Lift high the banners of love, alleluia!

The Third Steubenville Project is much needed. I had forgotten "The Sweetness of Our Lord" and "Lift High the Banners of Love" - FWAH! There is more to life than sappy songs about eros - there are songs of greatness and worship, of divine love, in fact. (Love is a song, as Solomon well pointed out. Hence, the songs for Church ought to be the most breathtaking of all music, or else it does disservice to Him who is Love.)

This afternoon's audience was spectacular. And the show was excellent. Amazingly, this evening's show topped that. This is the way the play ends: not with a wimper...but with a BANG! (It is only half past eleven and you are one of us until the clock strikes twelve.)

Still, there are two scenes that I should have liked to rehaul almost entirely. Ah well. Nothing in this life is ever perfect.

It was good to talk to Brendon, no matter how briefly. It clarified some things that I had not wanted to clarify. Now, Lord, I ask for Your timing, Your will and Your words.

Words will be had. Some things ought to be known.

Good God! Let me not be...as I was.

I was a little saddened to leave earlier than I had hoped from the cast party tonight. I really needed to know that I had the cast's approval of the show more than mere words but through their laughter and excitement and love for the show itself. I am such a weak creature, such a skeptic, such a self-critic that I needed to see them enjoying it. At least we got through the Major General's entrance but.... It's simply difficult. I did hear more good things this second weekend than I did the first, which is heartening. But....

So, it appears that Hudson High is in need of an acting teacher. This is a matter much in need of prayer. Lord, what do You desire? Please make Your will known to me! Amen.

What does one desire? Truly desire? A communal, "I love you!" would be nice. And yet, I avoid even the glimmer of that for fear of a swollen head. Is this false humility? Or am I simply refusing to hear? Or is this merely the affliction of we so-called "artists"? UGH! One would hope that God alone would satisfy - and yet I am not so saintly a creature yet. I have the premonition that even should worldly accolades be thrown upon me, I should not truly credit them. Then what do I credit? Yes - the opinion of those dear to me. And perhaps because that was somewhat lacking.... And yet, there are many who said that this was one of the best Pirates they have ever seen - and so it is! I am so proud of them! I would that I could bravely claim that pride as well. Loverly "Mabel" was going on and on about the audience reaction to the FWAH/POMF/SNERK kiss in Act II - yeah. That was good. Wow...the audience got it! What more can I ask? There art thou happy!

Going - just realized what time/day it is.

Mood: Quoi?
Music: "As I Kneel Before You" from the Steubie-U III album. Alleluia!
Prayer: Mother Mary, please pray for me! Please teach me how to be like you so that I may become a disciple of your Son. Make me your handmaiden. Please keep me safe. Amen.

Fun with Phlegm...ha.

Oh, so very true!


Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
"I don't care. If it doesn't rhyme, it isn't
a poem."
You are a type A personality. You like bright
things, you don't call in sick to work, and you
have devastating opinions about art.


Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Mood: Much improved but still coughing
Music: MSND Soundtrack for HCH
Thought: Good play, good audience, good God.

Blue Moon

Some people don't know when to quit.

M&M's do melt - but not in the hand, rather somewhere in a gummy pocket, protesting weariness with solidity.

I am Elspeth pre-Poityr. Only without the sul Temans. Or at least their attitude.

I want to go to Elspeth's world.

I want Poityr.

Mothers are still wonderful. Tuna is wonderful. Well-made beds are wonderful.

I keep forgetting it's not a fast day.

Morbundity does not suit me.

A paraph is a flourish at the end of a signature.

My job is utterly thankless. Storing up riches, eh?

I am so confused. Like one led by will-o-wisps, only to find them of one's own imagining.

Sometimes it's awfully tempting to chuck charity. And then the grumbling of conscience makes himself be heard and one sighs and does what is right anyway, grateful that charity is not an emotion.

Sometimes, even worse, one runs and hides.

Obtuse is a helpful word.

Oh Lord, I am not worthy, that Thou shouldst come to me, but speak the Word of comfort, my spirit Thine shall be. And humbly I'll adore Thee, the Bridegroom of my soul, no more by sin to grieve Thee, or fly Thy sweet control. O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine! All praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine!

Mood: Similar to post-Bearskin curl
Music: Must turn off Norah Jones.
Other Music: A chorus of pigs behind Miss Piggy keeping an obnoxious bolero beat. Yeah.

I ought to sleep

And I will in a minute - and hopefully wake a bit earlier than usual to get all my things ready for tomorrow and tomorrow night (and tomorrow pass on in this petty pace) - but first, the need to decompress.

Adoration was much needed. To prostrate oneself before God has no comparison with any other activity.

The reason for adoration: financial situation dire. And even were all well, my income is not sufficient to support five people. Screamed myself hoarse in the car going to adoration. His time, not mine. His will, not mine.

Although, in a sense it is good to remember - or realize - that money is not everything. It is a means to an end; it is not the end itself. (Still, I sing with Tevyer!) Can we add another Lenten resolution to better budget and manage the household? Yeah.

The selfish thought that keeps creeping up is that "it's not fair" that I should be concerned with being the breadwinner for the family. Then I must think of people in far more dire straits than myself; people living in naught but abject poverty for their entire life; and I realize that I ought not complain.

The other selfish thought is that I had hoped the audience tonight would have been different than it was. In a specific, not a general sense. Still, I sat in front of Eric R. who is a delightful person to sit in front of in order to hear what jokes are working and which are not. Energy was down tonight - the long haul to get us back on track begins. I feel so distant from the cast right this second. Curious. Perhaps the audience addition is not wholly lost - either the existance of at all is not what is best, or the timing will be better in the three remaining - again, not my will. I hope, too, to see some of my past actors - I hope! In the audience.

I need encouragement. I am simply so tired, I cannot view my own work straight. And yet, this is not a plea for encouragement - rather an acknowledgement of my inability to look with impassive or non-critical eye. Lord! I need strength! Give me the strength You had to suffer what You did.

Students can be very silly sometimes. One can only hope that at some point logic will kick in. Lord love 'em. However, overall, things are going far better than expected. Praise God - I'll claim it!

As feared, Act II (from intermission) of MSND wasn't memorized much if at all. It requires much work. Blaugh. Yes, we will be working it, precious. It's not irretrievable - in fact, this is perfect timing - but I need all my actors!!! Exceedingly, in fact impossibly difficult to rehearse scenes when I play all the parts. ("Arianja's Lament" fills my mind.)

Being physically cornered while being physically against a wall is a physical position that makes me particularly hostile. Especially when one has a headache, a heartache, and a wracking cough.

I wish for clarity.

Mood: Heartsore
Music: "Just the Nearness of You" on Norah Jones' first album - suitably mellow
Thought: How long, oh Lord? How long? - a constant refrain. Amazing that we still call for Barabbus.

But this sums it up best:

Discuss the Passion :: View topic - I have been a Christian for years, but this impacted me!: "Over the weekend, I was watching the news and all of the 'controversy' around the movie. I was thinking that what the media wants to do is focus on controversy, focus on Mel...anything but talk about Jesus! The media will try to get people to miss the message...but I don't think it can be missed. Jesus suffered for you and for me...he willingly went to the cross for to bear our sin. The reality of His suffering presented in this movie will make millions of Christians and non-Christians alike realize what really happened, and most of all, that Jesus loves them!!!"

He does love you - with a passionate, intense and personal love. More than any human will love you, for He knows all your faults and love you despite them; more than you can ever love yourself, for He knows who you may become and who you have yet to be. He loves you, He loves you, He loves you. And there is nothing that can seperate you from His love...except yourself. And even so, He will love you, pine for you, long for you, and call you ever back to Him. How can we spurn Him who cherishes us so? You are not abandoned, do not give into despair; He has borne you thus far, He will bear you farther.

Mood: Oh my Lord, how I love Thee! How little I deserve Thee! Teach me how to be like Thee! Teach me how to love like Thee! Be ever near me, draw me ever close to Thee, so that with Thee I may ever be forever and ever, amen.
Music: The Canon from The Royal Tenenbaums
Thought: He was crushed for our offenses, upon Him was laid the guilt of us all.

A few points of note:

It's always good to know one's source. Commonweal: CATHOLICISM & ANTI-SEMITISM : An evening with James Carroll & Mary Gordon.(Brief Article). Mom actually knows James Carroll from back when he was an priest, when he was in the process of leaving due to his own disgruntledness and not towards doctrine. When I read Catholic commentary by an ex-priest, I read with not only a grain of salt, but something more akin to the Atlantic Ocean. It would be the same if I were to read a condemnatory and bitter denunciation of baseball from an ex-manager. In truth, one can leave something for something better - but when the expression of the previous is only hatred, obvious bigotry, and meanness, supported by no good argument except fallacious polemics, no matter the subject, the honest intellectual ought to question what is being written.

Furthermore, in regard specifically to The Passion of the Christ, it seems to me that, as with any film, a personal opinion cannot be drawn until the film itself is personally viewed. For example, I had been of the conclusion that Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow was going to be incredibly dark, scary and gory. However, finding myself in need of much Depp-ness, I rented the movie and discovered that it's hilarious, charming and giddily off-kilter. Conversely, I have never seen the movie Seven and so cannot comment on its contents any more than: "I have heard its premise, I have seen a few clips, it sounds intriguing, but I don't think I could personally stomach it." Or consider the far more controversial (and by all trusted account blasphemous) The Last Temptation of Christ: I have not seen this film, I don't much care to, I may or may not depending on future need or lack thereof. Again, what I have heard and read from those for and against the film is that it promotes the current strawman of the "sexed-up Jesus," which premise is enough to declare that it is at the very least historically if not certainly spiritually inaccurate. I cannot, however, give my opinion of the film as a film. I do not have that right until I myself view the film. I cannot have a personal opinion on something not personally viewed. I can have an informed idea of what I might view should I choose to do so, but I cannot myself lambast the movie from any personal observations.

Now Mr. Carroll makes several interesting points in his article which are easily refuted. First, as with all things, we ought to see from what source this article springs. Ah, from Mr. Carroll who has a long history of violent anti-Catholicism based upon Heaven knows what except - from what I can tell from his writings - meanspiritedness (since his "arguments" tend to be historically fallacious at best). Further, his article is printed in the Boston Globe which has proven itself to be perhaps more violently anti-Catholic than Mr. Carroll. I can conclude from this that I ought to remember that those reviewing and those printing this article have a definite bias to begin with. Mr. Carroll is certainly not entering his viewing with an eye to openmindedness. He likely has made up his mind on the issue of the Crucifixion (if his many pre-Passion books and articles on this very issue can be considered a truthful record of his thoughts on the subject) even before seeing the movie. What impression, then, is this likely to leave upon him? He is not seeing the film with the benefit even of tabula rasa; he is seeing it, as it were, through sunglasses.

An addendum to this: I myself have been guilty of such prejudiced views. I cannot help but read Harry Potter with an exceedingly critical eye. But I am attempting to look at the books now - moreso - with a view to them as BOOKS, i.e., how well they are written, what content is actually within them, where they are headed. It helps to know what prejudices one has before going into review something. One's thoughts may not change, but hopefully a more honest and less bombastic review can be achieved.

Mr. Carroll writes:

"THE PASSION of The Christ" by Mel Gibson is an obscene movie. It will incite contempt for Jews. It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ. It is an icon of religious violence. Like many others, I anticipated the Gibson film warily, especially because an uncritical rendition of problematic Gospel texts which unfairly blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus threatened to resuscitate the old "Christ-killer" myth.

My first day in Writing 101 taught me that the use of strong, polemic words was a "no no" when writing an opinion piece, particularly one meant to pursuade. Not that such vitrolic wasn't effective, but rather that it was a false effectiveness: it evoked emotion but not intellect.

"It will incite contempt for Jews" - this piece makes me laugh. I have seen this movie. I have Jewish friends. I have yet to hate them. In fact, I become more incited on their behalf than not: I am frustrated when they don't embrace their history, their culture and above all their ancient and noble religion which is the wellspring of my own. Even more greatly, why were similar accusations not levelled against, say, Where the Heart Is, which certainly incites contempt for evangelists, or Monty Python and the Holy Grail which might incite contempt for monks, or that badly-written and historically bogus (and yes I've read it without knowing all that much about it beforehand) dreck The Da Vinci Code for categorically inciting not only ignorance but fury at a strawman Catholicism? We do not become furious at historically accurate movies, such as Glory or Schindler's List, hatred isn't aroused towards even the oppressors in those great films: but rather sadness that we might have allowed such injustices to happen to good men, and self-conviction to be better ourselves. A good film humanizes the antagonist: "It is as it was." Perhaps Dr. James Dobson, a leading Protestant, puts it best when he writes: "Columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe, a subsidiary of the New York Times, went so far as to suggest that "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred." Does Mr. Carroll really expect readers to believe that the Gospels – written by Jews about a Jewish Messiah and His Jewish disciples – are anti-Semitic? His assertion is so ridiculous and foolish as to be laughable."

Now, as for the accusation that it is a "blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ" - here we must laugh just a little. First, blasphemy implies that we must have a belief in Jesus Christ that may be blasphemed. Let us presume that Mr. Carroll has a belief in Christ (unlikely as that seems - from Mr. Carroll's own writings, that is, as well as his actions - but...). So, blasphemy means that what is said/shown goes against the doctrine of that Church. However, St. Paul writes, "We preach Christ crucified" and then goes on to add that had not the resurrection happened, we should have no faith at all. The importance of the crucifixion cannot be downplayed - at that moment, Catholics and Christians believe, Christ took upon Himself the sins of all mankind, to open up the doors to Heaven for us. Had not the crucifixion happened, we should still be left with the guilt of our sins upon us with no hope of salvation. That is what is believed. To promote anything against that central doctrine would be blasphemous. Gibson's Passion promotes what is believed.

Had Mr. Carroll said that "What Mr. Gibson portrays is what the Catholic Church believes and I don't believe that so I still don't believe that," I could not fault him. But when he makes the statement that "What Mr. Gibson portrays is blasphemous, even though he is simply putting into artform what the Catholic Church believes, and indeed all of Christianity is based upon" then Mr. Carroll is in need of a dictionary with a full complement of "B's."

"It is an icon of religious violence." Icon - I'll grant him that's a good play on words. And I grant, too, that Mr. Carroll is a self-proclaimed iconoclast, so admittedly he still isn't entering this movie with a clear eye. Religious violence - well, insofar as the Crucifixion is the centerpoint of our redemption, and that it is the worst way to die, I must admit that this movie is an icon of religious violence. But, wait, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Carroll did not mean that this movie is a means whereby the faithful may reflect upon what our Lord suffered for our sake, but something more akin to "[The Passion] is going to incite violence in the name of religion." I point you to the above paragraphs. I also point you to my own, and many others' experience: the person one comes away feeling the most resentment towards is oneself - and not in a bad self-loathing way, but rather in a finally clear-sighted way. In Schindler's List which might also be said to be an icon of religious violence, the viewer came away saying with Schindler, "I could have done more." In The Passion one comes away saying, "I should have done more." (I speculate, and please realize I speculate only, that Mr. Carroll was not fond of this sensation.)

"Like many others, I anticipated the Gibson film warily, especially because an uncritical rendition of problematic Gospel texts which unfairly blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus threatened to resuscitate the old "Christ-killer" myth." This only reaffirms not what is in the film, nor even what is in the Gospel, but rather Mr. Carroll's prejudices before ever setting foot in that theatre. That he uses the hasty generalization by saying "like many others," Carroll sets up an unfounded "majority rule." He further attributes to The Passion more wariness than is felt for any other film. Now, for myself, I approached Big Fish with some wariness. Again, I doubt Mr. Carroll means that sort of "what will it be like?" curiosity inherent to any unseen film. So here we have a perfect example of poisoning the well. I cannot blame Mr. Carroll or anyone for approaching this film warily - I do take umbrage with his assertion that everyone is approaching this film warily. Moreover, I take umbrage with his reason for approaching this film warily which is, as has been previously mentioned, the betrayal of his own rather pointed opinion on the subject matter. Mr. Carroll believes that the Gospels are anti-Semetic. He says that the Gospels are "problematic" (for whom? In what regard? What specifics? Many Hindus like what's written in the Gospels! Be specific not merely generally polemic.). He says that Gibson's is an "uncritical rendition" - pardon, what does that mean? That he didn't use his artistic judgement? But he certainly did (as Carroll points out, in ironic self-contradiction here: Carroll contravenes himself in another previous article: "Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, for example, denounced Gibson's film for its literal reading of the Biblical accounts of Christ's passion. According to Carroll, "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred"). Rodger Ebert, a fallen-away Catholic (and therefore one in common with Mr. Carroll, even peripherally) writes: "The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs."

The remainder of Mr. Carroll's article I could pull apart, but he has stated his own biases in the first paragraph. I leave it to Ebert's well-rounded comments: "It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it."

The deeper question than any of this, I suspect, is whether this movie will not rather spur on people of their own faith to examine what they believe. Religion - particularly those ancient religions - are not only about worship but also about culture. However, the religious aspect, that is the covenantial nature between God and man, supercedes the cultural aspect. One does not (or ought not) convert to another religion because of its social activities. Rather one should convert to that theology, that dialogue between God and man, that understanding of God, that teaching of God, that Truth. I have no doubt that some will see The Passion as something deeply disturbing to their idea of Christ. Yet perhaps Christ has not been presented as He presented Himself - that is as the Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself. It is not controversial - it is something with which each person must contend, but it is not itself a matter of contention. The film asks, as Christ did Himself, "Who do you say I am?" Perhaps, rather than seeing this movie as a reason to incite hatred against Catholics (which it is far more guilty of inciting - or rather, the media hype surrounding it is certainly promulgating a pre-pogrommic anti-Catholicism!), this movie might incite introspection and a return to honest self-searching and the pursuit of deeper truths.

I leave you with this piece of wisdom from Mr. Mark Shea. QED.

Mood: Shoot - still haven't written that test...!
Music: Was Second Hand Lions is now Royal Tennenbaums
Link du Jour: Julie is my hero.

And the piano sounded out

In an angry sanguine blare:
We are not Mozart, nor were we meant to be.
Forgive us our Beethoven,
Our Baz and our vibrant Michaelangelo -
We are Shakespeare in his early days
We are Spielberg and too popular
We are joyful and tiptilted
Not staid, not dull, and pardon us for learning
Through doing.
Were things other than they are,
Were every item first afforded that luxury
Of out-of-town runs
Perhaps we should be better than we are.
Were things other than they are,
Our lighting should have been something played with
Earlier than the day after it was meant
To have been done.
But who is our better audience?
He who has seen it once too often,
Who has forgotten what fun is?
Or she, four years old, wide-eyed and open-hearted
Who believes.
He, eighty, connoiseur, guffawing heartily.
He, middle-aged, veteran, returning with his wife
And now thinking wistfully of the stage himself?
He, finally in the role he had so long desired,
And he as well and she as well
And what is theatre if not where dreams may soar?
Forgive me for being merely human.
Forgive me for at least exploring.
Forgive me for at least doing.
But then, no one must love another's work,
Nor am I obliged to read another's opinion.
Learning, reason, fortitude:
These will be my credo.
Nothing risked, nothing gained.
Nothing tried, nothing learned.
New is not necessarily bad,
Although it may be rough around the edges.
Give time, not pettiness, please.
And I shall to my piano, there to join Beethoven
In deafening duet.

Mood: Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngh!
Music: None. I am typing, not playing.
Pensee du jour: I must take Julie's advice more often.

Making Up For Past Silences

Blogging abhors a vacuum?

I realize that I have gotten out of the habit of writing - certainly of writing well, as these past four months have sadly attested. However, having just looked at the Bearskin Tango (see left) again for lack of anything else to do (that's not entirely true - but I'm working hard at doing nothing important so that I can do all I need to do starting tomorrow), I realized that I have been speaking in action, in blocking and not really in speech. It's a curious thing.

And see how pitifully I write now! In spurts and stops like one too long mum who finds her voice is scratchy and her vocabulary shrunken. I remember The Book of Atrix Wolfe, wherein one of the main characters has never encountered written words before and wonders what they are. She tries to taste them. I am that girl.

I wrote three songs a week ago, during Hell Week (which feels like Hell Month). Fairly good, I think. Requiring work. The least developed is Evanescency (to me - Jules says it sounds more like Goo-Goo Dolls [what a name!]): "Ready made personality (2x)/If you don't know who you are/You can choose who you will be/With our ready made personalities." (Prompted by the pondering of those on-line quizzy things.) The next is a bit more flexible with no real verses as of yet, but it goes something like this, "Oh I had a lot of tapes/And so I fed them to my camel/Since I didn't need my VHS anymore/And what did I discover/But my camel is a film-projector! [Refrain] My camel is a film-projector (2x)/He isn't fancy/And won't play DVD's [or insert silly couplet here]/For my camel is a film-projector!" The last I'm particularly proud of. It's in 3/4 time, very "good old boys-ish."

I met a lemming crossing the road
I asked where he was going to.
He said, "My friend, come and carry the load -
I don't know where I'm going, but you can come too."

Oh lemmings, lemmings, lemmings!
I'll follow anywhere!
I don't care where we're going to,
So long as we both care.

We laughed and we talked,
We talked and we smiled.
We walked on for hours,
We walked on for miles.
Oh we were both lost,
Although we both felt found
As we rushed o'er the cliff
Heading straight for the ground.

Oh lemmings, lemmings, lemmings!
I'll follow anywhere!
We don't care where we're going to
So long as we go there!

There's more but that's all I have solidified at the moment. And the Oklahoma! ballet music is on and my bed must be made and meeting Jules at six to buy Passion tickets and get her job applications and it was good to stop today. May I be able to sleep tonight without interference from phlegmy coughing (ugh) or my overactive imagination (not about phlegm - quite the opposite)!

Mood: Dressed.
Music: Oklahoma! Dream Sequence, about to come to the part when Hugh Jackman comes in - le sigh!
Thought: The beauty of theatre is that it shows the world what CAN be.
Dreams: Are bizarre things. I was watching (what else?) Pirates a few nights ago and realized that the part in "Cat-like Tread" when they do the boxstep all together whilst the police are in the background...I had dreamt years ago. I've done this once before with this one section of Salome. Odd, odd, odd. Otherwise, I had the requisite week of dreaming nothing but Pirates - the music, the blocking, at one point the blank stage as it ran through the light cues - and then on opening night I dreamt of clocks running out of time - and then this morning I'm dreaming something...about wolves? Yes, and cemetaries, and Snow White, and being a mute and trying to save myself from these guys who kept trying to drag me into the woods and convince everyone else they had a right to kill me.... And yet, the thing was, that I wasn't really scared, more interested in how in the world the story was going to end and how I'd be rescued (well, there was a tad of a romantic sub-plot going on with the rescue mission). Because a rescue mission was on the way - I knew that. At one point we ended up in this old Victorian house, rather like Aunt Marie's old home, but the furniture was all covered in white dusters. Haveshamy. And now I'm frustrated - it was a good story! Alas, I didn't finish it. Poot. And while clocks running out of time and living in the world of Pirates sleeping or awake doesn't require a genius to figure out, I am wondering how I managed to squish together Snow White and several other fairy tales including a reference to a part of Hook.... Makes one think of Mrs. Darling rummaging through her children's minds just after they slip off to sleep.

Forward Eorlingas!

The theme for the Riders of Rohan just came up on my LOTR:TTT album (found again, oh happy day!) and I found myself tearing up once more. There is something in that theme that expresses to me grim determination to do what is right despite overwhelming odds. It is the battlehymn of the everyman.

And Lord knows, we need a battlehymn. Passion this week, and nothing's changed in our job situation (for Dad), and Fr. Larry retiring, and Lent beginning, and this dumb issue on-going and.... Mom said it felt like two trains heading straight towards one another; two equally huge trains.

But one of them isn't, I reminded her. One of them is simply a facade. Its strength comes only from that which we give it.

There is an empty power in sin, damnation, this dumb issue, the world today, etc. - it is an empty power, hence no power at all except our own to fall into it. Sometimes to fall quite politely and quietly into it. But its power is only our fall.

But look at the power of Christ, at His sacrifice, at His triumph over the grave, at His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Christ draws all men unto Him. Should we ignore Him, yet even creation will cry out (and to think of that in terms of AIDS, etc...). As Mom wrote to me years ago, when I was in college, "GOD IS ABLE." He wasn't wiped out by the flood, creation didn't use up all His juices, the parting of the Red Sea didn't knock Him out, the felling of Jerico wasn't His last hurrah, He didn't give up after the Resurrection, He hasn't left us after the Ascention, He hasn't deserted us after the Early Church Fathers, He hasn't abandoned us after Christendom, He hasn't forgotten us now either. GOD IS ABLE.

We need a St. Joan of Arc. We need a warrior saint - perhaps not with swords but with common sense, with words, with that inner fire that does what is right and chances the consequences. We need a St. Joan to show all those who are pushing the facade of the train that they are not as great as they have convinced themselves they are. We need the strength of St. Joan who asked for a crucifix to be held before her - only in this way, she said, could she bear to undergo martyrdom. We need the prayers of St. Joan.

Perhaps you were created, as Esther's uncle Mordecai says to her, for such a time as this.

For such a time as this.

And auspiciously, the battle theme of the Lament for Gandalf has just begun! Yes, Lord! Turn our sorrows to song! Forth Eorlingas! For Rohan and the Red Dawn! Forth Men of the West! For we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses....

Mood: How long, oh Lord? How long?
Music: Helmsdeep
Sorrow: So this is Rachel mourning for her lost children....

Because I had to have that second Diet Coke

You shall now be subjected to...randominity! To the strains of select tracks from Spy Kids 2: Island of Dreams. With very groggy eyes that seem to bend and sag as though Lillyputians had hooked the lower lid and pulled upon the string. In my new roseate sweater/jacket that keeps me warm, much like my scawf. Whilst my room in shambles remains. And the hours draw on apace. (Twelve happy days bring in another moon, but oh how slow this old moon wanes! She lingers my desires like to a stepdame or a dowager, long whithering out a young man's revenue.)

One is concerned for tomorrow's rehearsal wherein we will learn exactly WHO has learned his lines. Always a painful rehearsal.

One is looking towards the return to poetry in journals, one hopes.

One will discover whether she can handle having (ostensibly) a night off tomorrow after rehearsal.

One is now beyond excited to direct (possibly) Murder in the Cathedral - oh, let it BE!

AIM is an interesting thing....

The Grand Duke doesn't sound all that horrible. And I need to listen to Mikado again.

It is good to be alone. It is good to have a semblance of silence and quietude in which one can simply re-collect. It is good to be without the need to do (although one may do, but the lack of NEED is...er...necessary?).

I may be able to face tomorrow after all. Although almost certainly the test WILL be moved.

The time has come, the walrus said....

I am simply a westerner. No two ways about it. My heart is in the west. I appreciate the beauties of the east, but therein does not lie *my* home. However, after reading K's journal, I can't help but feel that I have allowed myself recently to fall into the shallower means of expressing western culture (or rather, I have slipped into what it has become). Which is to say:

I need to revive my writing skills.

Mood: Regard below.
Music: Regard above.
And I had less thought: Than I had supposed.

Read this:

It's far more potent than any of the drivel I've posted of my own: Church of the Masses.

Ubiquitous Status Update: Nixed for the nonce.

Now for the Pirates' Lair!

Ooops...nope...or at least not until this coming Thursday. Best house today. We went from 181, to 260, to 384! Ye-ah! And wonderful response and great energy and no lights broke and no cues (that I could see) were missed - alleluia! Oh, but, oh, how little I want to go to work tomorrow. I haven't had a vacation. I haven't stopped since, what two weeks ago? And that for one day? I'm simply wiped. Familia upstairs watching Secondhand Lions. Good movie, but I vant to bhe alohne, dahlink. Loverly Sh. and Mt. came today - bless them. May turn in early tonight. Most likely marriage test will be moved to Wednesday (and there was much rejoicing). Lord, help me! Amen!

Mood: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Music: Grand Duke midi
Desire: For another week of vacation. This week actually OF vacation.
One for the road:

Heart of Crystal


What is Your Heart REALLY Made of?
brought to you by Quizilla

Once more unto Chesterton, my friends! In the wise man's words: "There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of 'pretending'; when he is weary of being a robber or a Red Indian. It is then that he torments the cat. There comes a time in the routine of an ordered civilisation when the man is tired at playing at mythology and pretending that a tree is a maiden or that the moon made love to a man. The effect of this staleness is the same everywhere; it is seen in all drug-taking and dram-drinking and every form of the tendency to increase the dose. Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as stimulants to their jaded sense. They seek after mad oriental religions for the same reason. They try to stab their nerves to life, if it were with the knives of the priests of Baal. They are walking in their sleep and try to wake themselves up with nightmares." Our modern world.

Insert Your Name Here

I have no cool title. Deal. Pirates went well last night, despite the breaker dying just as Mabel came on, hence making it far more appropriate had the girls sung, "How Beautifully GREEN the Sky." Fortunately, our light guy came to the rescue and made the breaker turn on for act two (night scenes - rather more crucial) which lasted JUST until the final pose - so the "offness" didn't look untimed, at least. Hurrah!

Slept in. Oh, Lord, did I need to sleep in! And now must hurry to put myself together for confession, mass and play. A villain's work is never done. If there's a party tonight, I may skip it, just to sleep a bit more. So - very - tired.

Mood: Ou est-ce que ma chambre?
Music: LOTR:ROTK
Thought: I have learned how to put my hair in a hebe knot without a barrett. Go me.

Be Goo

Existentialle Pensee du Jour: Who stamps the phrases on those little Necco Valentine's Hearts? I was told on one to "be goo" which, granted, is an option in the grand scheme of things, however it would be a far better long term injunction to include a final "d." I was also told that "URA QT" which had me laughing over the thought that I'd missed a new nation on the Arabian Peninsula. I'm afraid I'm no good at those heart thingies. I'm just as bad with them as I am at playing Dungeons & Dragons. Give me a fortune cookie (in bed...whoops! ;).

What is good:

Not having opera lesson today after all, hence giving me more time to simply "be goo" on the couch and recoup.

Going out yesterday with Jules to Chinese buffet lunch. Particularly good since...well, see below.

PIRATES! Yes, mes cheres et mademoiselles, the play is faboo. I post this article from the Sudbudy Town Cryer (Holy cheese monkeys! We made the front page!), and a link to performance info and this really cool picture Mom took (see below).

Showers, Barbera Prunera's Chicken Casserole Complete With Bread Rolls And Oatmeal Cookies (Soft), rereading Terry Pratchett, Many Many Blankets whilst cuddling the Shadow and Mr. Nibbs. Yeah. Actually stopping for an hour or two.

Was ist nicht so gut:

Nine hours in the theatre finishing lighting cues, subsisting on fewer...needs...than I thought to bring, being in an extremely hot, uncomfortable booth, subsisting on Chinese lunch for ten hours, supplemented by dry popcorn, dryer tortilla chips, a squishy orange, aforementioned hard Necco candy, and a gallon of water. And not having a toothbrush nearby. And the breakers dying regularly. So that we couldn't quite tell whether we had blue up or a door light up or if we were going to get an interesting shade of violent orange.

Not having time to breathe until this moment. And still not really having enough time to breathe, because I still need to finish up the turkey leg (looks too much like a big billy club), beautify for opening night, and most importantly get together lighting/blocking/nitpicking notes for tonight. Blaugh.

Not having had a vacation.

Ibid.

Ribbit ibid.

Flubphit (courtesy of Johnny English, which is very good!)

What is curious:

So, I went in for my interview with Hudson Drama Arts Alliance yesterday only to find out that they had already hired the guy who did Footloose to do this year's summer musical Fame prompting me to think, "Then why am I here? Is John Cleese about to walk through the door?" However, over the course of talking for an hour, I may be coming in to the summer show to do a one-day workshop on character, and I may be doing a new fall chamber theatre thing for them, possibly Tartuffe or Murder in the Cathedral...that is if I don't go out for King and I with Needham, or look into SLOC after all....

Well, at least I'll be busy! (And Julie didn't hit me upside the head for considering three shows in the next school year.) Of course, the trade off is that I take the summer off...from directing anyway. I certainly intend to write the next novel, and maybe also keep working on TSV regardless (actually, while waiting for the lights to be ready for me to futz with, I started what may be the next novel - I hope!), lost my predicate...anywho, I'm thinking of auditioning to be IN a show somewhere. Need to look around. It would be good to act again.

Life is so odd. Good. Very good. Marvellous (as in, full of marvels...why not marvelful? Sounds like marmelade). Good golly, God, I need aid! Amen! Keep me doing Your will, not mine! (But, boy, do you have a schedule for me! Keep me going, God. Keep me going.)

Mood: Thus die I: thus, thus, thus.
Music: Chicago. It's not Pirates...which I've been dreaming about this ENTIRE week, except this morning when I was dreaming of clocks running out of time...hmmm, wonder what that means on opening day? ;P
What Made My Day: The visit with Barbera
What Severely Damaged My Day: Yesterday
What Could Make Or Break My Day: Tonight's lights
What Will Certainly Be Well Deserved: Tonight's cast party
What Was Not Deserved: AIM. (Ppppth. Ich leibe dich, Jules! Squee-hee-hee-ha-ho-ugh. *Whimper.*)
What Tomorrow Holds: Oh, by all that's holy, confession?

And one more for the road. What is it about "his boots were up to the thigh?" Yeah, Emily, the Manifier! Single-handedly going forth and putting men back in floofy shirts to make girls swoon!

YE-AH!

Preach it Eve Tushnet! Right. Off to bed. Really. Before natural insomnia becomes nastier than usual.

At the risk of being unable

to fit my head through the metaphorical door....

I has seen the light, I has seen the tape, I has seen what others have done before, and so with surety I decla-yare, that at least within the sphere of this very small pond, I may say without a shadow of a doubt (to alleviate what doubts always linger in my soul):

Still the prettiest. Nyah.

Curious, that I don't mean looks. But the difficulty isn't merely "surprising the audience" but rather making such surprises part of character rather than "stupid circus tricks" as those college boys put it so well so many years ago. ("Look. I can put my leg behind my head and jump around. Ha ha ha." Wow - talk about your tough houses.) I had no idea how grateful I truly was for the Savoyards until tonight - the ability to have so much all at the price of asking (and yes, compromise). And to have a goodly sized cast and a huge stage and.... I am humbled and honored. Wow. This is going to be one awesome show.

And what's sad, really, is that I'm already beginning to think of what other shows I should like to do in the future. I need more tragedies on my plate - haven't had enough of those. Man of La Mancha, West Side Story, Hamlet, Othello, Richard II - as well as the comedies: Tartuffe, As You Like It, My Fair Lady - or the inbetweeners: anything Rodgers and Hammerstein, Les Miserables, Phantom, Secret Garden, Sunset Boulevard. Someday I shall direct La Boheme. And perhaps Tosca, too. It's silly in a way - here I was only last week moping about the future laid before my feet and now I dream about it. But that is, I suppose, in itself the test of a vocation - that it keeps "calling [you] back" to pick up that cross again - that sweet and bitter cross. The beauty in the agony. The triumph of the Crucified.

Anywho, finishing downloading songs for Jules...must off to sleep for mass and rehearsal tomorrow...many prayers on those going to the rally! Amen!

Mood: Valiant. Still the prettiest.
Music: Hmmm, currently Treasure Planet
Thought: None. (There is nothing I would more willingly part withal?) Good golly I want to be IN a play....
Caption: One more day all on my own/One more day with him not caring/What a life I might have known/But he never saw me there!...He was never mine to lose/Why regret what cannot be? "And then she said in a voice that already seemed to come from Heaven, 'Will you do me this one favour, M. Marius? When I die, will you kiss my brow? I promise, I shall feel it.'" Sigh! What an incredible character. There is nothing more noble than selflessness. Although the quotes I just put were not her best selfless quotes...hmmm. A pity that the English version isn't the standard over this side of the pond as well. Trevor Nunn, I bow to you.
And here I thought I was going to get Fatty Bolger. Well, if I must.... ;P (Really, one wonders what the fascination with quizzes is? The two minute duration? The vaguely humorous questions? Cattish curiosity? Boredom? Desperate need for diversion? Reminds one of Alanis Morrisette's [sp?] song: "Here, can you handle this? [paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaause] Did you think about your bills, your ex, your deadlines, or when you think you're gonna die? Do you long for the next distraction?" Good song.)


Your man is King Aragorn (The rating takes place
below)


The last 'WHICH LOTR GUY IS FOR YOU?' quiz you'll ever have to take - and you won't be able to pick your outcome! Well, now, that last bit's not entirely true.... They did a better job than most, though; aka those which ask with such subtlety "Do you like a hobbit who wears a scarf or a hobbit with big blue eyes?" Similar to the non-partisan subtlety of Time Magazine's recent cover which pondered the completely objective question: "What sort of president would Kerry make?" Oy.
brought to you by Quizilla

Splutter: What? No Mrs. Longbottom? Neville, I pine for thee. (To be sung to Auld Lang Syne: Pine trees, pine trees...etc.) The madness goes ever on and on/Down from the quiz where it began/And though I know it's dumb and wrong/I'll still post this if I can....


U R: Mrs Potter. now, for your viewing pleasure
please spend no fewer than 10 minutes staring
at your honey (don't say we neva do anything
for ya) and don't forget to vote on ya way out!


Who is ur Lord of the Potter/Harry of the Rings by J.R.R.K. Tolk/ingQuestion: Is being unable to spell simply words such as "your" a prerequisite for making one of these things? And I teach those who would switch "your" to "ur" - another example of brilliance through creative spelling. Let us regress to the earliest name-places which were seen as backwards even in the multisyllabic first-epic Gilgamesh. Ur. (Although one is tempted to brag that one's OWN students would never write ur for your. Or ur for you are for that matter. Or you're. Or whatever other semaphoric configuration you'd care to apply.) "Betcha" Wells never saw this one coming - not only newspeak but newspell.
brought to you by Quizilla

Voila!

Premiere:

For any students looking up Scandinavia: look here and also look here. Obviously, you can search Google as well for more information. Be prepared to discuss in class on Monday!

Et maintenaint, je suis:


You are his... Determined Nose-Wrinkler. You're one
of those people who don't like to give up.
You're also one of those people who screws up
their faces when being stubborn or determined.
((Snicker))


Which Facial Expression of Jack Sparrow's Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla


Prelim. lighting for PoP is complete - took us from 12:30-5:30 with perhaps an hour and a half inbetween nuthin'ness. Ah ca. And maintenaint, je suis chez moi, et tres, tres fatigue parce que il y'a jamais plus les heurs pour moi (mal franglais - blaugh!). Regardless, Pete wants to watch Waiting for Guffman and Jules' latest entry concerns me. Good lyrics - just concerning. Master and Commander is an amazing CD. Must work on other CD's for Jules. Chilly and sleepy (and grumpy and doc?). Si j'ete avoir plus de la vocabulaire, j'ecrire (qu'est-ce que le subjunctif?) en francais "en toto." Mais, quatre ans au lycee plus des annees (ago), c'est impossible. Donc, je finis cette (romain) pathetique - et rire a moi encors! Pardonnez moi, belle France de le Sacre Coeur!

Mood: Regard en haute
Music: Master and Commander
Thought: Real orange M&M's do not suffice for their epynomious (sp?) originator. Once again, one must thank Shakespeare for the minting of words. Along that vein: "We were born to command and not to sue;" "Let us talk of kings: some who were slain, some poisoned...all dead;" "I have been considering how I may compare this prison in which I live unto the world. And, for because the world is populous and here is not a person but myself: I cannot do it. Yet I shall hammer it out!" Actually, that's an interesting thought esp. in relation to the net and the isolationism of the world by means of so-called communication. Here are my words: written, obscure, with meaning but without context to ground that meaning in; existing without existence; a series of particles upon the screen which are, nevertheless, my sole source of communication to so very many. Here is a place for communication: but of what sort, what depth, what reality? What can be known beyond "connaire"? When do we - do we? - pass into "saire"? Let me not be an advocate for "sense only" Locksian dreck - but there is something to knowing a person in order to understand his words. There is something to seeing the action, the context, the practicality associated with the word to truly know both the syllables AND the idea. This is our sorrow. We do not speak, we do not listen. We produce more words with fewer words. We say less more with more of less. And what we extol then is this religion OF "more or less." Should we be surprised at relativism when through these media we are not in true relation? Again, let me not blame the means of communication - although each new invention is cause for social shift - but one wonders to what extent WE are not formed by technology - as the Matrices would have it - but rather we form the technology in response to changing ideas? Curious that, as well - do we speak (yes, we do) in machinery? Ah me - I am nihilistic tonight! I require more time than this simple (and very simple) drabbling allows. This is a paper - this is a poor excuse to Christianize Kierkegaard (not so very un-Christian, but certainly someone who had seen the far side of despair). Quand dur j'ecrire la livre de philosophie? This summer, perhaps? To make sense of the thoughts that flit and find no resolution at the moment. Regard the above as brainstorming. Which came first? Art is a mirror of society; is science, to a degree, as well? How easily we settle.

ROTFLOL

Mass. high court grants 'marriage' benefits to singles . Thank God for good Jewish humor to put things in perspective!

Off to work (aka rehearsal) soon. Early school day today due to weather which seems to have been rained out - thank God: rather crucial rehearsal tonight. (TWO WEEKS UNTIL THE SHOW! TWO WEEKS UNTIL THE SHOW!!! >huff huff<) Right, off to study my own blocking forms to know what is happening for Climbing Over Rocky Mountains. %P

Mood: Disgruntled
Music: New York Girls by Gaelic Storm, off of "There and Back Again" vol. 2 of A Pirate's Life for Me, musical compilation CD's for Jules' 20th! Woo-hoo!
Thought: At least I've got the cards done. Cards are good.
Caption: I know where all the rum has gone!

Pour Julie, wherever she may be

Joyous anniversaire a tu!
Joyous anniversaire a tu!
Joyous anniversaire, ma che-er (petite chou!)
Joyous anniversaire a tu!
(Et mieux et plus!)

MmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmWAH!

May your day be nautical and piratical, savvy? Ta soeur, Emilie

Mood: We are the pirates, who don't do anything!
Music: One, two, many; many, many, lots
I know something you don't know: Injun Joe is ticklish! Oh, and you don't mind presents on the installment plan, do you?
Random neat-o discovery du jour: I knew I had copied Ever After waaaaay back when, but didn't know which burnt CD it was. I have found it. And there is much rejoicing. (And never fearing - if I ever find it on the shelf, I'll certainly purchase it.)
The Epiphany Fish Strikes Again: I have a lot of CD's....
The Epiphany Fish's Vaguely More Sophisticated Cousin Remarks: Actually, it's an interesting thing to discover that one of the reasons I surround myself with so much media is because unless I have something to take my attention from brooding, I tend to - with Poityr - brood (nezumvelatien!). And then I'm just a pain in the neck. Media is a convenient diversion. Adoration is a better diversion - or rather, reorientation towards He Whom I ought to be looking at to begin with (shoot - no way to undangle that participle this late at night, except by this rather paltry parenthetical).
The Ephiphany Fish's Stern Older Sister Commands: Allons-y! C'est le heur pour dormir, folle du Took!
Good link: Massachusetts declares God had wrong idea in making sex a heterosexual institution - LOL!

Tidbit Before Fleeing

Catholic and Enjoying It!: "How fondly I remember my college days when I knew everything and could laugh at repressed adults who had the ridiculous notion that ideas have consequences."

*sigh*

Mood: Where is my bed? Why won't you let me go to sleep?
Music: Classical Radio
Thought: Hurrah for MA. Oh joy oh rapture. The envelope has been pushed far past the canyon and we're gliding to a crash.

Sleep, sleep, sleep now

Please, please, please vote sensibly on Feb. 11th! Look to actual consequences: not merely sophomoric argumentations based upon sensation and not actuality. Write the Massachusetts legislature supporting marriage and family.

Stanley Kurtz on Gay Marriage on National Review Online

Marriage: A Word with Consequences

A few notes of my own:

We simply cannot arbitrarily reassign new meanings to words. To do so is tantamount to usurpation - not only of meaning, but of truth. Consider a baseball game. Were the umpire to call "out" every time he meant "safe," the game would be in total chaos. Words have meaning. Words are crucial. And although in their original formation there is some leeway, once they are set in definition and use they are not to be tampered with.

Ergo, the word "marriage" which has meant in whichever language one prefers the sacramental (lit. "set apart") union of one man to one woman for the purposes of drawing together exclusively and eternally which love is expressed in the procreation of children cannot be changed - particularly cannot be redefined to include something contrary to its very nature. I can no more say that "Love is Hate" than I can say "Marriage is Between Any People Cohabitating." Once again, marriage is exclusive and eternal for the purpose of bonding AND procreation.

I, myself, have been remiss in emphacising the second reason for marriage: pro-creation. In the recent well-meaninged attempt to appeal to the modern politically-correct masses by means of their own "newspeak" (see Orwell's 1984 right NOW), myself and others in the Church have stressed the unitive element of the conjugal embrace. And, certainly, the unitive aspect is crucial to marriage. But just as crucial and sadly underemphacised is the pro-creative element.

Almost, one might tout the pro-creative element of sexual union OVER its unitive properties, since whether the soul and mind are fully engaged in the conjugal act, certainly the body is - and the body knows only one way to function when men and women come together: that is, generatively. The pro-creative element is always in working order (barring barring devices, which are another subject altogether - for then the pro-creative act is stripped not only of its unitive function - bringing together the mind and soul of the man and woman - but also of its generative element, for the bodies are not even fully joined to create life let alone to fully physically realize one another: meaningless sex is the result).

Simply put, family cannot occur without a mother and a father. Note the use of the word family. For even should we "progress" (or rather, regress) to a Gattica stage wherein all children are by some means or another artificially created, yet a test tube baby is by its very generation without family. Moreover, putting aside such "petty concerns" as the childhood of a child, of the proposed orphaning of America, regardless the means necessary for generation of NEW individuals (as opposed to cloned individuals) comes not from two male sperm conjoining, nor two eggs conjoining, but from a man's sperm and a woman's egg conjoining. One need hardly point out Mother Nature's metaphor that only ONE sperm and ONE egg together make a baby (actually, if you get two sperm in one egg, things get nasty indeed for the baby; and if you want to talk about larger families one can always look at identical twins.... ;).

To put it even more simply: to have more babies, one man and one woman are needed. Period.

Yet, the ensuring of future generations, the creation of life itself within another individual human flesh of our flesh and yet completely unique, CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be undertaken apart from family. How many of my own students come from broken homes? How many of my own generation suffered the same? How many would not give up all they own if only they could claim for themselves a mother and a father to love them. And YES, a mother AND a father. For each gender has something wonderful and crucial to give to the child, something that cannot be given by another parent of the same gender. (Certainly, if we are to take the feminist battle cry we should demand that every human recognize the unique aspects of each gender and further demand that every child be given the benefit of being loved by both a mother and a father!)

The people who rally behind the "same sex marriage" laws tend to be - as far as I can see - people who are themselves longing for love in their own lives. This creates a curious dichotomy. For although the legal case is whether marriage ought to be redefined in order to provide health benefits for anyone cohabitating in the eyes of the state (a far cry from the definition of marriage - see above), yet the underlying push is based upon the idea that those with same-sex tendencies (whether by birth or by coersion) ought to be able to express their (temporally) exclusive although non-generative love publically with the same non-legal standing as other marriages. Let me state this more simply.

The legal disput (what we can vote on - what can actually be changed by law) is whether to redefine a pre-existing word (see above and reread 1984) for the convenience of health benefits.

The actual dispute (what cannot be voted on - what cannot be changed by law) is that all Americans ought to be forced to smile upon anyone who engages in sexual intercourse together.

Back in a minute. Gotta send out an e-mail!

...back in more than a few minutes...11:20 p.m. to be precise....

Clearly, law has no sway over the hearts of man. Only man has sway over his heart. I have no more right to force you to change your beliefs by law than you have the right to nullify my beliefs by law. The law holds a finite sway. When once we put man's souls within the realm of law, we have trespassed that tenuous boundary of church and state; we have, in fact, entered into the realm of tyranny.

Realising this, those who are pushing legally for same-sex "marriage" are wisely NOT mentioning the desired "legal change of belief" (over which the law should hold no sway, lest it contravene itself), but rather claiming the basis for their case a question of "civil rights legal benefits." This argument - since it is merely a straw man to push a totalitarian non-legal attitude - can be easily and peacefully refuted.

Those who are cohabitating desire the same health benefits as those who are married. Fine. The most obvious answer is not to redefine marriage (which is as helpful as redefining what a duck is to say it is a pigeon), but rather to turn an eye to the insurance agencies and demand that they allow anyone who cohabitates to share health benefits (which is more like saying a duck is a duck, a pigeon is a pigeon and we will feed them both). To argue health benefits DEMANDS that the case be brought to insurance companies, not to the altar (the homophonious irony of which ought not be lost upon the aural audience).

Curiously, the same sex "marriage" camp are NOT lobbying the insurance companies to ask for coverage for all who cohabitate, but rather are turning around completely and demanding that we redefine a WORD (another place where the law ought to have no sway, except to uphold the word and its meaning, since law itself is based upon the original meanings of all words - the true meanings and not invalid, unfounded and coercively convenient redefinitions. To redefine a word is tantamount to saying that the words by which one swears are arbitrary. Why should I not pledge allegience to the United States of America and mean the Confederacy? See the first point: words have meanings that are not to be altered).

The decision not to appeal to the pertinent party in question - that is the insurance companies - is another crafty move. Consider the proposal:

SSM Advocates: "All people who cohabitate together ought to receive the same health benefits."

Insurance Agency: "Whoa - ALL people who cohabitate? Do you mean 'cohabitate' as in having sex or 'cohabitate' as in 'living together'?" (See what I mean about words? Hamlet was right, my friends!)

SSMA: "Ah, well, we mean that whoever wants to live together ought to be given the same health benefits. What they do in their own beds is their own affair."

IA: "So you don't care if they have sex?"

SSMA: "Oh, no, sex is crucial. Yeah, whoever's living together and having sex together."

IA: "So you don't mean that we have to let daughters share health benefits with their parents, and vice versa."

SSMA: "Right. Save you a bundle that."

Impoverished Post-Collegiate Students Everywhere: "D*mn!"

IPCSE's Parents: "D*mn."

IA: "So it is important that the cohabitating people are having sex."

SSMA: "Yes, yes. Sex is very important. It expresses love."

IA: "But you just told me that what they do in their own beds isn't our affair. And love can be expressed in many ways - not merely sexual. What if two roommates of any gender combination you care to name are living together and demand health benefits? Because they're not related, are you demanding we give them insurance?"

SSMA: "Only if they're having sex."

IA: "But we can't know they're having sex. You just told us to stay out of it."

SSMA: "Ah...but those who are having sex will be...(drumroll)...married!"

IA: (coughing politely under one's breath) "Right. And married people have sex 24/7. Wish my wife knew that."

SSMA: "Sorry?"

IA: "Look, Miss...?"

SSMA: "Ms."

IA: "Ah. Let me propose to you a series of situations.

"In the case of marriage: the husband and wife's benefits extend to one another for a few practical reasons - first, because everything they have from finances to house to bed to life are conjoined. Eternally, mind you - or, we'd be much happier if they'd have the consideration to remember they vow "until death do us part" because it would help our record books enormously. Regardless, second our policy extends to all children resulting from this union until the children reach an age where they may support themselves. This encourages families, which as you know are the building block of all society, it secures not only the nation's future but - if I may be so crass as to mention it - our own company's future as well, and at the appropriate time it also forces the child to become self-reliant. Moreover, by extending benefits to the spouse, this policy encourages at least one parent to take care of their children - an attention which, I might add, is sorely lacking in today's society. In fact, as a businessman - and again, I beg you forgive my mercenary reasons, but I am attempting to speak to you without any bias but that which falls within the legal pervue - I must admit that I should be far happier were one parent dedicated to staying at home. These double income families, although certainly there are cases of necessity, are somewhat a drain upon the insurance company's pocket."

SSMA: "Ah! Well, then, you must at least agree that a lower population would be beneficial to your company! Encouraging same-sex coverage would be a good business move."

IA: "Quite the contrary. Although, yes, every child is a short-term 'drain' on our company, I see each child as an investment. My dear Ms., you must realize that I have been in this business for a very long time and intend to remain in this business for as long as I can. Each child is a future customer. You cannot deny me my customers! Moreover, Ms., you do realize that, if I were basing who received joint benefits based upon sex, each child is a reassurance to me that I have not been duped into extending coverage to those seeking to take advantage of a generous but - alas - essentially superfluous benefit. I heave a sigh again to say that as much as I esteem myself, their marriage is not based upon my insurance."

SSMA: "But what of those who take in foster children? Those children are not the result of their foster parent's sexual activity! Yet you benefit them!"

IA: "Future customers, future customers. Beyond which, am I to forget the children? You are heartless, Ms."

SSMA: "You are bigoted, sir."

IA: "I am as you find me - call me what you will. But I do not think the extension of benefits to children is the essential question here - unless, again, you would like to redefine 'cohabitation' to include any living together. Or, if you insist on sex as a fundamental requirement to my business practice (whilst, I remind you, barring me from the bedroom), then what is to keep me from extending coverage to siblings, so long as they are engaging in incest? Or for a father and a grown daughter the same? Or an aunt and a nephew? Certainly, they are cohabitating and engaging in sexual relations - am I to extend coverage on that basis?

SSMA: (recoiling) "Noooo!"

IA: "But whyever not? They meet your requirements. I shall even be generous: an uncle and his nephew."

SSMA: "NO!"

IA: "Your reason?"

SSMA: "Incest is wrong. It is evil. You cannot condone it."

IA: "Then there is right and wrong?"

SSMA: "Certainly."

IA: "And I am not only free to act upon such conscientious sentiment, but bound to do so?"

SSMA: "In cases of incest, yes."

IA: "So you propose to dictate to me the limits of my conscience? I may deplore incest for so long as you deplore it, but I may not act on my conscience when it does not suit your conscience? I had thought - or at least, I had been taught if I have not yet witnessed - that I lived in a country wherein I had the right to my beliefs, that I had the right to live according to my conscience?"

SSMA: "But you're a public official. You must do what the public demands and conscience be hanged - lest, as you say, you impose your beliefs upon those of different opinions."

IA: "I am a private businessman. And as such, my business is my own affair. When the state oversteps that boundary, we have a different set of questions altogether. But I agree - any man...or womyn...who can pay or have paid insurance is deserving of said insurance no matter what their creed. Whether I deem it right to extend gratuities is my own affair. No one can demand a gift. It is most unseemly. But I shall let your aversion to incest stay - and I hope it stays in your mind as in all our minds! May I ask - do you demand that I extend health benefits to those who are engaged in polyamory?"

SSMA: "Don't you mean polygamy?"

IA: "I should hardly be so sexist! Why should my sights be only on Colorado City with their late Prophet and his seventy wives? Why do you not demand that 'swinging' couples, 'communes,' and any orgiastic group be given benefits? I tell you plainly that the chances of these individuals requiring my aid to raise children - future customers - in a stable home is limited. As for the polygamists, I think we both agree that the practice is a degredation to women?"

SSMA: "Utterly."

IA: "So, to recap: by 'cohabitation' you mean small groups - perhaps only two people - who are having sex together in a long-standing relationship who are not related?"

SSMA: "Correct."

IA: "Well then, my dear, why the emphasis on 'marriage'? Unfortunately, I can think of many who live together outside of marriage for a significant time - who even have children together! Why am I not rewarding them? Well, as you no doubt guessed, because quite frankly your so-called 'traditional marriage' is better for my business. The risk of constantly shifting paperwork, not to mention the risk to my future customer's well-being, is simply too great for me to bother rewarding those who cannot take responsibility for their home lives. I must question the potential customer who is constantly in and out of relationships, who is afraid of commitment - will that customer remain faithful to me? Will he pay his bills on time? What proof has he given me that I should put my trust in him by extending a gratuity?"

SSMA: "But some same-sex couples stay together for a very long time."

IA: "Together with 'open relationships.'"

SSMA: "That is a generalization."

IA: "Unfortunately, Ms., it is a statistic."

SSMA: "But, were we to allow these same-sex couples to get married, they will stay together longer, and that can only be beneficial to you."

IA: "No - that brings me back to my original kettle of fish, and with Hamlet I shall decry that 'I know you, you are a fishmonger' and to exacerbate the point, 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark' - or at least in Scandanavia."

SSMA: "I don't appreciate your rudeness."

IA: "Pardon my frivolity - but this is a rather silly issue when looked at straight on. You demand gifts of me. You should be glad I am giddy."

SSMA: "This is a serious matter!"

IA: "Which is why I must laugh, my dearest Ms. If I do not, I shall cry. Let me mention the difficulties again. To whit:

"1) To allow a same-sex benefit will most likely NOT be a long-lasting benefit from my view of things. Consistently, we have seen that those in the homosexual lifestyle tend towards frequent sexual experimentation and exploration. To do so is practically part of the credo: freedom without restraint. Openness to all. I see no reason for this to change by slapping the name of 'marriage' on a relationship of standing. Were 'marriage' based on longevity, in this toppling nation I should be more inclined to reward friendship without sexual relations than intermittent cohabitation to prove a point.

"2) Likewise, the example of such 'open relationships' has - already - helped to raise the divorce rate among Americans. All this 'free love' nonsense is simply that: when I love (eros), I love exclusively. 'If I am to be truly free, I must be free to bind myself.' The only means whereby one can truly achieve 'free love' is to exclusively and eternally bind oneself to another, with no barriers of any sort between each other, but barriers around you both. Yet by usurping the word 'freedom' to mean 'freedom from' rather than 'freedom to' we have not taught our generation how to truly love (eros). I propose that the better recourse towards longevity within conjugal love would be a stricter adherance to the marriage vows - not a decimation of those vows.

"3) I simply cannot be sure that couples are engaging in sex if there are not offspring. Why should two friends of the same sex not be 'married' and receive benefits until they are 'divorced' and 'remarried' to someone with whom they will have sex? You tell me I must stay out of the bedroom, but you are forcing me into it!

"4) To promote same sex unions is tantamount to sounding a death knell for my industry. Children do not result from such relationships and my business thrives upon the sure knowledge that there will be another generation of customers.

"5) And perhaps most crucially: you are forcing me to act against the dictates of my own conscience, which is a violation of the rights granted me by the Constitution. Although you may argue that 'marriage is null and void because it has a quote-unquote religious base,' I must tell you that you would do well to study your history and learn that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman even in empires with ritualized homosexuality and without any sort of major religion recognized today, and that to state that a word is null and void because it comes from a religion that is not your own is the height of audacity. Honored Ms., you are very free to use words and do so - I see, much to my chagrin - effectively if not always linguistically correct. But when you pass judgement upon the philology of a word, you pass judgement upon the democracy of the dead who gave you that word. And, were you to adhere wholeheartedly no matter the consequence to your right belief that no bias must be shown to anyone OR anything based upon their creed, then you must admit your own ancestors to have the right to first define a new-coined word, despite their beliefs. Elsewise, Ms., you are a hypocrite - declaring that all men must honor each other's creeds until those creeds conflict with your own. And what is that, Ms., but coersion at its basest?"

SSMA: "And if I change the definition of marriage, sir? You are bound by law, unless you, too, are a hypocrite and all your fine words no more than stuffing to match your self-obesity!"

IA: "You may redefine. And what you will find is collapse. You do not merely mince words - a selection of random syllables - you play with the underpinnings and cornerstone of society. Look to your history, educated Ms. And see what happens when we change what is to match our fleeting pleasures." (12:47 a.m. - and must go to sleep!)

Mood: Exhausted
Music: Loreena McKennit Mask and the Mirror on repeat
Thought: Why does our society seek to obscure the obvious?
Silly Quiz du Jour:


create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide

All I want is a room somewhere

Far away from the cold night air
With one enormous chair -
Ow, wouldn't it be loverly!

Lots of chocolates for me to eat
Lots of coal making lots of heat
Warm face, warm hands, warm feet -
Ow, wouldn't it be loverly!

Oh, so loverly sitting
Absobloominglutely still (what a great word).
I would never budge 'til spring
Came over me windowsill!

Someone's head resting on my knee
Warm and tender as 'e can be
Who takes good care o' me -
Ow, wouldn't it be loverly!

And all is well and Errol Flynn is magnificent and the Butterfly Effect is weird, and the PoP orchestra is amazing, and I have too much laundry, and feel bad for spiders who creep into my lit candles, and the days are getting slowly warmer and apple cake is in me belly and Julie hugging and party coming and signs painted and heaters working and Coke fizzing and leftover rice. HA! And I think I may have another route into Gavron. Which would be faboo. If I do. Boo-boop-te-doo.

I wonder what definitive argument could sway the upcoming decision? But then I realize, that to those who are bound on some madness, no argument is possible. Oh, St. Chesterton! Pray for us!

Mood: I wonder if I could do a remake of Ivanhoe - silly book, but there's story in there somewhere.
Music: Nothing at the moment, but was just Robin Hood.
Thought: I need to do more spiritual reading. Today's scriptures were spot-on what I needed to hear (one was 1 Cor. 13 - LOL! I wondered if any of my Sophomores actually went to mass today). Praise God! But yeah, I've let my defenses drop, I've been let off easy this year and forgotten how to gird on my armour so.... FWAH! Be strong, and of good courage. Be not afraid, nor dismayed. For the Lord is with you wherever you go! ~ Joshua 1:9.