cogitation_station

What Are You Watching?

I have been watching very little television these days. How about you?

The reason? Hard to find programs that appeal to me. I loathe reality shows. Why? Because I see enough bickering and clawing for the top every day, and to watch more of it does not classify either as entertainment or newsworthy. OK, "American Idol" may have some redeeming social values for the contestants, namely exposure and possible fame. But I just tuned in this week to see the one of the best guys voted off by the "people." The contestant who was allowed to remain was in shock. Why did I even tune in? Because the shows that I normally watch during "American Idol" were not on or were in reruns.

"Survivor"--good grief. It's multiple dysfunction and greed. No, I won't watch it.

"The Greatest Race"--is that even the correct title? A gymkana gone bad.

Actually one of my favorite shows, "Studio 60 on Sunset Strip," takes this issue on without apologies and the new network hotshot calls them in "poor taste," suggests that they appeal to the lowest and worst common denominator in the demographics, and add nothing to culture, news, or the higher forms of entertainment. Of course, the other network execs are upset when this is said on air by the once head writer of the show--terminated immediately. But his replacements--hooray!--are committed to lifting the quality of the writing of their imaginary show, and in the process, they lift the discussion of what should and should not be the business of entertainment to a level I haven't seen since "West Wing," "House," "Nothing Sacred," "Northern Exposure," and for sheer fun and great writing, "Grey's Anatomy." The actors in this show shine brightly with few others in an otherwise smog-filled ether which represents today's airwaves.

"Gilmore Girls'" writing used to be some of the best and wittiest anywhere. I understand now that the network, in all its ignorance, wants to replace or change writers, so guess what Lauren Graham and the rest of the great cast are doing? You guessed it. So we will have to enjoy that show in reruns or buy the DVDs. The "new" show will lack viewers; at least I won't be watching it.

Then someone had a bright idea to spin off Kate Walsh's character from "Grey's Anatomy" into a new series. I didn't like her character in the first place, and from what I've gathered around the water cooler the new spin off will be "dead on arrival." Why can't you people learn not to muck around with a good thing?

"House" is wonderful. Hugh Laurie and the rest of the cast are superb, and every week, the show actually continues with a high standard of writing and medical and personal puzzles. PLEASE don't mess with this one.

"The Closer" follows suit as just a great show. Like "Grey's," "House," "Studio 60," and "Monk," it exhibits great writing and solid, well-rounded characters. I love great writing. But it seems I'm in the minority.

Who said "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people?" I don't remember, but I surely don't.

Most American audiences--oh what the heck, most Americans period--seem to suffer from Drew Barrymore's memory problems in "Fifty First Dates." Talk about ADD!

And television reflects or projects and certainly exacerbates--I haven't quite decided which came first--this subtle amnesia. News--something as huge as 9/11--has to be retold, just so people in America don't forget what that date meant and means. Gee, guys, it's our Pearl Harbor. Why do people get so upset that our country responded in the same way we did to that foreign terrorist act with a declaration of war on terrorism?

Well, TV pundits don't help. Has anyone else noticed that journalists have put aside objectivity in reporting the news to telling us what we should think of the news they care to share with us?

Do you know how much news we actually are exposed to in the US, if we were to read all the big newspapers from cover to cover daily and watch the televised news? ONE PERCENT. That's right folks, and by and large it's the SAME one percent. Good grief.

Have people put their brains on some shelves so that others can do their thinking for them? Big Brother (and Sister) are not only watching, they are talking, and sadly most of us are listening....

Television is their primary tool.

So when you sit down at your TV and watch tonight, just try for a moment to think what messages underlie the gab and "plots." The messages that they're trying to sell and that you're buying without even looking at the large print, much less the small print at the bottom, are eating your souls.

Is the World Going to Hell in a Hand-basket?

(Sorry to have been absent for so long--selling CDs, we now have US and Canadian national distribution.)

Have any of you noticed the difference/similarity in certain aspects of our cultural and societal concerns, say to that of ancient Greece, Rome, and the once great Egyptian and Persian civilizations?

I've been struck by the plethora of occult themes, sex--though the subject has always been with us--has never been so prolific in every media outlet, even hard news, a tolerance to the point of apathetic numbness to things which would never have been mentioned a few years ago, to outright celebration of almost every abberation with which I can hope never to hear, see, or come into contact.

Nothing is sacred, not even the sacred.

Personal hygiene for both men and women is expored so graphically in TV commercials that I doubt anyone could be ignorant of E.D. or anything pertaining to a woman's reproductive cycle.

That MAN (or WOMAN) is in practice, if not in fact, his or her own god has been creeping into our collective psyches since Darwinian debates, but even those who profess to believe in God or some "Higher Being" acts as if they are their own HB.

I've seen--just on TV--the Nephilim (if you don't know who and what they are, look it up), mediums poke out of every nook and cranny, and reincarnation has taken the place of evolution as the next great theory which has no proof. The End of the World, discussed endlessly, has taken all forms but the right one, but no one really takes the possibility of a Christian Rapture or Christ's return seriously.

I've now experienced Wicca as a true religion. Freedom of religion has been taken out of the original context of protecting our citizens from state-imposed religion to an "anything goes" stance.

Critics of this slippery slope greased with apostasy and deciet are derided, labeled, and sometimes actually killed.

I thought I'd heard of every preposterous religion--I mean there are some out there which are really OUT THERE--but along comes Scientology, invented by L. Ron Hubbard, a former science fiction writer who declared that the way to really become rich was to invent a religion--a feat which he has evidently accomplished beyond even his imagined beyond. (Even the script of "Boston Legal" treated this with derision, and I must say, that's a huge step in the right--no puns intended--direction.)

P.T. Barnum said fools are born every minute, and I'd hate to been counted as one when the Lord Jesus Christ comes and says, "I never knew you." Chills overcome me with dread of being deceived by the current theologies buzzing in our atmosphere like so many flies, for I was once exactly in that sinking boat.

Look to history and the falls of the great empires. Note the parallels and search your own mind. I wouldn't dream of filling your heads full of evidence, since most are so certain their myths are fact, and they must find out for themselves.

I just hope it is not too late.

"Rockin' the Day Away" Nationally Released May 10, 2005

Color me floored! This is a tale of miracles and hope for all independent artists out there.

In 1998 I began writing children's music, because my first granddaughter liked me to sing her to sleep. After a while, I started writing them down, because I thought they had some merit, and my kids might like to have the music someday.

I had collaborated with two other people on a musical, and while they were in other states, a tape of one of the songs needed to be recorded for a person in the industry who indicated his interest.

That's when I found 25th Track Recording Studio and Walt Bowers - great guy and wonderful engineer and keyboardist. We recorded the song from the musical, and afterwards my husband asked Walt if he could buy 30 hours of studio time.

I thought Ed had lost his mind. I couldn't figure out what the 30 hours were for. It turned out, he wanted to record the baby songs I'd written.

In the interim, I had worked on four songs with my collaborators, and I asked them if they wanted in or not. They did.

Walt came over and heard all 10 songs, and said, "You don't have a demo; you have a CD."

And that's how it started. I already had a company, but ASCAP said I had to have another name for the label, and we were already at crunch time, so that's why the label is Pamela Kay Hawkins Publishing - not because I'm really vain.

I ran into a jeweler friend of mine who knew an artist, who was just getting started, and Kristen did the illustrations for the cover, and I came up with the idea of a coloring book with lyrics inside, so she did the line drawings for the children to color. Another friend of mine owned a performing arts school and complained of never having anything for her children to use for auditions, and that gave me the idea for the instrumental track for kids to use for auditions. (I've since been told that English as a Second Language - ESL - Teachers find it helpful for teaching purposes.)

Then I thought I had a deal with Barnes and Noble, and Ed informed me that the first run of 1,000 had been sold to a convenience store chain. (It turned out that neither deal was what I thought it was.) The female singer on the album, Meredith Easley, and I appeared on Tulsa's TV show "Six in the Morning." Barnes and Noble's store on 71st Street in Tulsa had a "CD Release Party" at which about 100 people showed up to hear Meredith, John Weller (you've probably seen John on "Boston Public"), and Tommy Crook - the only guitarist Chet Atkins bowed to -whose name is unfortunately misspelled on sites and the album credits - perform. We were on our way!

So I thought....

It turned out that Barnes and Noble meant I had a deal with one of their stores - not all of their stores. The deal Ed made turned out to be a PR disaster, through no fault of his. The convenience store chain has since filed for bankruptcy :-). But after trying to buy the album at all these mirage venues, people just gave up. Who could blame them?

Oh, and I had another run done, because I didn't want to let B & N down.

But then Peter Chipman of CapCan.com in Canada and Derek Silver of CDBaby.com came to my rescue, but of course there was no interest, because no one knew the album existed. Then CDBaby.com sold out and needed more stock, but had emailed the wrong person. So for six months they had no stock. I found out because I was going to cancel my account. Imagine my surprise, and theirs!

The great buying group Alliant had been excited about my album when it came out and was going to red-line it for the stores they represented, but then they went bankrupt. So...nothing. I was one person trying to sell one independent album to the world one store at a time. Very hard.

But you don't want to hear about the six years from then to now, do you? I didn't think so....

Cut to chase:

Last Thursday, that would be Oct. 6, 2005, I walked into Barnes & Noble to pick up a book I'd ordered and a DVD in the music department. The head of the music department, Chris, had been keeping my album alive for all these years. He had told his new head of "local artists" about the album and I'd met Seth, also a budding musician along with Chris, and he hadn't heard one of the songs from my CD. So we went to find the demo CD so he could listen. Nowhere. He was puzzled, because there was always a copy of my CD on top of the children's section for display purposes. There were no CDs. So he checked the backstock. Nada. Neither of us could believe we'd sold out, so I asked if the computer said anything.

Seth said: "You're a local artist. Local artists aren't in the computer." He went back to the search.

Finally he gave up and checked the computer: I was there! The album was there! I'd been red-lined!
He ran over to the kiosk where you can listen to the music? It was there! He liked it -really liked it! And then he said, "Look at this!" We looked: A note on the album said "Released May 10, 2005!"

I was so excited! I told some friends on www.Soflow.com, and in seconds the album, which was online on B & N was sold out and the picture went with it.

I called my distributor, Hapi Skratch Entertainment's Morris Beegle, and he said I'd been red-lined since May. (No one had said a word to me.) And that my album was now in Border's, Best Buy, Circuit City, Sam Goodys, and Amazon.com, besides Barnes & Noble. Shock is not the work for the state I was in.

After six years, as one salewoman at B&N said, "You're legit!"

I Googled "Pamela Kay Hawkins Rockin' the Day Away" and found not only the sites above, but a German site http://www.totalrecal/de/items/338.htm; another Megastore in Germany, England and Sweden who is carrying the album: english.megastore.se/template/next,Index.vm?@atid=10&page=9 (listed under Children/Tales). The megastore link with all the info just covers the German location.

I share this with you, not only to promote the CD which I still believe in, but to say to all of the independent producers and artists out there: "Don't give up! Miracles still happen!"

I also wanted to thank all of the people who believed in me and this album and have made this possible, Richard Bridge of Rainy Day Records, Chris Karasek of Barnes & Noble on 71st, Full Circle Bookstore in Oklahoma City, the other Barnes & Noble stores who took a chance and bought my albums, Peter Chipman of CapCan Distributors in Canada, Derek Sivers of CDBaby.com, Morris Beegle who gave me national distribution, and David Define of Alliance Entertainment, who got me red-lined! To all the companies who've since bought the album, like Best Buy, Borders, Circuit City, Sam Goody's, EBay and Amazon.com - THANK YOU ALL!

Pamela Kay Hawkins

P.S. I'm going to use the money and connections I hope to make (so far it's been a losing proposition) to help others who need a leg up, and to help get a workshopping gig for a musical that's been waiting a year longer than the CD.

PPS If they're out of stock, they can order more. I understand that orders can be filled within a week to 10 days at the outside. So please order from these wonderful people who've taken a chance on an unknown and made a dream possible. - Thank you to all my future customers!

And if you have comments, I'd love to hear from you!View this photo

My Take on Katrina

The "Wall Street Journal" ran a poll yesterday asking that question: Should New Orleans be rebuilt in its orginal location? The overwhelming answer was no.

I've been reluctant to begin a blog on New Orleans, mainly because I've such mixed feelings. I feel for those who have lost their homes and businesses, who are searching for loved ones, who have lost loved ones and everything thing else they held dear.

However, as unpopular as it may be to say this, I have heard too much griping, seen too much corruption within New Orleans and Louisianna, and have been appalled at the lack of understanding of what actually happened there.

Katrina hit Gulfport, Mississippi, and Biloxi. Orginally everyone thought New Orleans had dodged the bullet. So rescue efforts rightly centered on Biloxi, Pas Christien, and Gulfport. Then Lake Pontchartrain's levees, which should have been fixed 15 years ago, and which could not have been made to withstand Katrina's storm surge and wind in the time so many have touted, broke: "We knew one year ago that the levees wouldn't hold, if this happened."

Well, sorry, but you knew 25 years ago and did nothing. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers said, "This is a non-partisan problem, covering many presidencies. There was nothing President Bush could have done in the entire time he's been in office to stop this thing from happening."

Yet, we hear how the federal government failed us and the people of the Gulf Coast. We hear how Ivan and Dennis and Frances were on the recovery track as soon as the storm moved.

Well, people, you could get to those cities. The roads were intact. Not so in New Orleans.

It had flooded, as predicted in worse case scenarios. I-10 was gone in some places; bridges were gone. The airport was closed until they opened one runway used for aid coming in.

Helicopters and their crews risked their lives, being shot at occasionally, dodging downed electrical wires, polluted water, flying 24/7 to help people. The National Guard was dispatched, and I'm sorry, but it takes a while to train those people to handle this kind of disaster and move them, and they can't be called out and moved into a state without its permission. So it took a few days.

New Orleans had buses which could have been used to transport the poor and disabled out before the storm struck. They chose to let them sit in a place which they knew could be compromised by a storm of this magnitude. Buses which are now underwater. So other buses from other states had to be found, and coordinated, and places in other states had to be found to house the refugees.

The Red Cross, several private charitable organizations began immediately and were stymied because they could not get to New Orleans.

People in New Orleans shot at rescuers in a truck who were trying to help those in hospitals - children. And the doctors inside, whose morgue was in the basement and flooded, wondered where the rescuers were and why people were not helping.

Meanwhile, three navy ships were sent to the Gulf to help with rescue efforts, a hospital ship was sent; the Coast Guard was called in, and all I heard was how the federal government was to blame.

Really?

Did the federal goverment cause Katrina? Did it cause the continuing warnings of 25 years ago to go unheeded just in President's Bush's term? Did the people of New Orleans think they were exempt?

To rebuild New Orleans in the same disastrous place is foolhardy. "But we want the 'Big Easy' back!" Well, people, the 'Big Easy' isn't easy anymore. The wetlands which should never have been drained are back. The Mississippi River has been ruined by years of mismanagement.

You will never have New Orleans as it was back again.

If people are smart, they will try to move the spirit of the place, the salvageable architecture of the place, to somewhere else on higher ground.

I have hesitated to give money. I watched what happened to the money sent to the victims of the Tsunami. I'm waiting to see what and where it's needed and who needs it most.

People I know; people who need new jobs, a new start.

Did we really think that we could stop natural disasters?

I live in Oklahoma. Ask anyone here if they could stop tornadoes.

Ask the people in the paths of flash floods, mudslides, earthquakes. The best thing you can do, especially when you have as much warning as people in the paths of hurricanes do, instead of the minutes or seconds warning that we have with these other disasters, is to get out of their way, which is sometimes impossible, or hold on in the safest place you can find and hope you live through it.

This hubris reminds me of Xerxes, who had his soldiers whip the Hellespont because it broke his bridge to the Greeks. He was insane. And the Hellespont just kept on flowing, just like the Mississippi.

Am I angry? You bet I am.

Compassion is overflowing in America, and some of the most vocal people are ranting that they haven't gotten enough; they haven't been given enough; everyone's to blame but the people who neglected to protect New Orleans in the first place.

You have your lives. Many lost theirs. And you're shooting at, and ranting against the very people who've come to help you, one of whom is my 21-year old niece who just got married two weeks ago.

Terrorism & Fear

Today is July 7, 2005, and the terrorists have hit London, just as the G 8 Conference in Gleneagle, Scotland was beginning. Why?

There is no why, unless you are as evil and mad as those who committed these acts and those in Madrid, New York, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Of course, there are many more atrocities committed each day in other countries by people who say they do it for "God" or "Allah" or some "cause." But the truth is that they do it because, if not totally deceived, they are just evil.

Their purpose is to destroy and create FEAR wherever they attack. Fear.... Fear is the greatest enemy of mankind, for it keeps us from doing things we would otherwise do and enjoy.

Long ago, I made a vow to myself (and I know what real fear is) that if I feared a thing, I would not let it stop me, no matter what the consequences to myself.

September 11, 2001, caused the USA to fear to take planes without taking precautions which now border on subjugating our Rights, under the US Bill of Rights.

Fear robs us of action of enjoying the world God made for us to enjoy.

I don't fear death; I fear inaction when faced with someone who's intent on harming me or those around me. Lambs to the slaughter is far more terrifying to me than the wolf who attacks the flock.

I say: Do not let these People of the Lie and of Fear and of Death defeat you with their tactics. We are greater than Evil. Though Evil will sometimes win; it will not always win; and in the end, it will be defeated beyond its comprehension.

Londoners have faced worse than this during WWII; America has faced worse than this in the Revolutionary, French & Indian Wars, and in the horrendous Civil War which pitted brother against brother.

Make no mistake, this is a WAR. It is a war not against any country, but against the evil behind the terrorist attacks.

London is not the only one called to stand up and face fear: the entire world rises in rage and anger and courage and strength to fight this evil which threatens us on every hand.

So, be not afraid. Terrorists strike when and where no one thinks they will. How can you prepare? BE NOT AFRAID whatever may come, and when it comes, for it will, take your stand; hold your head high; and charge as one who has no fear. Whatever the outcome, you will have prevailed.

Schiavo Autopsy Exonerates Husband

Well, as most of you already know, Terri Schiavo's autopsy has been completed. She was found to be in a persistent vegitative state, totally blind, with a brain half the size expected, and no signs of trauma.

BUT it seems this is still not good enough for her parents, who continue to want to tie up the courts, the government, and Michael Schiavo.

Isn't there some way to prosecute people who just waste the courts' time on frivolous suits?

I am saddened to report that the President and Congress, according to what I hope are erroneous reports, are still not regretting their ill-advised interference in this case. Good Grief! What does it take!

And, I just got a letter from the Republicans asking me for money. I told them, when they got back to being Republicans and not a second before.

GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES, MR. PRESIDENT, AND RESTORE OUR RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ERODED BY SO-CALLED "SECURITY MEASURES."

Prognostication, Providence, and Pudding Proof

You see something, then turn around and read something, then hear something, and CLICK!--epiphany!

For some of us cursed with synthesis, this happens a lot. But lately some things have been happening which for us who synthesize make us wonder if all these seemingly disparate parts don't combine to form a message for our global generation: We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.

Not to worry...I'm not a radical nut who's preaching THE END OF THE WORLD. Heck, I'm not even going to advocate selling everything you have, leaving it in my tender care--I'd take care of it; you can trust me--climbing some mountaintop to wait for the Mother Ship or the Messiah (He's not there yet) or even buying out the local stores for food and water to keep you through the DARKNESS AHEAD. (Shouldn't someone have a monster playing a dirge at a huge organ here?)

I'll join you in the deep end, and it's getting very deep indeed.

Politics, religion, and television have occupied my mind a lot, along with "great minds" discussing the "ethics of blogging" at the January Harvard conference, "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility." They have much in common. (For the link, check with Jessica Mintz at the Wall Street Journal. The one I had doesn't seem to work anymore, but here it is: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu.webcred/.)

Experiences--the problems or lack thereof concerning TV and, in a broader sense, all communication avenues; the old TV news adage, "what bleeds, leads;" Dr. James Dobson's concern over programming, which not only borders on censorship, but crosses the line; the overwhelming time taken up by ads on TV over actual content--lead me to ask: where is the general populace, not to mention journalists and our government's leaders, getting accurate information?

I got a Master's in Journalism/Mass Communication when I was 36. I wondered why my fellow students, all much younger than I, couldn't quite grasp the concept of "objective reporting" and of journalists being the "watchdog" for the people.

I didn't understand how they could read The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and come away with the singular idea that it protected only freedom of the press and of speech.

The answer finally dawned on me when I was having coffee in the Union with a few students: they chose to be journalists to "change the world" and to "teach" people what they "needed" to know.

Well, that does explain a lot, doesn't it? It seems that the leaders in our government now believe the same thing.

I subscribe to a polling station called "The Polling Station" http://pheedo.com/pollingstation/, and on Jan. 25, 2005, Jack Dinkmeyer commented regarding a poll testing people's actual knowledge of who was involved and what happened on 9/11. The results of the poll were all over the place, meaning no one knew much about anything. Dinkmeyer attributed this to what he deemed "The Tolstoy Syndrome." He then quoted (I'm sorry I don't know the direct source) from Leo Tolstoy:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Experience and observation has taught me that this statement is a truism: The one thing most people cannot abide is admitting that they are wrong about something they have long held to be true, factual or not.

TV, advertising, communication media in general pander to this dictum in most instances--first telling the "masses" what they "should think," backing it up with so-called "facts," and tying it all up into a well-produced, well-written, well-spoken, well-designed package. The result? Few, if any, bother to question the validity of what is being stated, seen, read--what, in short, fills the spoon with which they are fed.

Well, I am not one of them, I'm saddened to say. Why saddened? Because my belief in the leaders of my country, the Republican Party, and our President seems to have been delusional.

I honestly believed I would never hear Republicans supporting actual expansion of federal governmental power to the detriment of their constituents, from whom they derive their power. (I believe they've forgotten that part, along with large chunks of our Constitution.)

To hear Tom DeLay, a professing Christian--"professing" is the operative word here; see my blog on "People Who Give Christianity a Bad Name"--ranting about "activist judges," the unimportance of our judicial system and those who sit as judges, and to find out this man is accused of gross impropriety and misuse of federal funds, whose own party fights to drown the din of protests against his and others' actions of late more than saddens me, it sickens me.

I was wrong. So I'm taking action, as are many of my friends and family, and changing registration from Republican to Independent. I will not associate my name with a party of hypocrites, especially one espousing "Christian values" while making a mockery of the phrase. I know there are many in the Republican Party who are not hypocrites, but staying within it at this time is not a good thing, nor will it change the others. Read Tolstoy's remark above.

Neither is it a time to keep silent. If your voice is not heard now, with all the talk about censorship, creating standards of "decency," and doing away with the time-honored practice of filibuster in the Senate, soon you may be unable to speak at all.

But beware when you speak; there are consequences:

"If you want to say what you think, you shouldn't have the notion that it's not going to cost anything at all, because that would get you into surrealism very quickly. If the notion is that when you say something you want to make a slight change of the given, then you should expect the given will push back one way or the other." --Norman Mailer in "Norman Mailer, A Literary Lion Roars" by Carloyn T. Hughes, an interview published online in a 2005 issue of Poets & Writers Magazine http://www.pw.org/mag/hughes.htm/.

Communication as it once whas thought of--the free exchange and dissemination of ideas for debate and the discovery of the truth of a matter or of a relationship or of a belief--has ceased to exist except in emails, the rare personal note, even rarer letter or phone call, and in this new world of blogs--even there you must choose with care.

What are we being taught? Greed is good; mass consumption of goods is better; all "legal" drugs are good, except when they're not, so call your doctor and ask them what the drug we're advertising is for. Truth in advertising is an "all's fair in love and war" concept, which means I can lie to you as long as I'm not caught, and by that time, you've probably been "branded."

Great literature, performances, and stories are not worth watching unless interrupted for "breaks"--ad people run ads during this time, while most people run for food or take bathroom breaks.

We're taught that short attention spans are better. In fact everything short is better, with a couple of exceptions.... (What was Kevin Costner thinking making a movie that lasted more than 120 minutes? And thank God we didn't have to see all three books of the "Lord of the Rings" in the same year! It was hard enough sitting through one that overreached the 120 minute mark! And, now, good grief! "Harry Potter" over seven years!)

TV schedules are more important than just about anything else in a newspaper. The rest of our time should be spent working, shopping, and getting groceries so we can watch.

Thirty-minute TV shows equal-22 minute stories, if you're lucky. The ratio of showtime to adtime decreases as the total length of the "story" increases.

It's simpler to stay at home and watch TV than to go out; it's simpler to rent DVDs (guilty), skip the commercials, and stay at home. It's simpler to buy fast food or "prepackaged meals" than to cook. (Heaven forbid we would have to sit in the dining room and talk while the TV beckons. Family time? Isn't that watching TV together?)

And please...don't read the book if the movie version is out.

So I'm taking my stand: I'm going to call those who call themselves "Christians" to account and to act like it or be exposed for the "wolves in sheeps' clothing" they are; I'm going to buy books and read them; I'm going to read a lot of newspapers and cram all the news I can get into my head; I'm only going to watch TV if it's really good stuff (that will cut my watching time down considerably); I'm going to say exactly what I think without fear; I'm going to write my leaders and tell them what I think, and I'm going to yell what I know is True from the mountaintops, if need be, realizing there will be consequences:

We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.

Saints & Others

I've been trying to be silent, and I've done pretty well, but it's time to lay my cards on the table and discuss "The Saints."

The Old Testament word "saint," "qaddish" in Hebrew, only appears nine times in plural and singular form, but the word translates as: "holy," "holy one," "holy ones," and "saints." The New Testament word "saint" appears in Greek as "hagios" from the root word "hagos," and since my keyboard will not deliver either Hebrew or Greek script, you'll have to look it up.

"Hagios" translates into the following: "holy" (61); "Holy" (92); "Holy of Holies" (1); "Holy One" 5); "holy ones" (1); "holy place" (7); "most holy" (1); "saint" (1); "saints" (59); "saints" (1); "sanctuary" (2), and "who is holy" (1). (Source: New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Hebrew -- Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. I have other more exhaustive word study books, but this will suffice for now.)

What do all these languages and definitions have in common? The word or function of being "holy" translates into something or someone being "holy" or used for "holy" purposes, and that it applies both to supernatural beings and men. So we need to understand what being "holy" actually means.

For our purposes (for there are other words in Hebrew which have different meanings), we shall take the Hebrew word "qodesh" (from an unused word which means "apartness," "sacredness):"---"consecrated" (2); "consecrated thing" (1); "consecrated things" (2); "dedicated" ( this applies to dedicated gifts and things); "holies" (6); "holiness" (13); "Holiness" (1); "holy" (286); "Holy" (6); "holy ones" (1)--and this applies to:" portion" (3); "holy thing" or "things:" "most holy place" (6); "most holy things" (6); "sacred" as in "gifts" (2); "things" (3); "sacrifices" and "sacrificial" (both 1); "sanctuary" (65), "set apart," (1); "things that are most holy" (1); and "things dedicated."

So let's see how the Greeks used the word "holy." Strangely enough it is the same word used for "saint" in the New Testament, with the exception of eight other times, all of which use only two other words.

So, what is a "saint" then? A saint is someone, living or spiritually translated or already existing in that form, who is dedicated, consecrated, set apart to a holy purpose. These terms also apply to things as well.

So where have they been canonized? What made them "saints?" You need only to begin reading the introductions to many of Paul's Epistles:

To the Romans: "...among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints: Grace to you and peace... (1: 6, 7); to the 1 Corinthians: "...to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours..." (I Cor. 1:2); to the Ephesians: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus..." (Eph. 1:1); to the Philippians: "Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons"..."in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now." (Phil 1: 1 & 5); to the Colossians: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ in the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae:..." ( Col. 1: 1, 2); to the Thessalonians: "...when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed." (2 Thes: 1: 10).

The Epistles of Peter also echo Paul's teaching: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who reside as aliens, scattered ...who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His Blood.." (1 Pet. 1, 2); "Simon Peter, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a father of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ..." (2 Peter 1: 1)

I could continue, but I'm certain you've noticed five things: 1) that the apostles did not think themselves above others who believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ; 2) that they called these people "saints," 3) that belief/faith in Jesus Christ was the determining factor between saints and others; (4) that "sanctification" is through the on-going work of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life...all believers; 5) that Mary was never mentioned. (You can read the whole of the Epistles.)

So what is a "saint?" A saint is any person who has believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Scriptures (read John 3: 16, if you don't know what this is). That's it. They are considered "holy;" "consecrated" by the blood of Christ; "set apart" to the work of the gospel which God gives to all who believe.

What is that work? It differs for everyone. But the one constant is that in so doing whatever is given you to do that you try, through the help of the Holy Spirit, to do it according to the will of God and looking for your example to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who intercedes for you daily and has sat down at the right hand of God the Father. (Good News: you don't have to speak in tongues, perform miracles, or interpret tongues to be a saint!)

Please note: Mary is not a perpetual virgin. Read the gospels: Jesus had other brothers and sisters, one of whom wrote the Epistle of James and became head of the Christian church in Jerusalem. Mary is not mentioned after brief and sporadic mentions in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

A Pope is never mentioned. In fact there is a condemnation of those "who would forbid marriage." And besides our earthly parent, we are to call no man "Father," for God the Father, Who is in Heaven, is our Father.

Intercession for sins is accomplished by Jesus Christ, no other, with the one exception of the Holy Spirit who sometimes intercedes for us in prayer "with groanings too deep for words," when we are at a loss as to what or how to pray.

Men do not make "saints," nor can acts of a "saintly" nature make non-believers saints, nor believers for that matter. Men become saints through belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are "set apart" for "holy" purposes.

I've watched the near deification of the deceased John Paul II with a mixture of sadness and incredulity. A worshipper of both Jesus Christ and "the Perpetual Virgin Mary," who made over 400 saints, and who is now looked upon as a "Saint," is the same man who after being shot believed that "Mary of Fatima" saved his life. He may have been a great man; he may have been, at some level, a real follower of Jesus Christ, in which case he was already a saint, but his teachings and beliefs were so full of errors, only God can sort them out. So I do not presume to condemn him; but neither will I call upon him "to intercede" for me in Heaven.

Over a billion people in this world believe in these things. Have you never read the Bible in which you profess? All I can do is plead with you to do so. Martin Luther did and was appalled enough to separate himself from the Roman Catholic Church, even under the threat of excommunication, which in truth cannot affect the salvation of any man, woman, or child who has believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior (c.f., John 10: 27-30.) The errors of the Roman Catholic church teachings are myriad, flying in the face of the teaching of the apostles ("sent ones") and of Peter himself.

I am not asking you to believe my witness, though it is true. I'm asking for you to read the Bible (I recommend the New American Standard Version because it has the most literal translation of the original languages) and forget any additions which the Roman Catholics have included calling it "The Apocrypha," which in Greek means "hidden things." You might be interested in reading up on "Gnosticism" as well.

Then form your own opinions on the things you have been taught or read or heard.

God will bless you for it.

A Time to Be Silent, A Time to Speak

Pope John Paul II died today at 1:37 CST. Memorials, specials on this man's life and leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, debates on his place in history, and sorrow and joy combine in the aftermath of his passing.

Things must be done; cardinals must be summoned; the conclave must convene; the body must be buried.

I write a lot on this blog, and I'm certain many are offended by what I say, but it is not for me to judge this man, though man he was. He has entered Eternity, and it is time for me to be silent.

On Death And Dying

I have no idea why I've never had any fear of dying, but I haven't. I'm afraid of other things, but not Death. (And for several years, I should have been.)

Why am I writing about Death now? It's been so much in the news lately, e.g., Schiavo, the Tsunami, earthquakes, deluges, disease, and now the Pope finds himself at the door.

As an inveterate People Watcher, I've been astounded at the reactions, some of which I've explored in depth here.

Last night I watched cable news coverage of the Vatican "Death Watch." People praying for Pope John Paul II's recovery, some referring to a recovery as a "resurrection," some sorrowful, and some, taking their cue from John Paul, resting in their faith in God "serene" and looking ahead "with joy."

Grief at the loss of a loved one, while natural and understood, pertains not to the end of a person's earthly life, per se, but to the loss of being able to hold, touch, talk to that person who has moved on. The grief is not for the end of the loved one's suffering, but for our own loss of communication with that person.

Death seems especially horrible when a young person is involved. When this happens, as it has in my family, I remember Isaiah's words:

The righteous man perishes, and no one takes it to heart; and devout men are taken away, whle no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from evil. He enters into peace. Each one who walked in his upright way. -- Isaiah 57: 1-2.

Who would not wish for their loved ones to escape from all evil? It is not the manner in which I would like it to occur, but then, I am selfish and would prefer to see the faces and be able to hug those I love.

I shall leave you with one sonnet, "Death Be Not Proud," in John Donne's collection of what are known as the "Holy Sonnets."

Death be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadul, for thou are not so;

For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow

Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,

Much pleasure; then from these much more must flow,

And soonest our best men with thee do go,

Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.

Thou'rt slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,

And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;

And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well

And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?

One short sleep past, we wake eternally,

And death shall be no more: Death thou shalt die.

--Holy Sonnet X

And isn't that what Easter is all about?

Writing Journals

I just added a new blog site to my list of good blogs, "Writelife." It's written by a Canadian whom I felt a kinship with, even though I have nothing but his picture and his words to guide me.

He wrote an interesting blog on journal writing and on the DVD "Finding Neverland." Curiously Barrie always kept a journal, and I can't remember when I started writing journals, but I agree that it is a necessary outlet and "flashes-of-genius-keeper" for any writer.

I also like his idea of a real journal...the paper kind on which you write with a curiously archaic object, known as a pen. Nothing like it, really.

When I taught at the University of Oklahoma back in the Dark Ages, I became friends with a young man from France, who held dual citizenship in both that country and England. He was at OU teaching French in lieu of paying tuition. As it happens, he had to take my class (poor thing).

Most English teachers tell student to keep a journal and then hand out grades. I had a bit of a twist, because no one wants to really write personal things--the things that matter--in a journal which someone else might read or even grade. Result: Journals as assignments are useless. However, since I had been forced to write in one myself, and resented every minute of it, I decided that the students had to write in the journal every day, but that I promised I wouldn't read a word, unless they put a note on the front of their journal saying "Please Read." Everyone who kept a journal got an A.

Well, the young French teacher found it particularly cathartic. Journals are therapists, too. He found that because I didn't read it (and I never did), he could actually talk to his journal about his deepest concerns, ideas, etc. It freed him. When he told me about the drastic improvement his life had made since keeping a journal, I was not surprised.

Writing automatically objectifies the subjective. If something is really bothering you, get it on paper. It's amazing. By the act of writing it, you release it from your brain to free yourself to look at the thought from an "outsider's" Point Of View (POV). It's even more useful for evaluation if you leave it for a few days and then come back and read what you've written.

Regardless of the problem or conundrum, it's out of your head, screaming to be heard, and set down in ink. Black and white LOL. Or, if you're like me, you can write in colored inks according to your mood.

Try it, you'll like it. And while you're at it, if you can find a copy, you might want to try reading a very short wonderful book by Brenda Ueland entitled, If You Want To Write. The copy I have is from Graywolf Press, Saint Paul, MN, Second Edition 1987, so you might have to look. It's a little nugget like Strunk & White's Elements of Style.

A bit short tonight, I know, but I have to go write in my journal.

So You Want To Know Who I Am?

I have recently noticed that many people have been looking for "Pam Hawkins," and have ended up here.

To those of you who landed by mistake, thank you for visiting, and I'm sorry I'm not the Pam Hawkins you're looking for.

If I am, you can read more about me on the "About" page, or read my blogs. I am what you read...at least, most of the time.

It's easier to "google" me if you use Pamela Hawkins, Pamela K. Hawkins, or Pamela Kay Hawkins. I am everywhere. Truly sorry about that.

I am known by other names, but those are for me to know...:-).

(A little levity lightens the load, sometimes; don't you think?)

Terri Schiavo, Rest In Peace

Terri Schiavo died late last night after a long and difficult battle. She leaves behind a loving husband, Michael, to whom I express my sincere condolences and best wishes for a happy life.

My sincere sympathies to the Schindlers and to Terri's siblings. Perhaps now that Terri's battle is over, yours can also end, and you can return to picking up the pieces of your lives. I hope so.

My fear is that although Terri's struggle has at last come to an end, the impact of this tragedy will reverberate for years to come.

I truly hope that I am wrong, and that people on both sides of this traumatic issue will "extract the precious from the worthless," and that Terri's death and the controversy which raged around her will produce good and not evil results.

Michael, if you can, forget the insults and insinuations which were hurled at you by unthinking people who never knew you. You did everything you could do to honor Terri's wishes.

This Is Important, People

An end in sight? With the Schindlers who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court has once more refused to rule in the Schiavo's case, meaning the lower court rulings stand.

I have to say I am concerned about the smelly, lake bottom this furor has turned up.

This is the first time in my life when I find myself siding with Democrats. I'm a life-long Republican, as you know by now, and I'm sorry, but the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania sounded more like a Democrat than a Republican.

Since when does the federal government determine and intervene in a civil case affecting one person's life? Since when does the Congress ignore the Constitution and insist on "a de novo case," meaning go back and start over in the federal courts and ignore 15 years of litigation and medical evidence?

The rapidity and urgency of the Schiavo case nullified any possible Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the legislation. A fact that seems to escape most people, and which seems not to matter much to the rest.

It matters.

I've said things are upside down and topsy-turvy, but it's more than that. This case, which should never have been aired publicly in the first place, has blurred so many lines among the federal government's role, the federal courts and the state courts judicial areas, federal versus state's rights, medical and religious issues, that the only ones who seem to adhere to some form of sanity number very few, who put emotion aside to deal with the facts of the case, not what they wish were the facts of the case.

This case turns my world on its head. Black becomes white, and white slowly changes to black.

Spiritual "leaders" rant like lunatics (I can't name names, but you've seen them); Michael Schiavo, who has acted well during this entire circus, is slandered, vilified, and called a "murderer" for sticking by Terri for 15 years, long after she ceased to know anything. Her responses are not conscious; they are reflexes. How much easier would it have been to just walk away and let the Schindlers deal with the trauma?

But he didn't. Why? Because if he did, he knew that Terri's parents would ignore her wish that she not live this way.

I have heard Terri's mode of death termed "starving" and "dehydration," "cruel and unusual," by people who should know better. How much more do you need air to breathe? Yet no one screams when a respirator is turned off and/or IV tubes are removed.

She is not in pain. How do I know? Because I've sat and watched my grandmother, who was conscious until a brain tumor overcame her faculties, die in the same way for six long weeks after the feeding tube and water were removed. Was she fighting for her life? No, she was trying to let go of her body.

Terri cannot swallow. You want to leave her death to God? Then let Him decide when to take her. Right now, everyone in that so-called "vigil" outside the hospice is trying to interfere with God's will. Trust me, if He doesn't want her to go, He can heal her with or without any extraneous or heroic efforts.

Some people hate "Christians" for this very kind of emotional and vitriolic display. You who are really Christians, stop! You are not witnessing for Christ; you are making a mockery of it and of my beliefs by saying and doing things that are not Christian at all.

I look at this mess, and I see planted the seeds of destruction for my country.

Wake up, PEOPLE! When chaos and emotion take over, order goes out the door, and the "rule of Law" becomes nothing but a nice phrase having no meaning.

This matter boils down to much more than one woman's desire to die with dignity, without the heroic measures which keep the body alive while the spirit longs to leave. It is about who we are and what America stands for.

Everywhere basic rights, guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution of United States, are eroding. We are willing to sell our birthright, bought with the blood of countless individuals over the last 400 years, for a mess of "safeguards" and "safety measures." Beware that the Freedom which we teach and preach in other countries and which so many have fought and died for is not bargained away in bits and pieces.

If you do nothing, you have contributed to our demise and to your own.

In The Book of the Revelation to John while John was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus Christ said to the Laodicean Church:

"The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God says this: 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eyesalve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.

'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me.

'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Revelation 3: 14-22 (NASV).

Immediately before dictating the letter to Laodicea, Christ dictated a letter to the church in Philadelphia.

I personally believe that these two churches represent the two kinds of "Christianity" left on earth before the Great Tribulation begins. When Christ comes for His Church, "churches" will still be doing a brisk business with most pews filled.

To Philadelphia Jesus Christ writes: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied my Name.

'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.

'I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it any more; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which come down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Rev. 3: 7- 13 (NASV)

Notice the choice set before you. It is choice, not coercion. Even if you choose to reject this, it is by your choice that you do it.

Make no mistake: this is a choice that needs to be made now, for who knows what tonight or tomorrow may bring?

I shall leave you with one more quotation from 2 Peter 3: 3-9:

"Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

'But the present heaven and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

'But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.'"--NASV

For those of you wondering why I am talking about the "last days," and making such a big deal out of this, read Matthew 24 and following. Pay particular attention to the "Parable of the Fig Tree." Even this Spring, it is putting forth leaves.

Not Over Yet...Yes, Schiavo's Parents Do It Again

Well, there was hope for ending this saga...but now, the Schindlers have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court once again to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted.

Will nothing stop these people?

Perhaps they heard Justice Clarence Thomas's clerk on "The Abrams Report" and think they might have a chance. Here's hoping the prevailing wisdom of the Supreme Court holds firm, and they refuse to continue this madness.

Postcript to "Ripley"

In a follow-up article, "Federal Court Again Refuses to Intervene," by Ron Word, AP, March 30, 2005, 15:44 EST, Word reported yet another refusal by the 11th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals to hear any further arguments in the Schiavo case.

Word quotes Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.: "Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper... ."..."While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate dischage of duty." Amen!

Let us fervently hope that this ends this seemingly endless saga.

I must add a "Yea, for sanity in the courts!" here.

It appears that Judge Birch also took the President and members of Congress to task as well. (Huzzah!)

While giving them more credit for altruism than I would, Judge Birch said, "...it is my judgment that...the legisilative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution." (Source: see above.)

It's nice to know that my opinions on these weighty legal matters are actually held by some members of the courts. Our Founding Fathers would be proud!

Well done, judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals!

(Gee, it feels good to say that.)

Believe It or Not, Ripley Is Watching This One

Yesterday added a new chapter to the lunacy surrounding the Schiavo case: Her parents are now selling the list of donors who contributed to their fight to "keep Terri alive." His reasoning? (I'm paraphrasing): Things like this cost money. Really? I wonder who pays the bills for other patients in the same condition, or their legal fees, for that matter.

This was followed by offers of videos of the dying Terri for only $100 each, although I do not think her father instigated that one.

I'll agree with Dan Abrams of "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC last night (March 29, 2005) and say with him that these actions are "dispicable."

Makes you think that Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, in an interview on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," wasn't exaggerating about the disagreement regarding Terri's care and "final wishes," which he stated began with a falling out with Mr. Schindler about money.

And Jesse Jackson was everywhere. It's difficult to imagine what religion the man actually believes in when he seems so able to go from being Michael Jackson's spiritual advisor (Jackson is an avowed Jehovah's Witness) to advising the Shindlers, avowed Roman Catholics... .

And then today I read--oh yes--an Associated Press Ariticle by Ron Word released about 10 a.m. CST: "Court to Weigh Schiavo Emergency Motion."

In this most recent travesty of justice and assault on Terri's dignity, Word reports: "A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect her feeding tube... ."

This allowed the Schindler's to file; it did not promise to grant the hearing. According to Word's article, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' deadline for final filings had been March 26th, but..."Its one-sentence order said: 'The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'"

What possible grounds would they have now? Oh, but I left out creativity. This time the Schindlers argue "...that a federal judge in Tampa should have onsidered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law..."(and)"...that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn't consider whether there was enough 'clear and convincing' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition."

I wonder how much more evidence one needs?

Ms. Schiavo has been disconnected from life support systems for 13 days. One wonders what "life" she could be restored to, as several well-known neurologists, who have thoroughly examined Schiavo, say she lacks brainwave function and has not had any brainwave function since 2002. (I listened to a dissenting view from another neurologist who has not examined Terri say that lack of brainwave function was not the issue, while contradicting the neurologist who had examined her. I also listened to several other experts who had recently examined Terri who said the same thing as the first. But they're only experts, right? The predominance of neurologists on their side can't outweigh the diagnoses of the one or two others, who've never examined Ms. Schiavo, can it?)

People who think a miracle will happen if Terri's feeding tube and water are restored lack faith in my opinion. If a miracle is a miracle, then God doesn't need any help from technology to restore Terri. Remember Lazarus?

Please...leave this poor woman to die in peace!

I am amazed at Michael Schiavo's forebearance. I'd be livid by now. His graciousness and willingness to allow an autopsy after his wife dies and before Terri's cremation is beyond the call. And I'm thrilled he's having her cremated. With all of this "Terri is Jesus...I thirst" sacrilege, the next thing would be "harvesting" Terri's organs, which would, no doubt, then become religious relics.

All this is a media circus with hoopla outside of the hospice where, evidently forgotten by those outside, other terminally ill people are fighting for their lives or a peaceful death. Where is the extra money for them, Right-to-Lifers? Excuse me, but you are giving "Right to Life" a bad name. Conservative Christians are being ridiculed because of you. Republicans are losing the support of their base because of this idiocy.

Emotions always run high in families where a loved one is dying. But I've never seen anything as crass, self-serving, political, and money-grubbing as this sideshow.

Ripley wouldn't have believed this.

The Government, the Courts, and You

Quote of the day:

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." --Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787.

I hope everyone has caught the news lately. Fascinating stuff happening, and most of it will have great impact on our lives...if not now, then soon.

Did you read that the courts recently determined bloggers, i.e., people like me, are not to be afforded the same protections under the law that "real journalists" are afforded? That applies even if you happen to be regularly employed as one in another area of journalism. We, bloggers that is, are being forced to reveal sources that other journalists would not have to. (See Apple Computer v. Doe No. 1 et al and the following appeals.)

Don't get me wrong. Too many times journalists hide behind "unnamed" or "confidential sources" to say and report anything. However, I'm speaking here of legitimate journalistic practices as taught at say...Columbia?

So, let's assume that some bloggers are legitimate journalists following in the best ethical traditions of the profession. It would then seem that if they write like journalists, even if they happen to write what are now considered "blogs," and they act like ethical journalists, then they should be accorded the same Constitutional rights and legal protections, with their attendant legal penalties, as "working" journalists.

This, according to the courts, is not to be. Their logic seems based on a faulty foundation. All bloggers are not journalists; Keith Olbermann writes a blog; therefore, Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. Please. (I just picked Olbermann's name out of the air; I could have picked Dan Abrams or anyone else.)

I would agree that some standards of journalism should be applied to certain kinds of blogs. (There are different kinds, you know.) A diarist, for example, should not to be held to the same standards as someone writing an investigative piece for the Wall Street Journal. However, bloggers who comment on current events, politics, other topics which would normally fall within the scope of any reputable newspaper, e.g., reviews, op-ed pieces, features, gossip columns, etc., should be aware of the ethical norms for those kinds of topics and follow certain guidelines, such as: libel laws and how they apply, quoting sources accurately, and not engaging in vitriol for the fun of it.

But to paint all bloggers as non-journalists regardless of topic or writing quality smacks of paternalism. If withdrawing protections of free speech and free press from bloggers is Constitutional, (please refer to my piece on bloggers as the new journalists, much as the scandal sheets of the 18th Century referred to in William Safire's novel, The Scandalmongers), then are we also subject to the same tort laws which govern such things as libel?

It seems to me that the courts can't have it both ways: Either distinctions with public standards for any blogger who want to be accorded "journalist" status need to be decided, defined, and disseminated widely, or bloggers in general should be given the First Amendment Rights of free speech, without worrying about the freedom of the press restrictions and privileges.

Then to add to the complexity of the conundrum along comes a Pennsylvania civil case in which a newspaper journalist accurately quoting slanderous remarks of a borough councilman against another councilman and a mayor is sued, along with his paper. The lower court judge said the borough councilman owed the other two men money, but said that the paper and its reporter were not liable under a widely accepted "neutral reporting privilege" which allows members of the media to report a credible public person's defamatory remarks, as long as those remarks are conveyed neutrally and accurately. (Source: The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ), AP article, "Justices Let Stand Ruling Rejecting Journalist Privilege," March 28, 2005.)

The two allegedly aggrieved men appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which overturned the lower court's ruling. The Court stated that "no such privilege exists under U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions," and ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard..." (Same source.)

The newspaper appealed the case, now called Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Wolfe, to the U. S. Supreme Court which allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. That ruling "asserted that journalists lack constitutional protections allowing them to safely report defamatory comments made by public figures, even when the comments are described in a neutral way." (Same source.)

So as things now stand, journalists, i.e., by definition non-bloggers, in quoting the slanderous remarks by both sides of a controversy may now find themselves guilty of the defamatory statements they quoted. It is yet to be decided whether or not the standard of "actual malice" should also be applied and what that verdict will yield.

Excuse me. How are these rulings possible? If I am a reporter covering an election and report potentially slanderous claims one candidate makes against the other candidate or candidates, and I then turn around and give the other side their chance to rebut, and they do, and I report their rebuttal remarks exactly, am I then to worry about whether I am going to be sued for their slanders or even libel because I accurately reported their remarks? Preposterous, right? Not anymore.

Does anyone remember the CBS debacle concerning certain falsified documents regarding President Bush's service record? Who broke the story that the documents were false? A blogger. But now the blogger is not accorded the status of journalist, while the reporters involved in the false reporting are still considered journalists.

I'm feeling like I've been on a merry-go-round too long...a bit queasy.

The Congress takes a civil case away from the state courts, puts it into the federal system, only to have the lower courts upheld. Then we see it begin again with even less credible claims than before.

Anyone recognize the Schiavo case? And I thought it was all over, but I was wrong. More today.

My point is, if I can stop reeling long enough to sharpen it, that lines are being blurred that should not be. Definitions, duties, decisions become a gumbo of wrong-thinking by people whose responsibilities for those actions lie elsewhere.

Courts making laws, lawmakers acting like courts on no evidence but emotion, and logic and reason are out the door with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being dragged out with them.

Thomas Jefferson warned:

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."--Letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820.

People Who Give Biblical Christianity a Bad Name

I once had a wonderful English Literature Professor during my years in graduate school at the University of Oklahoma. I shall not mention his name, because he and I were great friends, and his nature would not brook puffery. I shall refer to him as The Professor.

He served, dear man, on my doctoral committee, though we often disagreed. Suffice it to say, he was a Jew, and I was then, and am now, a biblical Christian.

His subject was Charles Dickens, upon whose fiction I doted. I had written a paper on David Copperfield, in which I had found Christian symbology. He, a Freudian, disagreed, and asked me to rewrite the paper. I did. It was called, "If Not God, Then Agnes." I got an A.

Shortly after this incident, The Professor called me into his office. I sat down. He asked: "What kind of Christian are you? I don't understand you at all."

I laughed. I understood him all too well. And I replied, "I'm a Miltonian Christian. I believe in Grace."

Our talks were often and fun. I never remember his trying to convert me, and I knew it was not my job, nor my place to convert him: In my view, the "Great Commission" is not stuffing theology down someone's throat, but simply "being ready to give an answer."

I came to Christianity in my late twenties. By that time, I had been married to a minister who got his graduate degree in theology from Yale. (Women were not allowed to attend at that time.) I heard all the arguments regarding "inconsistencies," the JEDP Theory (which basically says that whoever was in power at the time of the writing of a certain book, rewrote it to fit their ideology--no "inerrant Scripture" there), and the most horrendous teaching of all: that Christianity and belief in an actual God was the best possible ethical system around, for it kept the masses in order, and so, we (the intellectuals) should continue to provide the masses with this religious crutch, which they so desperately needed.

I learned that "Isaiah" was not written by a prophet named Isaiah, but by three Isaiahs. Why? Because "the prophecies contained in the one book were too accurate to have been written by someone not living at the time." The so-called "miracles" were the products of imagination or attempts to explain something to the ignorant people around them. Jesus didn't walk on water: He walked on a sand bar. Jesus didn't rise from the dead: his disciples came and got him. (Anyone read or hear of The Passover Plot?) Of course the Roman guard stationed beside the tomb to guard it had a small problem, i.e., any one of them would be killed if they fell asleep on the job. But the disciples would have had no problem overcoming them easily, and then rolling away the stone, which had been rolled down an incline to cover the cave in which Jesus lay dead. Of course not.

But maybe after being crucified, tortured, and stabbed by a Roman Centurian to make certain He was dead before he was taken off the cross was just rigged? Surely Jesus was strong enough after all that to simply roll this gigantic bolder uphill from inside, overpower the Roman guard, and heal Himself before telling the disciples it was all just a hoax for the benefit of centuries of fools who would believe anything.

Even the most avid Atheist must see there are definite logical and logistics problems with this mode of thinking.

But that doesn't stop anyone from saying or writing the following: Genesis does not talk about literal 24-hour days, but is an imaginative story to explain the beginnings of things to an ignorant populace spanning several thousands of years. We all know evolution does a much better job...(big knowing smile here from the speaker).

My husband, now deceased, did not believe in God, but he was an ordained minister. In fact a lot of ministers, priests, rabbis I have known do not believe in any God, certainly not the God of the Bible.

All of which brings me to my points--sorry, but there are several.

I am not an idiot, unschooled, ignorant, stupid, easily deceived, or emotional. (You may argue with that later.) I also have no axe to grind, except with those people, whether genuinely deceived (they are myriad), deliberately deceptive, hypocrites, hypocrites who use the name of Christianity to enrich themselves, modern Pharisees, legalists, and some TV evangelists who, if they ever truly intended "to win people for Christ," should have gone about it quietly rather than making themselves and my faith seem ludicrous, money-grubbing, and intolerant of those who most need God's Grace, and last, but not least, those who hold themselves above the "common herd" as authorities, but who hide behind "tolerance" when asked directly what their own credo is.

False prophets abound. It is not surprising; the Bible clearly states that they will come. It also states that many false messiahs will appear, claiming to be the Christ. Cults abound in the name of Christ, leading people down a false highway to ruin and disappointment. (I could name names, but libel laws prevent me. It's difficult to prove Truth to so many who are willing to believe lies.)

So, do I have the corner on Truth? Am I smarter than everyone else? Nope. I'm just a modern day disciple, which doesn't mean I'm anything special; a disciple means a "committed learner." And I am that.

You know what I believe. If you don't, you can read my "Pam's Box Theory: the Theological Version" on this site and find out. Unlike many, I'm not afraid to state my beliefs, even if it means a drop in readership (horrors!) or worse yet, being branded a "fundamentalist."

What I do have is a job to "extract the precious from the worthless," and believe me, there's a lot of worthless out there lately. Trying to find the precious in the dungheaps is not a job for the squeamish. You have to have waders sometimes. But there is a shard of Truth hidden in much of the waste.

This is something you should know: many lies contain a shard of Truth. It's the Truth which makes them believable, so that you walk right into the muck, oblivious that you are not in an apple blossomed lane.

Shall we take a case in point? Why not?

Allison DuBois is a public figure now as well as a psychic or medium; the term is not a problem. Is what she experiences and says real? You bet it is. And it's very real for her, and it is not a fun job. But there are a few problems with what is going on with "The Medium." If we take the TV show as giving us a version of actual psychic happenings, then we see a heroic woman, fighting with unseen forces, trying to figure out why she has this "gift" and what "the purpose" is behind it. She finally decides, even though she doesn't believe in any "religion" necessarily, that it must have been given to her by a "higher power" for a reason. That reason, she soon discovers, is to work with law enforcement people to find where the bodies are buried, who did the crime, foretell events which may or may not come to pass, and she does it all for "good" purposes--to save lives, to give the dead peace, to uncover the truth.

For those of you who think I'm about to condemn her, think again. For one thing, it's not my job. For another, she's honestly doing what she thinks is right.

Deception is not easily detected. Good is used for evil purposes, which the doer never intends.

I'll give you an example from a recent episode of the "Medium" in which DuBois discovers a serial killer, but the problem was that the man she knew did the killings hadn't committed them yet. In fact, he wasn't going to kill anyone for several years. So DuBois confronts him. (I'll have to paraphrase here, since I don't have the script in front of me.) "You may fool these people, but you and I know who you are. I don't know who the fiend is or what happened to you to make you into what you are, but you are this killer. You know you think about these things all of the time. You know you do, and you will do these things. I have warned the girl you plan to kill...." It goes on. But the basic problem is this: DuBois senses that something turns this guy into a killer. It never occurs to her that she and her reputation for never being wrong could be the straw that does it. The powers of suggestion are great. He's just been told in no uncertain terms that he's going to commit these murders. Wouldn't you think about it?

So, at the very least, DuBois has set the factors in motion. Did she intend to? Of course not. Will this guy actually turn into a murderer? The chance is there, but so is free will. She's just made it harder to choose not to kill.

The more publicity, the more her "predictions" come true (Satan can and does cause these things to come to pass so her credibility will grow), the greater the chances are that this man, who's done nothing wrong yet, will, if he doesn't break the chain, become the murderer she foresaw.

The other problem with her "gift" from "a higher power" is that she doesn't seem to be able to save anyone. She knows a lot after the fact. In fact, she gets distracted by one "vision" which keeps her from actually saving an innocent.

I agree with DuBois that her power is from a "higher power." But not all "higher powers" are from God or have anything to do with Him. She admits she is not religious, but feels that her "gift" must have a reason. It does. But it's not the one she hopes for.

How do I know this? I was once an Allison DuBois. My "saving grace" was that I had my "gifts" from birth, and I knew they were terrible. I lived in terror for 27 years of my life, always believing and told by other ligitimate psychics that I was having this terror only because I didn't understand how to use my gift. I went to psychiatrists hoping to be told I was crazy. The result? A sane-as-they-come, card-carrying, lab-tested psychic. Oh joy.

I even had one minister in Connecticut ask me to conduct a seance in his sanctuary. I remember telling him, if he believed that my gift was from God, then he believed in another God than the one I'd always heard of. As it turned out, I was right.

I had the nightmares...always between 3 a.m. and 4 in the morning. I was always accurate with Tarot cards, not so much without. I couldn't walk up to someone and tell them what they were thinking or what they were going to do. But when I knew something, I knew it. Totally. Every detail clear. I knew it before it happened, and always too late to do anything about it. And I had witnesses to "visitors" from the "other side." Yes, other people could see them.

Was I excited about this gift? No. Did I try to study and perfect it, so that I could help? You bet. Did it work? No.

I became a Christian unexpectedly on a visit to Illinois. I was very wary of "evangelicals, fundamentalists, and bible-beaters." I'd been to Yale, remember? I knew the Bible. I also knew that all my prayers to "God" had gone unanswered.

So why did I become a born-again Christian? I found someone who could answer my questions and who made sense. I found out why Jesus wasn't just part of the Trinity but the Way...the ONLY way to "God the Father." And it made sense. Perfect sense. No leap of faith, which I didn't have, required. Besides, I hadn't tried that particular venue yet.

Guess what happened when I actually decided to make a decision to trust that Jesus was Who and What He said he was? Nothing. No flashes of light. No speaking in tongues.

But a week later, a head appeared (not an unusual sight for me, I'm afraid) on my bedside table at--you guessed it--about 3:15 a.m. I said, "Jesus, would you handle this; I'm really tired." I turned over and went to sleep. I didn't realize until the next morning how astounding that was--the first night in my entire life that night didn't hold terror.

I thought, hum, might be something to this. There was. The "gift" was gone. You'd think that if it had come from God, I would have still had it, wouldn't you?

Oh, I still have discernment and know when something odd is going on, but I don't have "visitors" anymore, and I don't, thank God, know the future.

I can see deception when it occurs, however. I know what Satan and his cohorts can do and what they can't. And I know that he uses "good" people to do horrible things in the name of Christ and of God.

In the Bible, 1 John in the New Testament, you will find John's warning: "You shall know them by their fruit." If they profess a faith in Jesus Christ, but they don't act like Him for a long period of time, you can probably make the assumption that they aren't Christians, or that they are, but they are "worse than non-believers" because they are turning their backs on God. It takes more energy to do that when you're a Christian than it does when you aren't, so Christians who do are worse than any non-Christian.

No one is without sin. I once saw a bumper sticker that was actually Biblically accurate: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." And that's it.

I didn't make the bad things go away; Christ did. I didn't become perfect overnight; Christ and the Holy Spirit are in the process of "perfecting" me. I don't save anyone; Jesus Christ died to save everyone (yes, even you).

How does Christianity differ from other "religions?" Christianity says salvation has been accomplished; all you have to do is accept it as a free gift from God. Salvation is DONE. Other religions always have something you must do to earn salvation. (Clue: You can't earn it.)

How does salvation work? I am saved by Grace--that means I don't get what I deserved which was hell--through believing that Jesus did what the Bible says He did. I believe it; He applies that salvation to me. Did I have a lot of faith? Heck no. Remember? It was just something I hadn't tried yet. You're not saved by some magical "gift of faith," as some would have you believe. You're saved by a choice to believe God or not.

Read the Bible for yourselves. I recommend the New American Standard Version. It's not as pretty as the King James' Version; it's not as contemporary as the New International Version, but it is the closest English translation to the original languages as you can get.

Suppose, just for a moment that God really can do ANYTHING; that He can work real MIRACLES; that He transcends Time, so He can Know the FUTURE, Past and Present, without necessarily causing it. It's sort of like my going into space and taking a picture of Earth five years from now. The picture will be true; did I cause it? No, I merely saw it. God has a Plan A...no Plan B...and all the possibilities and probabilities were taken into account before He made it, so you can't mess it up. But you do have free will. He just planned around your choices.

This weekend is Easter. For me, Easter is the most important holiday in the Christian calendar. Read 1 Corinthians 15 and you'll see why.

Happy Easter, everyone.

PS. Comments and real questions are always welcome. I had questions. Lots of them. I expected answers. I didn't get them. But if you ask me, I'll do my very best to answer you or point you to someone who can.

Terri Schiavo

Can't help it. I have to say something about this case: What are people thinking?

I believe in our legal system, faulty though it may be sometimes. This case has dragged on for more years than I've been in this city, and, although I know how difficult watching your loved one die is, how much more difficult can it be to see her suffer needlessly for years without hope of death's release?

Just so my cards are on the table: I am a Republican; I am for protecting the life of an unborn child; I am a woman, a mother, a daughter, a grandchild as well as a grandmother. And I have an informed take on this situation.

My maternal grandmother had an inoperable brain tumor. My uncle (her son) was a surgeon. My grandmother decided she wanted no heroic measures, including feeding tubes, water, etc., when her tumor progressed to a certain point, where her quality of life ceased to exist. What is quality of life? Her ability to communicate, when pain killers were so necessary that they rendered her insensible most of the time; when there was no hope of a return to "normal." I sat with my grandmother every day in her home, where she elected to die. She basically starved to death, as is the case with Schiavo. I know my grandmother felt no pain, nor did she suffer in any other way. I suffered. It was harder to watch this woman I loved die than anything I'd been through until that moment. But it was her decision.

She weighed 40 pounds when she died, six weeks after refusing all food and water--something the doctors had said was impossible. The night before she died, she sat up in bed and begged my (deceased) grandfather to come and get her. He did the next morning.

What Schiavo has gone through with the court wranglings of her misguided parents is the barbarous act here. Would you really want to live in a home, unable to communicate, your cerebrum gone, and the usual necessary indignities of that kind of life being suffered, if you could even know it, on a daily basis?

President Bush, Governor Bush, get out of this. It is none of your business. Thank God for the courts who had the great sense and humanity to deny the reinsertion of this poor woman's feeding tube.

What's the problem? Death? For some of us who know where our death will lead, we have no fear of it.

As for the unbelievable charge by her parents that Schiavo's dying will damn her to hell...my dear people, God is merciful. I suggest you look to your own souls and leave your daughter's to God.

Read John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud." Death has been conquered, and this Sunday we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ who proved it was so.

If this offends, I'm sorry. I can do no more with this blog than state my beliefs which have been proven to me to be absolutely true over more than 30 years now in the face of terrors unimaginable to most, death threats, predictions of my own impending death (highly exaggerated it would seem), and other more normal trials and tribulations which I share with most of the human race.

I am not afraid of death. I wish those who are would allow Terri the freedom of choice they would wish for themselves.

Supreme Court Rules

Have you read the Constitution of the United States lately? Specifically the section dealing with separation of powers into three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial....

Did you find anything that gave the Supreme Court the power to make law or to amend the Constitution? It does have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws and rulings by lower courts which are appealed to the Supreme Court and which that august body deems worthy of review.

During our lifetimes the nature of the Supreme Court has changed. Most of its judges do not think their responsibility is to rule on the consitutional merits of a case, but to interpret the Constitution itself. I have heard that "The Constitution is a living document," not meant to be taken solely as written, but to be made to apply to our nation and people as they grow. Surely our nation's Founders didn't mean us to take it literally? (This last is usually followed by knowing smiles or outright laughter at the absurdity of the suggestion.)

Of course, there is a provision for amending the Constitution, but then when the Supreme Court does it simply by ruling, why bother with the hassle of passing a Constitutional Amendment?

I must stand with Justice Antonin Scalia when he desented from the Court's recent ruling to prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders.

In an AP article printed in the Wall Street Journal Online (WSJ) on March 1, 2005, Justice Scalia is quoted: "The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty.'"

In another quotation from Justice Scalia's 24-page dissent, the Justice asserts: "The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards."

Nowhere do I find that particular power in the purview of the Judiciary. Yet increasingly Supreme Court rulings substantiate Scalia's assessment, particulary within the last half-century.

The Consitution of the United States may be a living document, but by misappropriating powers not given to it by the document they are sworn to defend, some members of the Supreme Court are trying their best to kill it, or at the very least to rewrite it.

I must add that global opinion and foreign laws seem to have more influence on some members of the Court than our own Constitution. I could be wrong; I certainly hope so. I remember a time when the United States of America helped set the standard for justice in the world; please don't tell me we now follow... .

Our Founders gave lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court Justices to counter such considerations as politics and outside influences. Evidently this provision no longer appears to provide the intended objectivity. Perhaps, we should amend the Constitution.

Fortunately, we don't have to. The Constitution provided for this eventuality with the ability to impeach, so we don't have to go through that messy procedure of amending. Amazing how those old, out-of-date Founders thought of these things... .

Three Justices ruled to uphold the juvenile death penalty: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor went so far as to file her own dissent. Her argument was based on the "blanket" nature of the ruling against juvenile executions. She declares, rightly so in my opinion, that each case should be handled separately, so that the maturity level of the individual defendant can be determined before passing judgment.

So when the Supreme Court itself is split in a five/four decision on such a critical issue, shouldn't the Court take another and harder look? A simple majority should not determine the validity of lower court rulings on such a crucial matter and in such sweeping terms, nor should it negate the laws of 19 States of the Union.

Make no mistake; this article does not condemn the Court for this particular ruling alone. The death penalty poses another issue entirely. But this particular ruling illustrates the foundational problem with the Supreme Court in bold strokes and primary colors.

Hubris should play no part in any Supreme Court ruling. And if taking "Supreme" to mean "greater than any other branch of the United States' Government, including its States," then someone please explain why that is not pride in its ugliest and most sinister form. (Isn't it ironic that all of judges who serve on the Supreme Court bench are deemed "Justices"?)

Four Justices still know that they serve the Consitution and the people of the United States. It seems the other five may have forgotten.

And the Oscar Went to...You're Kidding, Right?

I have a blog in the works which takes, ugh, research, which is why you haven't seen much new on this site in a while. (That could be a good thing....)

However, I feel it incumbant upon me to mention a few things in the meantime. One, if you haven't checked out Harry Webber's website www.madisonavenew.com lately, or ever, rush to do it now. Hey, this man can think, and he's funny. Hummm, Truth and Wit...dynamite combo.

Two, you really need to check out Steve Simonsen's website on left. Click above pic and WHOOSH, you're in the middle of wonderful.

Three, please notice that Jacquie Lawson is ready for St. Pat's Day, as if any of us with more than several drops of the Emerald Isle running in our gene pools aren't. Have a drink on us just by clicking.

OK, enough news: Now to the real issue...the Oscars. Truly I have had to screw my courage to more than a sticking point to tackle these usually delightful displays of silliness, glamour, and cynicism.

Let's face it, Chris Rock, Mayer, the Carson Tribute, Robin Willi