becomes king, materialism becomes god because we must give our family everything we "never had", and layoffs becomes a way of life. The bottom line becomes more important than the worker bees, the little man becomes a number, children become a nuisance and the spouse becomes a roommate. Then, when the mid-life crisis hits, life suddenly becomes more than just an image that we stare at in a mirror, and we decide to sell it all, try to live simpler, and flirt with moving to Fiji because it's pretty there.

But is that really the answer? So Boomers get a life coach, a therapist, eat healthier. Maybe run twice a day.

There's a reason we GenXers are the way we are. We watch everything fall apart and feel we have to clean it all up because that's what we've done our whole lives.

And Mr. Neil Young suddenly has this epiphany a week ago that we need to change the world through other means.

Welcome to the real world.

Xyience Files for Bankruptcy

2008-01-26T20:06:00.001-04:00

We take a break from our regular programming to bring you the following bulletin:

Xyience, the heavyweight sponsor of UFC and maker of Xenergy energy drink, has finally filed for bankruptcy. I've been following this one for months and the scandal has gotten tastier than the drink, which I have not yet gotten to sample. And probably will never get to. It is a tale ripe with fraud (1/25/08), death threats, dropped sponsorships by some of the biggest names in mixed martial arts, and likened to the scams of Enron -- the biggest scandal of this generation.

Even during some of my research before the filing, I found that results had been censored. Interesting, no?

Mr. Rich Bergeron, blogger who had been following this from the beginning and has a lawsuit against him by the big boys because of his MySpace page, wrote the following original story warning of the great fall. It has been wiped from the Internet as of my last Googling, so here is the cached version:

Xyience Bankruptcy Imminent
Date submitted: 06 December 2007
Author: Rich Bergeron

This story is too huge to keep to myself. It is dubbed the Enron of MMA for a reason, because it really is.

Right under the very noses of the fans who tuned in faithfully for every big show, right behind the backs of the fighters who put their safety on the line for the cash and the bragging rights of fighting in the "octagon", and right past federal regulators behind the curve, the latest Xyience backers have been feeding a chain of lies to investors and the public, and for a long time they were able to fly under the radar and avoid detection.

All the while, the UFC has found a way of representing themselves as having this great, exclusive sponsor, but it’s not really all that great.

Some fans might have heard that the UFC (AKA Zuffa, LLC) took out a $325 million loan not too long ago. In June 2007 Zuffa, LLC, the parent company of the UFC, borrowed $325 million through a Senior Secured Credit Facilities Term Loan due 6/18/15. This debt instrument was placed with Oppenheimer Funds, Franklin Templeton Funds, Fidelity Funds and others.

Evidently the Fertittas spent most of the proceeds on the purchase of Pride and on a dividend for themselves and Dana White. The provisions of the loan are as follows: The loan is a pledge of the entire Zuffa assets and revenues, including the UFC, and a stated amount of revenue must come from sponsorships. The new UFC Xyience contract, which newly-crowned co-CEOs Adam Frank and Kirk Sanford negotiated with John Mulkey, the CFO of Zuffa LLC, calls for $9 million the first year, $11 million the second year and $12.14 million the third year. And Xyience will reportedly not be in the center of the mat after March. In other words: The Fertitta funding and new UFC contract with Xyience appears to be a sham for the auditors of Zuffa and the UFC to cover-up the fact that a key covenant in their $325 million loan was in breach.

They were allowed to obtain this loan by representing the sponsors they have are all above board, successful companies. Once Zuffa had secured and collected on their own loan, Fertitta Enterprises and a few other outside investors gave Xyience financing in a deal that shareholders were told would directly benefit the company and provide operating funds for an expansion of the brand. The alternative would be to bankrupt the company. The scare tactic worked. The new investment group now plans to do what they said they were trying to avoid all along, all in order to truly capitalize for themselves on their investment.

Instead of providing bridge financing for an IPO of Xyience stock (as some investors were told the Fertitta funding would facilitate) or funds to pay off a host of other vendor fees Xyience has accrued, the Fertitta loan barely made a dent in Xyience's extensive debt.

Fertitta Enterprises entered into financing Xyience primarily to pay off the company's UFC debt. Almost immediately after the Fertitta money came in, Xyience reportedly forked out over $6.5 million in past due sponsorship fees that had been accrued by Xyience and were owed to the UFC. The company also extended their UFC sponsorship contract right after the Fertitta Enterprises deal became official. The Fertittas and a few other investors basically funded a company on the verge of bankruptcy to provide capital for themselves. So, the Fertittas and a few friends paid the debts owed to the UFC by Xyience while also propping Xyience up as a valid, viable company. Any way you slice it, it's a scam perpetrated by misdirection and manipulation. Xyience has been insolvent for months now, yet the folks at Fertitta Enterprises used Xyience as a significant reference to get their hands on $325 million for Zuffa, LLC, and the entire business’ assets are riding as collateral on that loan. Read the MMA Payout article, and you see where the money went. Zuffa made a heavy investment in PRIDE, took some dividend money, gave a significant bailout loan to Xyience through Fertitta Enterprises, and extended the Xyience endorsement contract for three years. Xyience is still in the middle of the mat at every UFC event despite what’s been reported about the company’s troubles and struggles.

Sales under the new Xyience regime are suffering amid the clamoring MMA mainstream press eager to print explosive evidence, like the report that a supplement Sean Sherk was taking had tested positive for a banned substance. There were also reports of fighters getting stiffed on contract money, and months after I reported it on my site the Liddell/Xyience issue was finally brought to light and confirmed.

Those who once saw me as a conspiracy theorist had to open their eyes, look twice, and say, “Jesus, the kid was right all along.”

At this point I know almost all there is to know about Xyience. So, let’s get to it: Xyience is no better now than it was when it was freshly stolen from John Scott, the Current Owner of John Scott’s Nitro. If you don’t know a thing about the man, please read this story.

Xyience is a wreck. They have been lying about their growth and placement in the marketplace for far too long. Xenergy is not the fastest growing and selling energy drink. Kirk Sanford and Adam Frank are leading the company into what they describe as a situation where they simply must bankrupt it once and for all. This revelation is coming just mere weeks after they purported to save it from that same exact scenario with the Fertitta deal.

The company has already had one round of layoffs and faces another one soon as the prospect of bankruptcy comes into focus.

For some reason it didn’t surprise me when I found out that Kirk Sanford’s old company Global Cash Acess Holdings had a very significant account with Station Casinos. The Fertitta Brothers through Fertitta Enterprises have been able to hijack Xyience without inspiring any sort of outrage from the MMA fans or the fighters who might have appreciated that $12 million investment being put back into the UFC and spread out through contracts.

Lobbying against Fertitta Enterprises and Frank and Sanford are an estimated 340 investors. The offer tentatively on the table, according to inside reports, is to give the existing investors a 5 percent interest in the new company if they are willing to cooperate.

The company is fraught with liability and debt. Bankruptcy may be the only way out, but why do those 340 shareholders have to be left holding the bag if they don't pledge allegiance to the new regime? Why should the folks who put in early get screwed? Why should they be forced to support a group who only seems to be furthering and complicating the fraud at Xyience instead of alleviating it?

It's pretty clear something has to be done to permanently prove the company is in good hands and has begun moving in a better direction to regain loyal customers and cleanse the name of the institution. This company has been bought and sold over and over again, six ways to Sunday, and around the world in 80 days.

Once the Fertitta deal separated Pike and his close associates from voting rights, a new group of movers and shakers in the shady business world came in and began to pick the remaining post-Pike assets apart. They are taking everything of value and dismantling it all, pulling off a massive scam, all under the veil of an association with the Ultimate Fighting Championships, A.K.A. Zuffa. Layoffs at Xyience to move closer to bankruptcy will leave all those employees out of work for the holiday season, and many have already jumped the gun and put their resumes up on www.monster.com.

The resulting fallout unfolding here reminds me of the words of one of my early sources: “Xyience isn’t a sponsor of the UFC, the UFC is a sponsor of Xyience.” Nothing could be more true right now.

The UFC became its own sponsor when the Fertittas bought into Xyience. Their $325 million loan terms require them to have strong sponsor partnerships, so it was not merely a factor of being guilty by association. There was more to it than that. They had overextended themselves, they needed a loan, and they needed their main sponsors to stay strong and look the part. Not too long ago Dana White was screaming from the rooftops about how the UFC didn’t need a Coke or Pepsi level sponsor.

“I don’t f**king need Coke to keep doing what we’re doing, man. Believe me, the big time sponsors if they come on, of course that’d be fantastic. I don’t need ‘em. 18-to-34 year old males, they’re here hanging out with me. If Coke wants them, Coke needs to come to us,” White proclaimed. Turns out Coke didn't need White, either.

In the end he was stuck with the option of having nobody come knocking, and Xyience had to stay on point somehow. If the company went under, everything would go wrong for the UFC. It would be the second straight sponsor bailing out from on-the-mat advertising due to bankruptcy.

In an interview recently on CNBC with former Disney Head Honcho Michael Eisner, White promised the UFC would be announcing some brand new corporate sponsors within the next few months. Perhaps it is these sponsors who will finally bump Xyience from the middle of the mat next March.

Xyience is still bankrupt for all intents and purposes. They cannot serve their debt under current arrangements. It’s only a matter of time before they have to admit their plan to take the company under. Someone will end up foreclosing, and it appears the most likely scenario is the Fertitta Enterprises group gaining control over the bulk of the company’s interests and assets in the advent of any insolvency. Then they will have to change the name and reconstitute the business.

“We look forward to our future endeavors together as both of our companies continue their explosive growth,” Dana White said back when Xyience and the UFC extended their sponsorship. Xyience was on its way to bankruptcy and just received a huge infusion of capital to keep it from going under, yet White calls this condition "explosive growth?"

If you could know what I know, you’d completely understand. Let me slow down and get to the point at the same time. What has befallen this company under Russell Pike has been written to death. This is the new chapter, the unfolding of everything, the great reveal. The new players are some richly people to say the least. For research purposes, here’s a list to familiarize yourself with: Adam Frank, Kirk Sanford, Omer Sattar, Bill Bullard, Kathryn Lever, Patrick Braukman, Adam Roseman, Bill Underhill, Michael Eisner, Karim Maskatiya, Jeff Dash. Xyience is now on a collision course for bankruptcy while a group of shareholders are threatening a class action suit. Even some of the recently burned employees are considering joining the class action suit. I have personally spoken to lawyers already regarding a possible case.

Kirk Sanford's sudden departure from Global Cash Access and the stock's nosedive in mid-November leave more questions than answers, and now Sanford is at Xyience with all the players he was closest to at GCA. GCA's operation in Macau was allegedly set up to create kick-backs for Karim Maskatiya. He is the person who insiders say put Kirk, Kathryn Lever and Omer, his nephew, into management at Xyience. Maskatiya also reportedly put $5 million of his own money into Xyience. About half of the board of directors for Xyience now has some connection to the casino industry.

On top of everything, the Fertittas’ Station Casinos is one of GCA’s most significant accounts. Station Casinos also endorsed Judge Timothy Williams for his campaign to get a district court bench. Williams just happens to be the judge overseeing Xyience's $25 million case against me in Clark County, Nevada. Williams also coincidentally oversaw the case of Fishman Companies vs. Dream Stage Entertainment (DSE). Just before the Fertittas could be deposed in the case, it was settled. Soon after that settlement, the UFC'S purchase of DSE (PRIDE) became official.

While Williams has been quick to act and set hearings for the Xyience motions on the docket and graciously approved the other side's proposed orders, my own motion to dismiss has been sitting on the docket for longer than a month now. I recently submitted an order to end the case based on the rules of procedure for the district, and nothing has been recorded as of yet. The order was supposed to take effect Monday, December 3rd, but there is nothing reflected on the docket to show I even submitted anything. Even in the face of Xyience's lawyer withdrawing from the case, the judge refuses to acknowledge that the whole $25 million litigation is a farce. The same judge is now overseeing the case Xyience Founder Russell Pike has filed against Kirk Sanford and Adam Frank.

To get a better understanding of what has been happening to the company and the shareholders, you have to understand the relationship with the legal counsel of Xyience: Eisner and Frank.

Michael Eisner of Eisner and Frank was brought to Xyience in December of 2006 by Adam Roseman, the CEO of ARC Investment Partners and Jeff Dash, the Xyience CFO at that time. ARC Investment Partners and Eisner and Frank are both based in Beverly Hills, CA.

In November of 2006, Roseman, who was introduced to Xyience by Jeff Dash, introduced Patrick Brauckmann to Xyience. Roseman reportedly told management that he and Brauckmann would be able to raise $25 million in order to capitalize the company and retire the defaulted $10 million Brush Monroe note and buy back the 7 million shares of Xyience stock held by the AA Capital receiver.

Reports say in January of 2007, Roseman insisted on becoming CEO and Chairman of the Board of Xyience and appointed Adam Frank to the board stating that he needed the executive positions and Frank to help raise the $25 million. Adam Frank also reportedly promised to invest $1 million into Xyience.

At the end of January 2007 members of the board of directors of Xyience consisted of: Adam Frank; Adam Roseman; Russell Pike; Peter Rinato; and Michael Clark. By February of 2007 the Brush Monroe note, held by the AA Capital receiver, was convertible into 16 million shares of Xyience stock. With the 7 million shares already held by the receiver.

So, whoever purchased the receiver’s position would get 23 million shares of stock.

CORPORATE RAIDERS OF THE LOST "ARC"
Eisner and Frank, Jeff Dash, Adam Roseman and Adam Frank, along with Patrick Brauckmann, allegedly put together an intricate scam where they went behind the backs of Russell Pike, Peter Rinato and Michael Clark, and the majority on the board of directors, to purchase the Brush Monroe note and the stock from the AA Capital receiver in February. They then reportedly sold Xyience stock to investors for $2.50 a share, stock that they did not have, telling the investors that the money was going into the company. Actually, they were putting the money into Key Management, an entity set up by Brauckmann, to buy the note and stock from the receiver for $10 million for themselves.

They would get 23 million shares from the receiver and give the people they sold the stock to 4 million shares, while keeping 19 million shares of Xyience stock for themselves.

The receiver entered into negotiations with Brauckmann to sell the note to Brauckmann’s Key Management in January. The other Xyience board members: Pike, Rinato and Clark, found out about the court hearing and sale the day before the hearing and tried to stop the sale. But as Dash, Frank, Roseman and Brauckmann had starved the company of funds, the company had no money to buy the note and stock from the receiver.

After two hearings and a compromise, the judge let the sale go through when Brauckmann stated that he would fund Xyience with $20 million. Brauckmann later reportedly never put up that promised money.

The compromise gave Jeff Dash, Adam Frank, Adam Roseman and Patrick Brauckmann over 10 million shares of stock and stock options and a $5 million note at no cost to themselves.

Not only did Eisner and Frank not appear in court to try to stop this scam, they also tried to stop legal counsel hired by Peter Rinato from representing the shareholders and the company at the court hearings. This scam effectively diluted the shareholders’ stock by almost 30 percent. The lack of funding grinded production to a halt and made sales in February of 2007 the worst in almost a year. This all happened while Xyience was publicly making sales claims their own analytics firm questioned.

After the compromise, Adam Roseman resigned from the board and Adam Frank stayed on the board. Karim Maskatiya, a large shareholder of Xyience, founder and chairman of the board of Global Cash Access, was given authority to appoint two people to the board. By the end of May, Karim had appointed Kirk Sanford and Kathryn Lever to the board.

Michael Kurdziel, manager of Adam Roseman’s ARC Investment Partners, represented Roseman’s and Brauckmann’s interests, and only Bill Underhill represented the shareholders. Arc Investment Partners later sued Brauckmann for problems related to another deal they corroborated on.

THE LAST HURRAH
After having the wool pulled over their eyes by Brauckmann and company, the good people left at Xyience were put in the hands of yet another abuser to be victimized yet again. The new regime hopes this third try to get something of value out of the mess Xyience has become will be an unqualified success. Yet, to obtain that goal the new powers that be will have to alienate the shareholders that put Xyience on the map with their early funding. There will be layoffs and auctions, misery and loss. Kirk Sanford likes to call this approach "Scorched Earth."

From June 2007 on, Kirk Sanford and Adam Frank controlled the company, and it seemed apparent to insiders that these men would not raise any capital. They, with Kurdziel and Lever, controlled the board. It was up to them to save the company while they still could.

Adam and Kirk reportedly gave themselves 600,000 shares of stock each and 3 million stock options for themselves and their new Xyience team. Yet, they thwarted every attempt by Bill Underhill to bring in financing. They postponed the June scheduled shareholders meeting until the third quarter. On July 11 and 12 Adam and Kirk had six investor conferences in two days and stated at these conferences that they would “establish robust reporting to shareholders” and that “material strategic and financing decisions must have complete visibility.”

Reports confirm Sanford and Frank have not called a complete shareholder meeting recently (although one is scheduled for December 15), and they refuse to give any disclosure to shareholders. I sent Sanford a list of questions recently, and he refused to provide answers publicly. "You had some good questions," he wrote in response. "But, we decided it would be better if we communicated directly to the shareholders ourselves first. Once we've done that, I am sure they will send you a copy (like they always do)."

By the middle of summer, once again, production was halted because of lack of funding, and sales suffered. This cost the company millions of dollars in sales and earnings. Kirk and Adam still did not seem eager to pursue any funding of Xyience, except with Bill Bullard, President of Fertitta Enterprises.

Insiders say the co-CEOs ignored all other funding opportunities and even allegedly spoke disparagingly about the company to other potential investors. By the beginning of October Kirk and Adam were threatening bankruptcy. If the major shareholders did not give in and authorize the Fertitta funding that Bill Bullard, Adam Frank and Kirk Sanford had put together, Adam and Kirk said they would put the company into bankruptcy.

Adam Frank even sent out a cessation of operations e-mail without calling a board meeting. By this time they also had crammed down all vendor payments by threatening bankruptcy. What they proposed was a $12 million one year 15% senior note from Fertitta Enterprises. But, the funding did not sustain the company at all. What it did was make the entire arrears payment to the UFC of $6.5 million, paid off a note to Fertitta Enterprises for $1 million, paid Adam and Kirk $500,000.00 for their notes, paid Fertitta Enterprises an initiation fee of $240,000.00 and paid Eisner and Frank-Rosemann’s lawyers that helped orchestrate the February scam--almost $300,000.00.

All these were paid while note holders, who had notes that were past due and payable, had received nothing or just partial payments. Other legal fees and payables also remained outstanding. Xyience's case against me has not even been funded. In addition, 7.3 million stock options were attached to the funding for Adam and Kirk, and Fertitta Enterprises received 10% of all Xyience stock outstanding in warrants for one cent a share.

Another and even more incredible provision was that Fertitta Enterprises would receive default warrants for another 100 million shares for one cent a share if the shareholders voted to change the board of directors.

In other words, Fertitta Enterprises would pay themselves and the UFC and receive 60% of Xyience. Frank and Sandford were rewarded for lying to shareholders by promoting a deal for the Fertittas to help save Xyience when all along the deal only served to destroy the company.

On October 2, 2007 Frank and Sanford informed Russell Pike, William Pike and Michael Clark, shareholders who represented 25% of the shares outstanding, that if they did not sign the funding consent form for the Fertitta funding and give up their voting rights, Adam and Kirk would put the company into bankruptcy. On October 3, under duress, the Pikes, Clark and other major shareholders signed the consent forms.

Only eleven shareholders, who represent over 50% of the shares outstanding, ever saw the funding agreement. Over 300 shareholders are reportedly still being kept in the dark by Adam Frank and Kirk Sanford as to their investment. So, the UFC, Fertitta Enterprises, Adam Frank, Kirk Sanford and Eisner and Frank were paid in full, and Fertitta Enterprises, Adam Frank, Kirk Sanford, Karim Maskatiya and Patrick Brauckmann were given total control of the company--all while sales and relationships with major customers were reportedly destroyed.

The scam can only ultimately be pulled off if the Fertittas remain virtually invisible. This is why there has been no press release. You won't see Lorenzo Fertitta at any podium proclaiming the UFC now has an indirect financial interest in one of their main sponsors. The situation screams conflict of interest. They have instead left it up to Adam Frank and Kirk Sanford to sink the ship and command the expedition to salvage the wreckage.

There is one glaring commonality between the UFC and Xyience. On paper both companies are losing money on a grand scale. The UFC's losses have been estimated to be at least $44 million since the Fertittas and Dana White took over. Xyience lost $56 million in 2006 according to their profit and loss statement for that year. Vegas is supposed to be the place where big gambles pay off. Yet, no matter how much money is thrown at these two companies, they still can't overtake their losses. They can't generate their own surplus of capital. Instead, Zuffa had to bail Xyience out indirectly and rely on a $325 million loan to provide any profit-sharing opportunities for the principals. They basically just put a second mortgage on their whole company. The question that remains is simple:

How much can you really do with $325 million, minus of course what ZUFFA paid for PRIDE? Can you resuscitate a dead company? Can you right a wrong? Can you erase the past? Only time will tell.

Source: www.unlimitedfightnews.com

The Day After Live Earth

2007-07-09T10:24:00.000-04:00

I always get a bit punchy the day after a "benefit" concert for a stupid event that will really not amount to a hill of beans, especially something that is supposed to be "green." Really, a concert benefiting the earth, raising awareness of global warming? And, despite your beliefs on the topic, is anyone unaware of the idea of global warming? Superstars, musicians jetting around the earth, spewing jet fuel into the atmosphere, touring around in oversized luxury vehicles and caravans, choking up thousands of watts of electricity to power amps and stage lights to blast noise into a throng of jumping teeny boppers, nostalgic x-ers (if we actually had the money, found a sitter, and cared enough to show up) and aging boomers, who overpaid for a small rainforest that was cut down, processed into glossy tickets and passes, all to help Mother Earth and help stop global warming. Uh, yeah. Does anyone see the hypocrisy? A few did.

Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.

"It's a bit patronising for us 21-year-olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

It has rung the same with me as Live 8 which, as I recall, was supposed to bring awareness on poverty. It didn't even raise money. All that happened was you signed up online and saw your name scroll across a giant screen with others, saying you were now aware of global poverty. Is this a new concept to people? Are there those out there not aware that not everyone lives in a large house with electricity and running water, three-squares a day, making $45,000 a year, after taxes? Are they not aware that there are those living on the streets, not sure when the last time they ate, let alone bathed? That the reason a young girl had a child was because she couldn't afford birth control or because this is how life is? That she may not live to 35 due to disease?

How is mere awareness going to stop this?

South Park did a brilliant episode focused on a hippie jam fest. Nine days of music drone on. The progressive-thinking hippies go on and on about how they were going to change the world by having a guy who makes bread and someone else who looks out for everyone's safety.... exchanging goods and services. "It's called a town." the kids state. "You kids just haven't been to college yet," the hippies shoot back, swaying their heads as they pass joints. Stan and Kyle looked around at the hippies, grooving out to the music. Finally bored, Stan speaks up:

Stan:	Uh, excuse me. Excuse me, can I have your attention please? What are we doing? [the crowd quiets down] It's been nine days! Doesn't it seem like we should accomplish something?
A hippie:	We're using the power of rock-and-roll to change the world! Woo! [the crowd cheers]
Stan:	Maybe instead of complaining about corporations being selfish, we should look at ourselves. I mean, is there anything more selfish than doing nothing but getting high and listening to music all day long?
Singer:	He's right. It's time for all of us to focus our energy and get this hippie jam into full swing. [the band starts up again. They missed his point entirely. Stan just turns right and walks away]

I love Roger Daltry's observation: "The last thing the world needs is a rock concert." Let's quit planning for a future that may not be there (or in the way we think it will be) and start taking care of the here and now. Our kids. Our parents. Ourselves.

Rock on, Rog. Think I may check out the Arctic Monkeys, too.

To check out which LiveEarth artists was voted Least Green, click here.

Spinal Tap Reunites

2007-05-23T14:49:00.000-04:00

From Skippy R. on WittenburgBlog.com:

"The mock heavy metal group immortalized in the 1984 mockumentary, This Is Spinal Tap, will reunite for a performance at Wembley Stadium in London...

"For the band –- whose last album was 1992's Break Like the Wind –- the occasion warranted a new single: Warmer Than Hell. A peek at the lyrics shows the song has a spiritual dimension:

" 'The devil went to Devon, it felt like the fourth degree/ He said, 'Is it hot in here, or is it only me?'

"Since we last saw them, Nigel has been raising miniature horses to race but can't find jockeys small enough to ride them; David is now a hip-hop producer who also runs a colonic clinic; and Derek is in rehab for addiction to the Internet."

The video short and full story can be found on MSN's Live Earth Concert Site.

Let Us Heal

2007-04-19T08:30:00.000-04:00

Media, please go home. Quit shoving microphones in our kids faces, making them relive the traumatic emotions again and again. Quit asking them how they feel, if they think the administration could have done more, if they have second thoughts about what could have been done, if they knew something was wrong. We need to cry, we need to shout, we need to slam doors, to question, to throw rocks at the sky and be angry. Pack up your trucks and lights and cameras and perfect hair and practiced looks of concern and let us grieve in private.

I'm glad that Tech canceled classes this week. It gives a much needed reprieve from the freshness of this personal 9-11. So much for these young lives to take in. Tuesday morning, I was seeing some of the same students on the news reciting the same stories. They looked tired and just wanted the ordeal to be over. They wanted to stop telling their story. They wanted to move past it. They had lived it, they had been there. It was now time to deal with it and grieve. They were emotionally spent.

The newly surfaced multi-media suicide note. My heart goes out to Cho's family. I have been thinking about them constantly in addition to everyone else who lost someone That Monday. It again shows that we don't know. There is so much hidden and only one side is shown, the side he wanted us to see. We don't know why or how. We won't know why. His parents won't know why and will be left with that empty gnawing, those photos burned into their minds that the media so eagerly laps up and plasters across our screens only to bump ratings. A parent who loses a child is still a parent who loses a child, no matter the circumstance.

Then there are the Cause-Heads -- to borrow a phrase from the movie PCU -- the activists who I've already heard spew rhetoric about gun control and if we had tighter laws this wouldn't have happened. A very crude and untimely event to soapbox over. Roanoke firearms owner John Markell stated that Cho seemed like a nice, clean-cut college kid: "We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious," Markell had said. Governor Tim Kaine snapped at politicians and activists who were seeking to gain points from the tragedy, stating that he has "nothing but loathing" for anyone who wanted to make this a "political hobby horse to ride."

Message boards are popping up everywhere. Everyone is now a learned expert on abnormal psychology based on their two credits taken in high school and/or college. The "profile" has been carefully compiled from snippets taken from the news and now includes new information from the suicide note mailed to the media. "He was a disturbed loner. Students should have reached out to him." They tried. He refused. We don't understand. The light bulb has to really want to change. "Teachers should have picked up on clues from his violent writings." How do we explain the graphically violent imaginations of Stephen King, Quentin Tarantino and other writers and movie producers? "Clearly he was exhibiting signs of mania and depression; thus he was bipolar and should have been on medication." We don't know that; this is speculation based on a textbook definition without an actual in-depth psychological evaluation. "Didn't anyone in admissions check his background? He should have been flagged. He was admitted to a mental health facility." This is incomplete information and and again purely speculation. Plus, this is confidential information. First, let's stop demonizing everyone who has a mental health issue; the spectrum is wider and more complex than you can possibly imagine. And leave the cushion fluffing to the experts. As per flagging someone who may be "at risk", remember that it's a confidential matter between that person and his or her doctor. It all comes down to the same thing -- we just don't know why.

Governor Tim Kaine, Professor Nikki Giovanni, and others spoke at Convocation on Tuesday, April 17. Beautiful speeches encouraged students and families to embrace the unknown, the answers that may never come, the pain and sorrow, to question, to mourn and grieve, to be angry, to know that this will become a part of who they are now and who they will become, and that they are not alone.

And so, media, please go back home. Give us our dignity and our privacy. We are in our nation's prayers. We don't need a talking screen to be reminded of that. We have lost best friends and classmates, daughters and sons and only children, nephews and nieces, sisters and brothers, spouses and parents and teachers. Every time we see you outside we are reminded of what has been lost. Our millennial generation was raised on a diet of computers, video games, the internet, cell phones, do-it-yourself video, and we move fast. We want to move on.

Go home.

Shock and Profound Sorrow

2007-04-18T12:55:00.000-04:00

There are just some things that shouldn't happen. Even several days later, the shock still hasn't quite sunk in. I don't think it will fully. I am still wondering why. I think I always will. I'm not wondering why at security or the school officials or at professors or students who saw the troubled future gunman Cho Seung-Hui and weren't successful at reaching out to him. There is so much that can be speculated from hindsight.

The Tragedy at Tech is the deadliest campus shooting (32 people killed in a dorm and classroom; the gunman died) since Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck at the University deck at the University of Texas on August 1, 1966. 16 were killed and 31 were wounded in 96 minutes during his rampage.

Many have moved past Kubler-Ross' Stage One of Grief (Denial) and on to Stage Two -- Anger. Fingers are pointed at University President Charles Steger and VT Campus Police Chief W.R. Finchum who have been busy defending their actions for closing off a dormitory after the first shooting, thought to have been an isolated incident, not knowing that a second shooting was mere hours away. Again -- my editorial -- it's easy to offer our grand wisdom on what should have been done as we look back.

It's difficult to separate strong emotion from these horrific events when we know our sons and daughters were stolen from us at such a promising time in their lives, that answers will never come and our sense of justice will never be satisfied. We hurt and we need someone else to feel this pain instead of us. We long to know why. It bleeds from our souls. We want to know when and where and how and why why why. There are no words and so we are forced to wait, speechless, knowing we have to listen to pithy sayings from people who mean well, and we are left left wondering why.

Don't get me wrong. I haven't let this go or moved on. It's just become part of who I am. Just another part that I can't understand.

Visit Virginia Tech's April 16 Memorial Website and share your condolences with the friends and families who tragically lost loved ones on That Monday.

We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears
and through all our sadness ... We are the Hokies ...

-- Nikki Giovanni, University Distinguished Professor, poet, activist

China and the AIDS Crisis

2007-03-14T14:38:00.000-04:00

I was glad to see that "The Blood of Yingzhou District" won Best Documentary Short Subject at the 79th Academy Awards.

I don't want to shortchange the epidemic sweeping across Africa. Yes, AIDS is a pandemic. The misconceptions and rumors floating around in Africa are terrible. But in order to make a change, we have got to stop treating kids as trendy fashion accessories and taking them away from their homes. If we want kids to grow up and change the world as adults, we have to help them grow into adults in the world they know. Change must take place locally, in countries and neighborhoods worldwide. We have got to start acting locally. That means where local begins, not bringing it to a more convenient and safe location that is familiar to us. Ok, stepping off my soapbox now...

The government in China is doing all they can to shush their own people. It must be terrifying, not knowing how many are living with this disease, not knowing how you got it, not knowing if your transfusion has been tainted or if you have passed it on to your children. And knowing your own government does not care. A billion live your country and you are just another number, another cog. Expendable. Makes me shiver.

Below is a column written by Wendy McElroy:

China Can No Longer Hide AIDS Crisis
02.15.2007

By Wendy McElroy

"What can they do to an old woman like me?"

That’s how 80-year-old Gao Yaojie responds to threats from the Chinese government. In 1996, the now-retired doctor became instrumental in exposing an AIDS scandal involving China's blood banks that officials still want to quash. But the powerful Communist bureaucracy that rules a nation of 1.3 billion people cannot silence one old lady who is a crusade.

The silence, however, is cracking wide open. Part of the reason is that China will be hosting the 2008 Olympics, which demands China embrace greater openness to international media. On Jan. 1, for example, new rules went into effect by which some journalists can travel into the provinces without prior government approval.

However, another reason the silence surrounding China's dismal record on AIDS is fading is because Gao has been recognized by the international community as a champion of AIDS patients who are victims of both bureaucracy and disease.

In a scramble for damage control, Chinese officials are simultaneously punishing and praising the grandmotherly dissident.

For example, last week policemen placed Gao under de facto house arrest, presumably to prevent her from making arrangements to accept an award in New York City next month. Yet, on Feb. 12, a high-ranking Communist official visited her home to grab a photo-op with Gao who was then lauded in the party’s newspaper.

What are officials so eager to cover up?

It began in April 1996 when a female patient with “no-name fever” entered the hospital in China’s central Henan province where Gao worked. The woman pleaded, "I don't want to die! My husband and my child can't live without me."

She died 10 days later. For over a week, the woman’s husband slept by her grave in an act of contrition: He had approved a blood transfusion years before through which Gao determined that the woman had contracted AIDS.

“I was astonished to find that the contaminated blood had come from a blood bank," Gao stated. "If a blood bank has been contaminated with HIV, there certainly must be more than just one victim!”

She was correct.

In the 1990s, "unofficial" blood banks flourished and Chinese peasants were encouraged to sell their blood in order to harvest the plasma. The "clinics," sometimes run by local politicians or the military, had to overcome the reluctance of many peasants to give blood. Thus, it became commonplace to re-infuse donors with plasma-stripped blood that was drawn from a general pool. That blood was not tested for AIDS.

No one knows how widespread the resulting problem is.

According to The Economist, “The United Nations estimates that at the end of 2005 there were 55,000 commercial blood and plasma donors infected with HIV in China….One Chinese AIDS expert, Zhang Ke, reported in 2004 that the figure for Henan province…could be more than 170,000. Dr Zhang estimated that a further 130,000 in Henan got the virus from transfusions in hospitals.”

Estimates on how many people have been infected through other vectors of disease (e.g. unprotected sex) do not seem to exist. One thing is clear, however. Although policies on blood donation and transfusions have been tightened, the spread of AIDS in China has taken on a life or death of its own.

The government seems more interested in preventing information than preventing the disease. Gao, who continues to print and circulate educational brochures at her own expense, is a source of chronic embarrassment for the government. She is also exposing the corruption of officials who misappropriate money and resources intended for the AIDS victims.

The accusations of corruption are accumulating.

For example, in 2005, the powerful Party member Wen Jiabao took a much-publicized inspection tour of AIDS prevention work. At Wenlou village, he promised patients that they would each receive 10 yuan (a Chinese dollar) or a total of 8,830 yuan in all. The allocated money vanished as did subsequent shipments of food to the area.

Gao tirelessly raises funds for AIDS victims but she has appealed for people not to donate money to the effort in Wenlou. "[G]o and tell your friends and readers not to donate money or material to Wenlou village," she has said. "This is just a PR project to deceive the public….This is a 'black hole'…There are quite a few more 'black holes' in Henan like this one."

No wonder the government wants to silence Gao… along with the growing ranks of anti-AIDS activists whom she has emboldened.

It is too late to quiet her now; the world is paying attention. Consider Li Xige, who was infected during a blood transfusion in childbirth and passed AIDS on to her now-deceased daughter. Last July, she traveled to petition the Beijing Municipal Health Bureau for assistance. Instead, she was arrested on the charge of "assembling crowds to attack state institutions."

Human rights organizations and the media immediately advocated on Li Xige’s behalf. According to Amnesty International: “Following her release on 10 August, she was placed under tight police surveillance and warned not to travel outside her home county…or talk to foreign media.”

Chinese attempts to cover up the AIDS epidemic and scandals have been so clumsy that they have merely created more interest.

Last November, I toured China in the company of various guides who clearly follow the official Communist line on political matters. On separate occasions, three different guides assured me that the AIDS situation was firmly under the government’s control. The interesting thing: I hadn’t asked them anything about AIDS. But, since they brought the subject up, I pursued it.

The path led directly to where they did not wish me to go: GaoYaojie.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer

Rape Victim is Criminal

2007-03-06T14:04:00.000-04:00

A Saudi woman is kidnapped, raped, and photographed. She is now facing 90 lashes for her crime. The U.S. is at war with Iraq over human rights and one of its best bedfellows is notoriously mistreating half its population.

Saudi Kidnap, Rape Victim Faces Lashing for 'Crime' of Being Alone With Man Not Related to Her

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

A 19-year-old Saudi woman who was kidnapped, beaten and gang raped by seven men who then took photos of their victim and threatened to kill her, was sentenced under the country's Islamic-based law to 90 lashes for the "crime" of being alone with a man not related to her.

The woman is appealing to Saudi King Abdullah to intervene in the controversial case.

"I ask the king to consider me as one of his own daughters and have mercy on me and set me free from the 90 lashes," the woman said in an emotional interview published Monday in the Saudi Gazette.

"I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears. Ninety lashes! Ninety lashes!" the woman, identified only as "G," told the English-language newspaper.

Five months after the harsh judgment, her sentence has yet to be carried out, "G" said she waits in fear every day for the phone call telling her to submit to authorities to carry out her punishment.

Lashes are usually spread over several days. About 50 lashes are given at a time.

The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom, according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper.

She met the man at a shopping mall and, after driving off together, the blackmailer's car was stopped by two other cars bearing men wielding knives and meat cleavers.

During the next three hours, the woman was raped 14 times by her seven captors.

One of the men took pictures of her naked with his mobile phone and threatened to blackmail her with them.

Back at home in a town near the eastern city of Qatif, the young woman did not tell her family of her ordeal. Nor did she inform the authorities, fearing the rapist would circulate the pictures of her naked. She also attempted suicide.

Five of the rapists were arrested and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years. The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty for the men.

The Saudi justice ministry, however, said rape could not be proved because there were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation.

The judges, basing their decision on Islamic law, also decided to sentence the woman and her original blackmailer to lashes for being alone together in his car.

The Saudi Gazette and The Scotsman contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Organ Harvesting in China

2007-02-01T16:18:00.000-04:00

Gives the phrase "Made in China" new meaning. Article below:

Chinese army 'harvesting body parts'
From correspondents in Ottawa, CA

February 01, 2007 08:27am

CHINA'S military is harvesting organs from unwilling live prison inmates, mostly Falungong practitioners, for transplants on a large scale - including to foreign recipients- according to a study.

The report's authors - Canada's former secretary of state for the Asia Pacific region David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas - implicated dozens of hospitals and jails throughout China in July, after a two-month investigation.

Chinese officials denied those allegations.

Mr. Matas and Mr. Kilgour's second report, released today, includes interviews with organ recipients in 30 countries and Canadian hospital staff who cared for more than 100 patients who had undergone suspicious transplant surgeries in China.

"The involvement of the People's Liberation Army in these transplants is widespread,'' Mr. Kilgour said at a press conference.

Like many civilian hospitals in rural China, military hospitals turned to selling organs to make up for government funding cuts in the 1980s, the report said.

But military personnel could operate with much more secrecy, it said.

"Recipients often tell us that even when they receive transplants at civilian hospitals, those conducting the operation are military personnel,'' the report said.

Hospitals in Canada's biggest cities - Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto - confirmed "a substantial number'' of Canadians had travelled to China for dubious organ transplants, Mr. Kilgour said.

"We're in the three digits, up over 100 (from Canada each year), and the trend is accelerating,'' Mr. Matas said.

To curb what they called a "disgusting form of evil", the pair asked pharmaceutical firms to stop selling organ anti-rejection drugs to China.

They also asked countries to post travel advisories warning about China's alleged organ harvest, asked states to cease offering follow-up care for patients who had dubious organ transplants in China and asked foreign doctors to cut ties with their Chinese counterparts suspected of such practices.

The authors said states should enact legislation to ban citizens from traveling to China for organ transplants from unwilling donors, although they admitted that such cases would be difficult to prosecute.

The Least of These

2007-02-01T12:35:00.001-04:00

There has been a lot of debate over who is better suited to raise children following the news that Mary Cheney and her 15-year partner, Heather Poe, are expecting. I'm very glad Ms. Cheney gave a public statement denouncing the pregnancy as a political statement: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.” I agree. Children should never be used as salve to save a marriage or as bartering chips in a disintegrating relationship, to prove to overbearing parents that you're reallyreally an adult now (stomp foot for effect), to provide undying love and affection for a lonely adult when a housepet is far more appropriate, to be molded into a miniature clone for reliving unfulfilled dreams or correcting mistakes, toted as a trendy fashion accessory or because all your friends have one, or groomed as a poster child for a cause.

It's not hard to have children. Paris Hilton is proof. It is, however, hard to raise them. You see evidence of this day after day. Super Nanny and Nanny 911 show the results of parents who won't be parents, who refuse to discipline or set proper boundaries and rules because the child might not like them or may think they're *gasp* uncool. The horror! We hear heartbreaking stories of children who are abused or neglected because the kid is interfering with a previously thriving social or lovelife. In a Russian hospital, orphaned infants were found gagged with tape or plaster because their cries were too loud and distracted the nurses from their "important" duties.

Many feel that a child thrives when raised by a stable, loving family; the controversy lies with what sexes comprise that family life. Focus on the Family has been openly critical of Ms. Cheney's pregnancy due to her unmarried status. (Ok, so let her get married, then. No, wait, you don't want that either...) During a CNN interview, Wolf Blitzer took a cheap-shot at Vice President Dick Cheney, asking if he cared to respond to the criticism. Mr. Cheney rightly refused to comment on the personal matter:

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter...

CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate...

CHENEY: I think you're out of line.

BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very
sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Quick editorial: If Mr. Blitzer wanted to merely congratulate Mr. Cheney on having another grandchild, why didn't he just say those nine words without implying this was controversial? Many conservative groups and blogs latched onto this political teat, crying that if the VP felt so strongly about gay rights that he needed to blast his own party instead of attacking poor journalists. I found it rather humorous since most right-wingers shun liberal media as evil, biased filth -- especially CNN. Also, numerous authors and researchers cited in Mr. Dobson's letter and other writings demanded that he refrain from quoting their research as much was taken out of context and selectively eliminated findings on gay parenthood.

So what is best for the child, then? Ask any adult who survived childhood and let him educate you:

Children need to know they are loved no matter what.
Children need to know that there are rules and consequences.
Children need consistency and trust.
Children need basic physical, emotional, and spiritual needs met.
Children need safety and security.
Children need encouragement to pursue ambitions.
Children need guidance during disappointments and trials.
Children need to receive and learn patience.
Children need ears to listen when it feels like they are the only one in the world who has experienced pain or loss.
Children need to know that everyone (including parents) makes mistakes.
Children need to learn "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry."
Children need to know that it's never too late to start over.
Children (like adults) need to learn that the world does not revolve around them and that helping others is the best thing they can contribute.

Just because someone does not have a child of his or her own due to infertility, physical problems, personal choice, or sexual orientation, does not mean that (s)he is suddenly rendered incapable from becoming a healthy, loving parent to a biological, foster, or adopted child. Raising a child becomes a conscious decision instead of scrambling to line up "Plan C."

There are no perfect parents and we all will screw it up massively at least once. We just have to brush ourselves off, keep going, and keep our ego at the back of the line. We have been entrusted with a weighty responsibility -- someone else's life. It won't matter if Jenny has a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, or none that are even related.

Rockin' Religion

2007-01-29T13:55:00.000-04:00

Music is essential. It stirs emotion, it invokes memories, it translates groanings of the soul that words cannot express, it ascends to the divine and binds with human nature. In short, it is magical. And it has been a source of controversy for centuries especially in The Church. (Religious) Dualism separated the world into the Secular and the Sacred. Neither of the two were to intersect lest the Sacred become tainted.

Many preachers in the 50's spoke against the Devil's Music -- to quote Reverend Lovejoy "rrrock-and-or-rrrollll." It sparked unholy desires, they warned. It bred sin. Many churches today still struggle with the concept of "drums in church." I quickly fell in love with the blues and boogie stylings of the 40's and 50's, proudly baptizing my left hand into musical "blackness" on the piano, a style that was virtually non-existent in my white bread congregation. To this day, I consider myself the wooden spoon that stirs the pot. Larry Norman put it beautifully: "Why should the devil have all the good music?"

Music is often the reason many show up at a church service. I wish it were more than that and we would decide to shake ourselves out of our spiritual comas and start going out and making a difference, but baby steps, I remind myself, baby steps. Everyone is at a different stage and has a different calling. Musically, many young-uns like myself are left wanting from the "contemporary" style and skip church for this reason. I began wondering why -- why is this style predominant? What happened to reaching the masses through experimental music and dynamic lyrics? Why have we retreated back into our xtian ghettos, locked away from reality? When did it become a bland soup of bouncy, repetitive cliches underscored with simplistic composition and stolen riffs and hailed as meaningful and life-changing, while any song that doesn't specifically mention Christ is tossed aside as worthless?

The average "contemporary Christian" music audience, I learned, are women 35-45. More in-depth research can be found here:

The research primarily focuses on xtian radio. It has some good history as to how this phenomenon has come about.

I had been raised on the somnolent sounds of early xtian "rock" music. Nothing against Keith Green. Great lyrics, great music. A true pioneer. As with Rich Mullins. And I love the music now; I've helped orchestrate some beautiful arrangements. But they weren't as kicking as the, ahem, secular artists of the day like Guns'n'Roses, Prince, or The Cure. If it was loud, fast, and edgy, I went for it. But my home church was musically dualistic, so we were strongly encouraged to shun non-xtian artists. To help fill the void, lists were created by xtian recording labels comparing xtian groups to secular groups: "If you like (said style & band) you will like (said style and xtian band)." The lists were often very inaccurate. The theory was that if we listened to only "good music," we would abstain from "bad actions" which allegedly stemmed from listening to "trashy" music. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

"Contemporary" xtian music is a misnomer; it does not reflect current music in any way. It's at least five years behind the current trend and many styles are not welcome within the walls of the institutional church. I'd love to hear some thrash, metal, or even hard-core rap before the offering is taken up. 'Tain't gonna happen, I'm sure. And I'm not talking concerts, either. And I'm also curious about the need to label it "xtian." I've never heard other bands branding themselves solely by religious affiliation.

I read recently about a new church opening in England that plans to use U2 music during its services -- a "U2-charist" that plans to have a live band and around 500 worshipers. Interesting concept. As my "next step" brain works, I'd love to know what the church's main purpose is. If you ever dissect U2's lyrics, you'll see numerous links to faith, biblical references, and social awareness. Bono is a fascinating person and not afraid to speak about what he believes in. BeliefNet has an excellent interview.

Music is a tool, one facet, that can be used to express faith and belief. It doesn't matter what instruments are used. It doesn't matter what style we choose. It doesn't matter if we express our doubts, exasperations, or despair to G-d in addition to the praise-and-worship overkill. (Sorry, cynicism showing. Pulling up the socks...) We are human and life isn't pretty or safe. We were never promised that it would be.

And G-d doesn't need our songs. G-d is complete without us. But G-d takes joy in our joy, in our music and our desire for self-expression. So sing a new song. Even if it does include drums and requires you to reach beyond a coddled xtian audience.

NOTE ON THE PIC: If you'd like to learn more about how religion and music is reaching out across the seas, check out David Pierce and No Longer Music. Not for the faint of heart. Live what you love.

State of the Union

2007-01-29T12:55:00.000-04:00

People are confusing. Being the cynic that I am, I will generally subscribe that good can come about if we're willing to work at it. But this is the age of instant gratification. We want our rice cooked and on the plate in 90 seconds. We will sit with our turn-signal on, waiting for the soccer mom to load up her three young children in the SUV to get that prime parking spot 20 feet from the entrance even though there are open spots further down the row. We will spend an extra $5.00 for convenient, ready-to-serve entrees without caring about the extra "ingredients" that require a B.A. in chemistry to decipher. What exactly is "caramel color" and why is used both in Coca-Cola and sliced roast beef?

This spills over into not thinking before we speak. After all, we can always take a page from Hollywood and go into rehab if we offend or over-indulge. Take the latest from America's favorite state, Virginia. First, the George Allen Scandal which may have cost him the election. Now, Senator Virgil Goode.

The Chair of the Charlottesville Sierra Club wrote Congressman Virgil Goode. True to our automated nature, a letter came back that struck a nerve. It was published first in the local weekly and soon made its rounds over the World Wide Web. Now, I am all for free speech, but as a representative of the people, I also believe in discretion.

In brief, Keith Ellison, a Muslim, had been elected to serve the Fifth District of Minnesota. Apparently Sen. Goode took exception to that and, in his letter, made it known: "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to the Koran in any way. ...(I)f American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." Sen. Goode refused to apologize for the letter and stood by his statements. A representative from his office stated that the letter had been sent in error and was meant for "other" constituents.

Reminding Sen. Goode that he was an American citizen, Sen. Ellison decided to use Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran for his swearing in. Even tastier is that Jefferson has strong ties to Charlottesville; the founding father is the little town's claim to fame, next to Dave Matthews. The University of Virginia was founded by Mr. Jefferson and his home, Monticello (flip over your nickel for a picture), is open for tours.

True xtianity states that we are to love others as ourselves, even if we disagree. The tone of Sen. Goode's letter is anything but that. Why would anyone wish to take an oath on something that is not personal? Would Sen. Goode take his oath over the Egyptian Book of the Dead if it were our common religious book?

There was some local retaliation against Sen. Goode which I do not condone. As with others who have been caught in the snare of bad judgment or hatred, forgiveness is the only acceptable outcome with or without the guilty requesting it. I didn't say blind trust. I didn't say looking the other way. I didn't say repressing the memory. I didn't say laying down and letting it happen again and again. It is more so for us, so bitterness doesn't eat away at our conscience. It's hard. It takes work. It is not for those who wish to get over it and move on "now."

I do wish for an admission of guilt, but I don't see that happening. As ignorant as I think Sen. Goode is, I do [wish to] forgive him and pray that his eyes open up to see that this country is made up of all races, religions, and creeds. That is what it was based on; freedom to believe what you will, not being forced to attend church, not experiencing persecution if you subscribe to a different religion or denomination, not having to revere the government as infallible under threat of prison or death.

In a grand display of public forgiveness, Sen. Ellison sought out Sen. Goode and extended his hand in friendship and was accepted. I hope the exchange was more than just politics as usual.

Reflecting and Moving On

2007-01-09T22:15:00.000-04:00

Life happens fast. New lives have come into the world and we've lost a few good men and women. Some of the same old names are up to the same old tricks with a new wrapper.

Many look forward to what will be a fresh start. The new year brings out the Nostradamus in many of us. We predict what will change, what will be, and what will die. We resolve to lose weight, quit smoking, exercise, eat less, save more, spend more time with family, spend less time at work, less time hypnotized by screens, love more, hate less. Then we relapse. Our will quickly dissolves and we fall back into old habits, bitterly disappointed that we failed our own high standards.

Resolutions are nearly impossible to keep. I've always joked that if I can't win, I don't want to play. This is why I don't make resolutions. Like adopting healthier eating habits in place of latching on to the newest dieting fad, if there isn't a daily commitment to change, we are destined to fail. Our sweet tooth will always get the better of us. I know I'll screw up. I know I'll fall back into old patterns. I also know that change is a process, not something to scratch off a list.

Now if we can just pass this along to others.

'Tis the Season

2006-12-13T20:45:00.000-04:00

Much to catch up on from the past month. Walmart putting the Christmas back in the Holiday Season. Mary Cheney and partner Heather Poe are expecting their first child. Britney Spears being, well, Britney. Pastor Mark Driscoll saying some unkind things about women of the church.

But my house is all decked out with Christmas cheer, so my thoughts turn to the season. And the endless commercialism that accompanies it. That begins in September. Or May, if you're in receiving in the retail field.

Let's not kid ourselves; Christmas has become a very secular holiday. Well, the winter solstice and Yule were secular to begin with, but I'm not going to give a history lesson here. I enjoy hearing people wish each other a Merry Christmas whether or not they live the teachings of Christ. I like seeing people put themselves aside for a short time and give to others. And I enjoy the overall good nature that the season brings out in mankind. Happy ChristmaHannuKwanzikah.

What gets me is when commercialism begins to leech its way into the ground water. On a post on the Out of Ur blog, I read about a contest for pastors. SermonCentral was sponsoring a sweepstakes to promote the movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The winner would receive two tickets to London, England, along with $1000 spending money. Of course, keeping with the theme, you also get to tour Holy Trinity Church where C.S. Lewis attended. Just submit a qualifying Narnia-related sermon and "you may have already won!"

I have nothing against C.S. Lewis' writings. I loved reading the fantastical stories as a kid. Fond memories. I'm sure the movie was well done, too. And I have nothing against pastors using pop culture or modern methods of preaching. There just seems something sacrilegious when we start viewing souls as for-profit. Makes me wanna start flippin' tables.

Christmas is another time of year that pastors love to bring out the big guns. Many people attend church twice a year -- Christmas and Easter -- and we know it. We want a packed house and a show-stopping dazzler of a service. That'll get 'em hooked, we think. But it's more than just product placement, corporate partnerships, or pumping our money into seemingly xtian cows. Our goal should be transformation, not settling as a poster child for the xtian community with deep pockets of cash and a desire to accessorize. Body count should not be on the top of the list.

I've participated in traditional and contemporary services, heard countless debates on the use of Christmas vs. Xmas vs. Cmas, Santa vs. Satan, and all the rest of the religious nonsensical garbage. And, after I quit retail many moons ago and regained some lost Christmas cheer, I will get caught up in the rites of the season. Then I remind myself, this isn't about me. This isn't about rockin' music or light gels or the small forest of poinsettia plants or pine-scented ladies' rooms or candle wax dripping from a six-year-old's wriggly grip. It's fun, sure. It creates a unique experience, yes. I honestly love it; I get plenty out of ambiance. What keeps me centered is the classic story, that G-d came to earth as a baby, to learn from us, to live among us, to touch us, to love us as we were and as we are and as we will be. This is about a story of sacrifice; the greatest gift of love that a G-d could have. This is about the birth of a revolutionary; the prelude to Calvary.

My Christmas wish is for us to re-focus on what is important, what is fluff, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Hypocrisy

2006-11-13T00:55:00.000-04:00

It’s been a busy few weeks. I’ve wanted to chew on this one for a while as the stones were distributed and the mobs gathered in Colorado, Virginia, New Jersey, and other localities. Several states put a twist in the mid-term elections by examining the meaning of “traditional” marriage, spawning skewed political ads that neglected to examine the real and basic purpose of state constitutions versus statutory laws. My own church stumped for approving the amendment, tacked to the end of a sermon that encouraged us to listen to the Holy Spirit in our everyday lives. Honestly, I was embarrassed.The scandal erupted soon after in Colorado Springs as accusations circulated against the former president of the National Evangelical Association, Reverend Ted Haggard. Mike Jones, a gay escort, stated that he provided massages and methamphetamine to Reverend Haggard, who called himself “Art” during their encounters. After recognizing who his client was, a man who railed against gay rights and gay marriage, Jones’ conscience got the better of him and he couldn’t keep his silence.

One man, with his reputation on the line, decided to reveal the hypocrisy in this large church. He wasn’t important. He had everything to lose. He is a prostitute. And gay, which is an even bigger sin in many eyes. But his conscience got the better of him. Not because he felt his lifestyle was wrong or he was in need of forgiveness, but he couldn't sit silent while one of his customers publicly spewed hate and disdain for the very behavior he enjoyed after the pastoral garb was hung up in the closet. Allegedly.

Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. There is a certain deliciousness to find out that our pious and perfect relics and icons struggle like we do – except there often is a denial that sin continues to control. That’s the rub. Many, including our tottering “leaders,” subscribe to the Christian myth of “once converted, fully converted”. Our testimonies end after the Gratuitous Gutter Conversion. We are saved! All our struggles and desires have been fulfilled or extinguished and banished back into the Sinful World through the elusive ambrosia of Christ’s Blood. It is finished! Allegedly.

So when our old addictions begin to creep back in, we secretly begin to doubt the Good News. We pray harder, we confess more, we wonder what else we can do to finally kill the ravenous beast that is threatening to steal our salvation. And we can’t confess our struggles to each other. After all, they have it together. Right? So we resign ourselves to live hollow lives of religious showmanship. This is where our biggest failing is. Not in the daily struggle against what we know is right and what we actually practice, but failing to realize that We Can Do Nothing. We cheapen the grace given [daily] to us by trying to prove our salvation—to earn it, to keep it—to ourselves and to G-d.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand. I admire the Xtians who are willing to forgive Haggard’s behavior. We’ve got to stop shooting our wounded. But what gets me is his denial of wrongdoing. As the world turned, he changed his story and admitted to buying one of the most addictive and easily accessible drugs of the day, but “I did not have sex with that gentleman.” Oh, and he only looked at the meth. So that's okay.

So drug use (or purchase) is more acceptable for evangelicals than [gay] sex? Did I miss something? I know that the mere mention of sexuality causes the repressed masses to salivate, wanting to know the juicy details only to pat ourselves on our backs. We check off our list – we may drink too much, eat too much, work too much, break promises too often, talk about others too much, but we would never cheat or go to bat for the other team. After all, we mutter to ourselves, I’m not that bad. But what would have happened at the NEA if Haggard had admitted that, in a moment of weakness, he engaged in actions that they consider deplorable? Would we be reading the same story or would there be a moving van and a journey in the soggy tea leaves?

This is the hot topic of the day and my goal is not to convince you to view it one way or another. But consider the company Christ kept. He befriended prostitutes, corrupt corporate executives, the immoral, and the poor who could only take without the hope of repayment. He touched the homeless, the sick, the disfigured, the mentally ill. He opened his arms to those outside his religion and creed, the opposite sex and children who were considered worth less than property. His heart broke for those who killed him. Tell me how this “sanctified” exclusion will fulfill his kingdom or vision.

Whether or not Haggard engaged in homosexual acts, I don’t care. Whether or not he actually used the meth, I don’t care. All I ask of him is honesty and to grow in the spirit of Christ. The elite in Boulder need to be just as forgiving and accepting to Haggard if he does confess to infidelity – even if it is with another man. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)

God loves us all and Mike Jones is welcome at the banquet table at the feast of the Lamb.