I have been bench pressing for a long time. Not quite as long as I have been squirreled away in my room, brooding and plotting my revenge against the world, but almost. Long enough that pictures from the era when I began benching are uniformly humiliating. Without question, God and/or genetics did not intend me to be a good bench presser. In fact, both intended me, I believe, to die a sickly child. But thanks to the medical knowledge of the 1970's and my general disposition (both too lazy and too stubborn; I'll die later when I feel like it and quit fucking nagging me) I lived to be a piss poor bench presser.
A natural born bencher is barrel-chested and has thick arms. The shorter and more flipper-like the arms the better; he or she should have to stretch and strain in order to masturbate. The short arms in combination with the barrel-chest provides advantageous leverage and means the weight doesn't have to go very far. I was not born barrel-chested and short armed. As a child I could turn sideways and render myself invisible. Helpful when playing hide and go seek, a distinct disadvantage for a gym rat. Like many monkeys and some apes I have long, hairy arms. When I started working out you could've shaved my arms and easily mistaken them for those of a pubescent ballerina. Long and lithe, perhaps even graceful, but not especially helpful for routinely moving large amounts of weight off one's chest for no apparent reason but the mistaken belief that this somehow translates into revenge against the world.
Rather than admit that I was not suited for the bench I chose instead to spend year after futile year trying to improve my bench press. After some six years of concerted effort I had reached the point a typical meathead might get to after about a year or so. Now I at least had the option of lying and saying "well my bench isn't that good yet, but I haven't been doing it very long." In the meantime, I had at least made progress in other areas. Long, hairy girl arms are well suited for picking things up as one doesn't even really have to bend. So I worked hard at deadlifting and despite nearly disabling myself on more than one occasion, I got pretty good at it. Unfortunately meatheads rarely, if ever, say "hey dude how much can you deadlift?" And I have yet to hear a girl ooh and ahh lasciviously over anyone's spinal erectors (calm down perverts, they're the muscles of the lower back). So I continued to labor away at the bench, with pitifully little to show for it. Ok, if the truth be told, were you to shave my arms now (and sandblast off the tattoos) you might mistake me for an adolescent little leaguer rather than a ballerina. And I had convinced myself to be content with such "progress" in the gym. Add to that a dozen or so years of failed, demoralizing relationships that sapped what was left of my virile and manly drive to show the world, and the gym was little more than a habit and the sole, remaining impediment to my becoming a slovenly barfly.
But, ohhhh boy, I went ahead and dragged my sickly ass to the gym yesterday and for no good reason at all was rewarded with what I believe to be a full blown bench press epiphany. If I'm right, in about a year my man breasts will be so big I will no longer be able to pat myself on the back. And then, you'll see, I'll make them all pay.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
sex slave rebuttal
Another piece at Slate on the sex slaves, and finally the editor of the NYTimes offers a rebuttal.
tenaciously good
"With increasing frequency I dismiss as merely respectable opinions I have long held - or thought I held - and try to discern what I have really lived by, and what others live by."
Sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. It's from Saul Bellow's Nobel lecture from 1976. The tone of the thing is such that it could have been written yesterday. He unabashedly champions some old, perhaps unfashionable, ideas about literature, art, the self, and truth. I say hurrah. Here's some more:
Sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. It's from Saul Bellow's Nobel lecture from 1976. The tone of the thing is such that it could have been written yesterday. He unabashedly champions some old, perhaps unfashionable, ideas about literature, art, the self, and truth. I say hurrah. Here's some more:
The value of literature lies in these intermittent "true impressions". A novel moves back and forth between the world of objects, of actions, of appearances, and that other world from which these "true impressions" come and which moves us to believe that the good we hang onto so tenaciously - in the face of evil, so obstinately - is no illusion.Many thanks to Smitty for bringing this to my attention.
No one who has spent years in the writing of novels can be unaware of this. The novel can't be compared to the epic, or to the monuments of poetic drama. But it is the best we can do just now. It is a sort of latter-day lean-to, a hovel in which the spirit takes shelter. A novel is balanced between a few true impressions and the multitude of false ones that make up most of what we call life. It tells us that for every human being there is a diversity of existences, that the single existence is itself an illusion in part, that these many existences signify something, tend to something, fulfill something; it promises us meaning, harmony and even justice. What Conrad said was true, art attempts to find in the universe, in matter as well as in the facts of life, what is fundamental, enduring, essential.
imaginary sex slave girlfriends
some miscellanea:
an update on the sex slave thing from the NYTimes magazine on Sunday. Apparently people have been outraged by it. Not outraged by the idea of sex slaves per se, but outraged at the author of the article, Peter Landesman. Various commentators are accusing him of making some of it up ala Stephen Glass. I will admit that the article left me angry and frustrated and wondering why the author offered no suggestions for improving this dire situation he so vividly portrays. But at no point did I wonder whether it could actually be true. Of course his numbers might be wrong, how accurately can the illegal importation of sex slaves be tracked? But even if the problem exists on a much smaller scale than this article claims, it is still hideous and reprehensible and deserving of our attention. Yet the critical response has been mostly to attack the journalistic integrity of the author. Some of the criticisms are fair and made me realize that the piece did in fact have an exploitive edge to it (especially the cover of the mag). But no one seems to want to address the larger issues raised by the article, perhaps because they are simply too depressing and disproving some of Landesman's larger, possibly unfounded, claims may serve to let us off the hook collectively. I suspect that were it an article about even a single middle class American girl being kept as a sex slave the response would be quite different ala the public fascination with Elizabeth Smart and Jon Benet Ramsey. Here's the most recent Slate column; tell me if I'm wrong.
On a more amusing note:
I bring you the Dixie Chicks With Dicks. They don't seem to have a homepage yet, but I look forward to their first tour.
Also, "imaginary girlfriends" are now all the rage on Ebay. Prices range from ten bucks to upwards of four hundred. "Blonde with hot hooters" is at $202.50 at the moment. Someone please offer me some sociological insight on this. Or, if you prefer, design your own imaginary girlfriend, or boyfriend, for our mutual amusement. I'll try, but it may make me cry.
Finally, some politics: this is an interesting little animated thing featuring the guy from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream using Oreos to explain the national budget and how it could be changed in small ways to make our country and the world better and more just. It's from the folks at true majority. Their site is worth checking out.
an update on the sex slave thing from the NYTimes magazine on Sunday. Apparently people have been outraged by it. Not outraged by the idea of sex slaves per se, but outraged at the author of the article, Peter Landesman. Various commentators are accusing him of making some of it up ala Stephen Glass. I will admit that the article left me angry and frustrated and wondering why the author offered no suggestions for improving this dire situation he so vividly portrays. But at no point did I wonder whether it could actually be true. Of course his numbers might be wrong, how accurately can the illegal importation of sex slaves be tracked? But even if the problem exists on a much smaller scale than this article claims, it is still hideous and reprehensible and deserving of our attention. Yet the critical response has been mostly to attack the journalistic integrity of the author. Some of the criticisms are fair and made me realize that the piece did in fact have an exploitive edge to it (especially the cover of the mag). But no one seems to want to address the larger issues raised by the article, perhaps because they are simply too depressing and disproving some of Landesman's larger, possibly unfounded, claims may serve to let us off the hook collectively. I suspect that were it an article about even a single middle class American girl being kept as a sex slave the response would be quite different ala the public fascination with Elizabeth Smart and Jon Benet Ramsey. Here's the most recent Slate column; tell me if I'm wrong.
On a more amusing note:
I bring you the Dixie Chicks With Dicks. They don't seem to have a homepage yet, but I look forward to their first tour.
Also, "imaginary girlfriends" are now all the rage on Ebay. Prices range from ten bucks to upwards of four hundred. "Blonde with hot hooters" is at $202.50 at the moment. Someone please offer me some sociological insight on this. Or, if you prefer, design your own imaginary girlfriend, or boyfriend, for our mutual amusement. I'll try, but it may make me cry.
Finally, some politics: this is an interesting little animated thing featuring the guy from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream using Oreos to explain the national budget and how it could be changed in small ways to make our country and the world better and more just. It's from the folks at true majority. Their site is worth checking out.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Comments
I've added a "comments" section. Feel free to use it. If you have something extensive to say, taking the Intro to Religion quiz for instance as Bunni did, then I'd suggest emailing me as there is a limit to how long the comments can be. Though I don't remember what it is. Cheers.
The Biblical anti-epic
Since I've been thinking about the subject, and Bunni helpfully referenced the very story I was thinking about, I'm going to dwell on it a bit. The subject being the figure of Abraham, and more specifically God's demand that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (or Ismail for the Islamically inclined but maybe more about that later). What follows is part of a screenplay I wrote in grad school. I've always wanted to direct a Biblical epic, or perhaps a Biblical anti-epic. The interesting thing for me being the relation between the Biblical text(s) and the films inspired by it. It seems to me the relationship between text and film is often tenuous at best, though I should admit I don't enjoy those films enough to really study them. I got to wondering what it might look like should someone try and be "faithful" to the text itself. Would it be possible to use the text as a model, to do with film, or in this case with a screenplay, what the Bible does? Now I know there are too many pitfalls in that question to even begin naming them. The underlying assumption on my part is that most folks don't read the text itself very closely. So what would happen if a (would be) screenwriter tried to do just that. After the screenplay I've included a couple excerpts from a Q&A. I'd be interested in your comments, not simply on the success or failure of the screenplay, but also on the story itself.
The screenplay: The Binding of Isaac
FADE IN:
As blackness slowly fades to the first gray light of dawn we hear the masculine
voice of:
THE NARRATOR
And it came to pass that God did tempt Abraham,
and he said "Abraham!" And Abraham replied
"Here I am."
Cut to a tight CLOSEUP shot of the dark, opaque eye of an animal. This lasts just a second
as the camera pulls back WIDER and we see the eye is that of a donkey standing patiently. The narrator continues over the shot of the donkey:
THE NARRATOR
And God said to Abraham "Take your son, your only
son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah,
and offer him there as a burnt offering on the mountain
that I will show you."
As the narrator speaks a man, ABRAHAM, walks into the scene, he is carrying a saddle. His face is weathered, his expression resolute. He is not a young man but he has a certain imposing presence; he has the look of a man who knows what he must do and will waste no time.
PANNING SLOWLY as he walks toward the donkey and begins to affix the saddle to its back.
Cut to a CLOSE shot of a log. An axe comes swinging into the shot from the top and violently cleaves the log in two.
WIDER--Abraham places the two pieces of wood on top of a small pile of chopped wood. Dissolve to:
A harsh landscape; it looks blasted by the sun which shines brightly but is beginning to hang low in the sky as the afternoon makes its way toward night. In the distance four figures and a donkey bearing a load on its back walk slowly but steadily toward the horizon. FADE TO BLACK and we hear the narrator's voice:
THE NARRATOR
On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place
far away.
Cut to a WIDE shot. Abraham stands with his back to us. In the distance is a dark mountain.
As we cut to a TIGHT shot of Abraham unpacking the mule we hear the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
And Abraham said to his young men "Stay here with
the donkey; the boy and I will go there and worship
then we will return.
As the two young men stand silently by, Abraham straps the bundle of wood to ISAAC's back. Isaac is a young man who bears a resemblance to his father Abraham but does not have the determined bearing that distinguishes his father.
Abraham attaches a long sheathed knife to his belt and takes a torch from one of the young men.
A TRACKING SHOT follows Abraham and Isaac as they walk, the mountain looming before them in the distance. As they walk, we hear the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And Abraham
replied “Here I am, my son.” Isaac said “The fire and the
wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”
The mountain rises before them larger now…it seems to block out the sun. Abraham and Isaac walk in shadow.
THE NARRATOR
Abraham replied to Isaac, “God himself will provide the
lamb for a burnt offering, my son.”
Cut to a CLOSE shot of Abraham placing the wood on a makeshift altar of large stones and rocks. Pull back for a WIDE shot of the altar, which resembles nothing so much as a funeral pyre. We can now see, to the left of the altar a figure, Isaac, laying on the ground, bound tightly with rope.
Move in to a TIGHT shot of Isaac, his eyes open wide. His arms and legs are bound to his body and he cannot move them. His head is not bound but he says nothing.
We move in to a CLOSEUP of Isaac’s eyes. The shot moves in until his eyes fill up the entire frame. Dissolve to:
ISAAC’s Point of View. Abraham stands over us, his eyes betray nothing. He bends down into the shot.
Cut to a WIDE shot of the altar. Abraham carrying Isaac’s bound form in his arms walks to the altar. He lays Isaac down on the wood. The light is dim…we cannot tell whether it is day or night.
TIGHT shot of Abraham standing over Isaac on the altar. He removes the knife from its sheath on his belt. He raises the knife high over his head ready to strike.
As we FADE TO BLACK we hear the voice of the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
But the angel of the Lord called to him from
Heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
And he replied, “Here I am.”
DISSOLVE to:
a tight CLOSEUP of the dark opaque eye of an animal. We hold this shot as the narrator continues:
THE NARRATOR
The angel said “Do not lay your hand on the
boy or do anything to him; for now I know that
you fear God, since you have not withheld your
son, your only son, from me.
The camera pulls back WIDER and we see that the eye is that of a ram trapped in a thicket. Its horns are entangled in a vine of some sort. It struggles briefly but cannot free itself.
DISSOLVE to:
A CLOSEUP of the same eye, lifeless now.
DISSOLVE to:
A TIGHT shot of the ram on the altar. The wood it lies on is on fire and the flames are beginning to engulf the ram.
THE NARRATOR
So Abraham called that place “The Lord will
Provide”: and it is said to this day, “On the
mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
Black smoke begins to billow forth from the altar.
THE NARRATOR
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a
second time from heaven and said “By myself
have I sworn, says the Lord: because you have
done this, and have not withheld your son,
your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will
make your offspring as numerous as the stars of
heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.
The flames have engulfed the ram. Its carcass is barely visible through the flames, which leap higher and higher into the dark sky.
THE NARRATOR
And your offspring shall possess the gate of
their enemies, and by your offspring shall all
the nations of the earth gain blessing for them-
selves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Fire. We can see nothing but fire.
FADE to:
A WIDE shot. The young men who were left behind are in the foreground. Abraham is approaching in the distance. He is alone.
DISSOLVE to:
A WIDE shot from above. Three small figures and a donkey walking toward the horizon in a harsh landscape. The sun shines high overhead.
FADE TO WHITE
_______________________________________________________
The Q&A
Q: The images of animals in your script brings Bunuel to mind. The burning carcass on the altar is reminiscent of the horse carcass on the piano in Un Chien Andalou, the film he made with Dali.
trick: I hadn’t thought about that, but I can see it now that you mention it. But to be honest I was not trying to reference anyone in the writing of this scene. In fact I started out thinking that I would be as faithful to the original text as I could possibly be. I wanted to see if I could think of a way to visually communicate what it is about that story that I find so compelling. Of course that scene turned out to be just the first scene in an entire screenplay but I didn’t know that when I first wrote it. I was just trying to do justice to the text, to offer a faithful translation of sorts.
Q: Would you describe your final product as a faithful translation?
trick: Well I discovered the typical problems that face any translator as well as some new ones that were unique to this specific context. You are faced with the problem of being faithful to either the letter of the text or the spirit. Or at least the spirit of the story, the moral if you will, as you may have originally been taught it. What I found was that the actual words of the text sometimes contradict and challenge our commonly held assumptions about the text. If I tried to be entirely faithful to the letter of the text I’m not sure I could have produced a coherent script.
Q: So you’re saying the Bible is a little stranger than we sometimes prefer to think?
trick: Yes. It is often seems just plain weird and sometimes a little disturbing. I think that’s why there is this desperate need to interpret it. We need to make sense of it, to force it to work in ways that we are comfortable with. But if we get carried away with this approach to the text, forcing it into our moral categories, we cheat ourselves of some of the wonder of this text. Because regardless of what we may or may not think of it theologically, it is a wonderful text. It even seems dishonest to call it “a text.” It is so intertextual, there are just so many different things going on between those covers, it’s no wonder that so many different communities could claim their roots in this text, because it is really a very diverse collection of texts.
Q: So despite your professed intentions in writing the screenplay, you are clearly not a literalist when it comes to interpretation.
trick: I don’t think anyone is. I think that’s impossible. There is no understanding that is free of interpretation. The Bible is not transparent. I think that attempts to make these claims about reading the Bible literally are usually more about authority and thinly concealed relations of power. Both authority within a community and within the text. Which parts of the text carry more weight, and which get excluded? Usually those which contradict or resist the readings we want to impose.
Q: You seem to imply that the text cannot be read without some sort of ideological framework.
trick: Well there is always a framework of some sort. Everyone occupies cultural and political locations whether we are conscious of these positions or not. I think the more conscious we are of these commitments, and they are not always commitments we choose, the more able we are to resist the power they have over us to shape and form us. But we can never escape them entirely, we can never simply encounter the text in some sort of value-free vacuum. There is always context. But there are more and less violent ways of reading the text. I definitely don’t want to imply that we have some sort of interpretive free for all working. I do think the text can resist us if we give it half a chance. So even though I knew it wasn’t entirely possible I wanted to see what would happen if I tried to be faithful to the text as it was, to try and offer a cinematic translation of the story that really paid attention to the words of the story.
Q: Let’s talk more about that. Because you could clearly argue that you made decisions that one might disagree with while pointing to the text itself as evidence. For instance, only the narrator speaks. Isaac and Abraham never speak for themselves.
trick: Yes, you’ve hit the biggest nail on the head I think. But do Abraham and Isaac really speak for themselves in the text? It would seem so, after all we’re always reading “Abraham said,” and “Isaac said,” and so on. But who is telling us this? We tend to forget about the narrator, he is the invisible character, but he is there in the text. After all someone is telling us what Abraham and Isaac said. So I tried to demonstrate that by making the only speaking character the narrator. But he speaks only when the text indicates direct speech. We have to take his word for it, just like in the text where we rely on him for everything. As a screenwriter you have to use pictures to communicate too, so the narrator has a more limited role than in the text. Or perhaps the screenwriter assumes the identity of the narrator in a certain sense by giving a visual form to the words of the text.
Q: What about character development? The text relies almost entirely on the action to provide information about the characters. Yet you have to be more descriptive in order to give the characters visual life.
trick: Well I try to keep what little description I offer tied to the actions of the characters. But there is no denying that there are choices involved. The text is not always of help. There are gaps to be filled. But I tried to be conservative. Which is easier to do on paper than on film. Casting, for instance, would be very tricky. As would set design. I tried to be appropriately vague in that regard but when it came time to shoot there would be no way to leave those ambiguities completely intact. I tried to minimize those problems by focusing on the action: saddling the donkey, chopping the wood, the walking …
Q: Placing Isaac on the altar…
trick: Yes.
Q: But we do not actually see the binding take place. Why?
trick: A very good question. This is one of the most intriguing places in the text for me. The text itself describes this in the flattest possible way. But that’s why its brilliant…it’s such a charged scene and we have nothing to go on but our imagination. How did Isaac react to being bound? Surely he knew something strange was up. Was he as trusting of Abraham as Abraham was of God? Or was he absolutely terrified? We don’t know and we have to fill in the blanks for ourselves. There are so many possibilities. If I had depicted the actual binding I would have had to immediately limit the power of it by imposing just one of those possibilities. Which is what you see in films like David and Bathsheba where we find out that Bathsheba really is a seductress. The text doesn’t let us off the hook so easily and I wanted to capture that.
Q: There is still a certain violence in the very image of Isaac bound and helpless.
trick: Sure, but I think it’s there in the text. Abraham does bind Isaac after all. Do we imagine that it is a cheerful sort of thing where everyone knows that it’s just God’s little game and everything will be ok? Play acting essentially? I personally find that a troubling reading, but I think it is still an entirely possible reading given the way I write the scene in the screenplay. There’s no way it can be entirely free of violence. You could certainly write it in such a way as to amplify the horror involved, but I don’t think I did that. Nor did I downplay that aspect of the story. It maintains a certain ambiguity that I hope is faithful to the text.
Q: Well…it has to be asked. What happens to Isaac? Why isn’t he with Abraham when he returns?
trick: I have no idea! We know he does not get sacrificed but the text does not say “they returned,” or “Abraham and Isaac returned.” It says “Abraham returned.” No mention of Isaac. This is one of those things that might get overlooked if we read casually, but when you have to try and translate, whether into another language or format, you notice these things. Are they accidental or intentional? My decision to stick with the text on this one, to be literal so to speak, is sort of a midrashic decision. It invites all sorts of speculation.
Q: One last question about your interpretive decisions. There’s clearly lots of symbolism working here…the animals, the light and shadow, the eyes. What might it mean and how do you justify it being there at all?
trick: Well, the lighting is a choice that has to be made if the story is to be filmed. The text tells us nothing. Is it night or day? What time is it? We don’t know, but how we picture the scene definitely changes depending on how we answer these questions. So I tried to answer them but I did indeed have to take some creative license in that regard. I do intend the light to work on a symbolic level, to relate to the ethical ambiguities of the story. But it’s subtle, I hope. As for the eyes, well it’s just a visual theme to pull things together and it is probably the one place where my retelling most clearly bears my own artistic stamp. The symbolism of the animals is right there in the text itself. The ram is Isaac’s effigy. They are both inescapably bound…neither can refuse the situation. The ending, the lingering shot of the fire growing more and more intense is intended to force our attention on the concept of the sacrifice. It is so foreign to us that we might otherwise tend to simply let it go by without mention. I wanted to force the issue.
The screenplay: The Binding of Isaac
FADE IN:
As blackness slowly fades to the first gray light of dawn we hear the masculine
voice of:
THE NARRATOR
And it came to pass that God did tempt Abraham,
and he said "Abraham!" And Abraham replied
"Here I am."
Cut to a tight CLOSEUP shot of the dark, opaque eye of an animal. This lasts just a second
as the camera pulls back WIDER and we see the eye is that of a donkey standing patiently. The narrator continues over the shot of the donkey:
THE NARRATOR
And God said to Abraham "Take your son, your only
son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah,
and offer him there as a burnt offering on the mountain
that I will show you."
As the narrator speaks a man, ABRAHAM, walks into the scene, he is carrying a saddle. His face is weathered, his expression resolute. He is not a young man but he has a certain imposing presence; he has the look of a man who knows what he must do and will waste no time.
PANNING SLOWLY as he walks toward the donkey and begins to affix the saddle to its back.
Cut to a CLOSE shot of a log. An axe comes swinging into the shot from the top and violently cleaves the log in two.
WIDER--Abraham places the two pieces of wood on top of a small pile of chopped wood. Dissolve to:
A harsh landscape; it looks blasted by the sun which shines brightly but is beginning to hang low in the sky as the afternoon makes its way toward night. In the distance four figures and a donkey bearing a load on its back walk slowly but steadily toward the horizon. FADE TO BLACK and we hear the narrator's voice:
THE NARRATOR
On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place
far away.
Cut to a WIDE shot. Abraham stands with his back to us. In the distance is a dark mountain.
As we cut to a TIGHT shot of Abraham unpacking the mule we hear the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
And Abraham said to his young men "Stay here with
the donkey; the boy and I will go there and worship
then we will return.
As the two young men stand silently by, Abraham straps the bundle of wood to ISAAC's back. Isaac is a young man who bears a resemblance to his father Abraham but does not have the determined bearing that distinguishes his father.
Abraham attaches a long sheathed knife to his belt and takes a torch from one of the young men.
A TRACKING SHOT follows Abraham and Isaac as they walk, the mountain looming before them in the distance. As they walk, we hear the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And Abraham
replied “Here I am, my son.” Isaac said “The fire and the
wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”
The mountain rises before them larger now…it seems to block out the sun. Abraham and Isaac walk in shadow.
THE NARRATOR
Abraham replied to Isaac, “God himself will provide the
lamb for a burnt offering, my son.”
Cut to a CLOSE shot of Abraham placing the wood on a makeshift altar of large stones and rocks. Pull back for a WIDE shot of the altar, which resembles nothing so much as a funeral pyre. We can now see, to the left of the altar a figure, Isaac, laying on the ground, bound tightly with rope.
Move in to a TIGHT shot of Isaac, his eyes open wide. His arms and legs are bound to his body and he cannot move them. His head is not bound but he says nothing.
We move in to a CLOSEUP of Isaac’s eyes. The shot moves in until his eyes fill up the entire frame. Dissolve to:
ISAAC’s Point of View. Abraham stands over us, his eyes betray nothing. He bends down into the shot.
Cut to a WIDE shot of the altar. Abraham carrying Isaac’s bound form in his arms walks to the altar. He lays Isaac down on the wood. The light is dim…we cannot tell whether it is day or night.
TIGHT shot of Abraham standing over Isaac on the altar. He removes the knife from its sheath on his belt. He raises the knife high over his head ready to strike.
As we FADE TO BLACK we hear the voice of the narrator:
THE NARRATOR
But the angel of the Lord called to him from
Heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
And he replied, “Here I am.”
DISSOLVE to:
a tight CLOSEUP of the dark opaque eye of an animal. We hold this shot as the narrator continues:
THE NARRATOR
The angel said “Do not lay your hand on the
boy or do anything to him; for now I know that
you fear God, since you have not withheld your
son, your only son, from me.
The camera pulls back WIDER and we see that the eye is that of a ram trapped in a thicket. Its horns are entangled in a vine of some sort. It struggles briefly but cannot free itself.
DISSOLVE to:
A CLOSEUP of the same eye, lifeless now.
DISSOLVE to:
A TIGHT shot of the ram on the altar. The wood it lies on is on fire and the flames are beginning to engulf the ram.
THE NARRATOR
So Abraham called that place “The Lord will
Provide”: and it is said to this day, “On the
mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
Black smoke begins to billow forth from the altar.
THE NARRATOR
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a
second time from heaven and said “By myself
have I sworn, says the Lord: because you have
done this, and have not withheld your son,
your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will
make your offspring as numerous as the stars of
heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.
The flames have engulfed the ram. Its carcass is barely visible through the flames, which leap higher and higher into the dark sky.
THE NARRATOR
And your offspring shall possess the gate of
their enemies, and by your offspring shall all
the nations of the earth gain blessing for them-
selves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Fire. We can see nothing but fire.
FADE to:
A WIDE shot. The young men who were left behind are in the foreground. Abraham is approaching in the distance. He is alone.
DISSOLVE to:
A WIDE shot from above. Three small figures and a donkey walking toward the horizon in a harsh landscape. The sun shines high overhead.
FADE TO WHITE
_______________________________________________________
The Q&A
Q: The images of animals in your script brings Bunuel to mind. The burning carcass on the altar is reminiscent of the horse carcass on the piano in Un Chien Andalou, the film he made with Dali.
trick: I hadn’t thought about that, but I can see it now that you mention it. But to be honest I was not trying to reference anyone in the writing of this scene. In fact I started out thinking that I would be as faithful to the original text as I could possibly be. I wanted to see if I could think of a way to visually communicate what it is about that story that I find so compelling. Of course that scene turned out to be just the first scene in an entire screenplay but I didn’t know that when I first wrote it. I was just trying to do justice to the text, to offer a faithful translation of sorts.
Q: Would you describe your final product as a faithful translation?
trick: Well I discovered the typical problems that face any translator as well as some new ones that were unique to this specific context. You are faced with the problem of being faithful to either the letter of the text or the spirit. Or at least the spirit of the story, the moral if you will, as you may have originally been taught it. What I found was that the actual words of the text sometimes contradict and challenge our commonly held assumptions about the text. If I tried to be entirely faithful to the letter of the text I’m not sure I could have produced a coherent script.
Q: So you’re saying the Bible is a little stranger than we sometimes prefer to think?
trick: Yes. It is often seems just plain weird and sometimes a little disturbing. I think that’s why there is this desperate need to interpret it. We need to make sense of it, to force it to work in ways that we are comfortable with. But if we get carried away with this approach to the text, forcing it into our moral categories, we cheat ourselves of some of the wonder of this text. Because regardless of what we may or may not think of it theologically, it is a wonderful text. It even seems dishonest to call it “a text.” It is so intertextual, there are just so many different things going on between those covers, it’s no wonder that so many different communities could claim their roots in this text, because it is really a very diverse collection of texts.
Q: So despite your professed intentions in writing the screenplay, you are clearly not a literalist when it comes to interpretation.
trick: I don’t think anyone is. I think that’s impossible. There is no understanding that is free of interpretation. The Bible is not transparent. I think that attempts to make these claims about reading the Bible literally are usually more about authority and thinly concealed relations of power. Both authority within a community and within the text. Which parts of the text carry more weight, and which get excluded? Usually those which contradict or resist the readings we want to impose.
Q: You seem to imply that the text cannot be read without some sort of ideological framework.
trick: Well there is always a framework of some sort. Everyone occupies cultural and political locations whether we are conscious of these positions or not. I think the more conscious we are of these commitments, and they are not always commitments we choose, the more able we are to resist the power they have over us to shape and form us. But we can never escape them entirely, we can never simply encounter the text in some sort of value-free vacuum. There is always context. But there are more and less violent ways of reading the text. I definitely don’t want to imply that we have some sort of interpretive free for all working. I do think the text can resist us if we give it half a chance. So even though I knew it wasn’t entirely possible I wanted to see what would happen if I tried to be faithful to the text as it was, to try and offer a cinematic translation of the story that really paid attention to the words of the story.
Q: Let’s talk more about that. Because you could clearly argue that you made decisions that one might disagree with while pointing to the text itself as evidence. For instance, only the narrator speaks. Isaac and Abraham never speak for themselves.
trick: Yes, you’ve hit the biggest nail on the head I think. But do Abraham and Isaac really speak for themselves in the text? It would seem so, after all we’re always reading “Abraham said,” and “Isaac said,” and so on. But who is telling us this? We tend to forget about the narrator, he is the invisible character, but he is there in the text. After all someone is telling us what Abraham and Isaac said. So I tried to demonstrate that by making the only speaking character the narrator. But he speaks only when the text indicates direct speech. We have to take his word for it, just like in the text where we rely on him for everything. As a screenwriter you have to use pictures to communicate too, so the narrator has a more limited role than in the text. Or perhaps the screenwriter assumes the identity of the narrator in a certain sense by giving a visual form to the words of the text.
Q: What about character development? The text relies almost entirely on the action to provide information about the characters. Yet you have to be more descriptive in order to give the characters visual life.
trick: Well I try to keep what little description I offer tied to the actions of the characters. But there is no denying that there are choices involved. The text is not always of help. There are gaps to be filled. But I tried to be conservative. Which is easier to do on paper than on film. Casting, for instance, would be very tricky. As would set design. I tried to be appropriately vague in that regard but when it came time to shoot there would be no way to leave those ambiguities completely intact. I tried to minimize those problems by focusing on the action: saddling the donkey, chopping the wood, the walking …
Q: Placing Isaac on the altar…
trick: Yes.
Q: But we do not actually see the binding take place. Why?
trick: A very good question. This is one of the most intriguing places in the text for me. The text itself describes this in the flattest possible way. But that’s why its brilliant…it’s such a charged scene and we have nothing to go on but our imagination. How did Isaac react to being bound? Surely he knew something strange was up. Was he as trusting of Abraham as Abraham was of God? Or was he absolutely terrified? We don’t know and we have to fill in the blanks for ourselves. There are so many possibilities. If I had depicted the actual binding I would have had to immediately limit the power of it by imposing just one of those possibilities. Which is what you see in films like David and Bathsheba where we find out that Bathsheba really is a seductress. The text doesn’t let us off the hook so easily and I wanted to capture that.
Q: There is still a certain violence in the very image of Isaac bound and helpless.
trick: Sure, but I think it’s there in the text. Abraham does bind Isaac after all. Do we imagine that it is a cheerful sort of thing where everyone knows that it’s just God’s little game and everything will be ok? Play acting essentially? I personally find that a troubling reading, but I think it is still an entirely possible reading given the way I write the scene in the screenplay. There’s no way it can be entirely free of violence. You could certainly write it in such a way as to amplify the horror involved, but I don’t think I did that. Nor did I downplay that aspect of the story. It maintains a certain ambiguity that I hope is faithful to the text.
Q: Well…it has to be asked. What happens to Isaac? Why isn’t he with Abraham when he returns?
trick: I have no idea! We know he does not get sacrificed but the text does not say “they returned,” or “Abraham and Isaac returned.” It says “Abraham returned.” No mention of Isaac. This is one of those things that might get overlooked if we read casually, but when you have to try and translate, whether into another language or format, you notice these things. Are they accidental or intentional? My decision to stick with the text on this one, to be literal so to speak, is sort of a midrashic decision. It invites all sorts of speculation.
Q: One last question about your interpretive decisions. There’s clearly lots of symbolism working here…the animals, the light and shadow, the eyes. What might it mean and how do you justify it being there at all?
trick: Well, the lighting is a choice that has to be made if the story is to be filmed. The text tells us nothing. Is it night or day? What time is it? We don’t know, but how we picture the scene definitely changes depending on how we answer these questions. So I tried to answer them but I did indeed have to take some creative license in that regard. I do intend the light to work on a symbolic level, to relate to the ethical ambiguities of the story. But it’s subtle, I hope. As for the eyes, well it’s just a visual theme to pull things together and it is probably the one place where my retelling most clearly bears my own artistic stamp. The symbolism of the animals is right there in the text itself. The ram is Isaac’s effigy. They are both inescapably bound…neither can refuse the situation. The ending, the lingering shot of the fire growing more and more intense is intended to force our attention on the concept of the sacrifice. It is so foreign to us that we might otherwise tend to simply let it go by without mention. I wanted to force the issue.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Flogging Party
Ok. Flogging Molly is coming to town on Saturday March 27th. Consider this an official announcement of a party. If anyone wants to go, let me know ASAP so we can get tickets. woohoo.
Intro to Religion Exam responses
Since brother Bunni was good enough to complete the assignment, I thought I'd share his exam with everyone. (Should he wish otherwise, he should notify me). My initial comments follow. All others are free to take the exam themselves or comment on any part of Bunni's.
For your consideration:
Q:
(Part 1) Explain how the Atlanta exorcism child murder could be interpreted as an instance of Abrahamic religion. Cite specific details from the case and relate these details to Biblical narratives using textual examples.
Then (part 2) make a case for why the murder should not in fact be construed as an illustration of Abrahamic religion.
Finally (part 3), offer your own judgement on this issue."
Part 1:
These naked parents reportedly broke their 6-year-old daughter's back in an alleged attempt to exorcise demons from the beloved child. If their intended mission was not successful, there are certain Biblical mandates that could have compelled them to (in the words of the prophet Barney Fife) "nip it in the bud." That being the sweet bud of life that was their precious child.
The first textual basis that comes to mind is from the book of Bob Dylan, chapter "Highway 61 Revisited," verse 1:
Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No"--Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
Well, Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"
Secondarily, from the New Testament of the King James Bible (summation follows citation):
Mark Chapter 9
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
11 And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
14 And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
15 And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16 And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
17 And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?
29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
In other words, professor, if the child was foaming and gnashing (verse 17) and had lost her saltiness (verse 50), the naked parents could be viewed as Abrahamically justified in "cutting off" the offending appendage (i.e. their 6-year-old daughter), lest their whole family be cast into the fire that will not be quenched where their worm won't die (verses 43-50).
Part 2:
Now, the above is New Testament, and the following is Old & New. I don't know if this would effect the relative Abrahamicity of the matter at hand, but it seems to me that the whole Biblical thing is Abrahamic. So here goes:
Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 both plainly state "Thou shalt not kill."
Again in Matthew 5:21-22, Matty not-so-casually mentions:
"21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
So, on the whole, the authors of the Bible clearly make the case for the "not killing."
Part 3 (offering my own judgement):
There is no God, so any attempt to justify atrocity through Biblical means is totally fucked up. On the other hand, the "not killing" thing is a time-proven Good Idea, in addition to being Abrahammockly (sic) mandated.
Thusly, in my judgment, these folks are a shining example that insane people should not breed.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Kudos intrepid examinee on the Highway 61 reference. I am now sitting here trying to think of other pop culture examples of that foundational Biblical tale. (That Bill Paxton flick "Frailty" is the first thing that comes to mind and does in fact resonate with the Atlatna exorcism murder in certain ways) At the risk of being branded a heretic I will admit that I like the P.J. Harvey cover of Highway 61 as much as I like the original.
As per your question regarding Abrahamicity, yes indeed the "whole Biblical thing is Abrahamic." As is all that Islam business.
Curious note that you end on there. Quite Platonic in its way what with the social engineering implications and all. I suspect you might have made a good futurist. I have always wondered if the world wouldn't be a better place if right handed people quit breeding. Perhaps I could organize a cult (we could move right into the old Nuwaubian digs) for the purposes of carrying out these experiments. Coming soon: The Trickgnosis Institute for Eugenic Research.
A++++++ for you dear matriculator
For your consideration:
Q:
(Part 1) Explain how the Atlanta exorcism child murder could be interpreted as an instance of Abrahamic religion. Cite specific details from the case and relate these details to Biblical narratives using textual examples.
Then (part 2) make a case for why the murder should not in fact be construed as an illustration of Abrahamic religion.
Finally (part 3), offer your own judgement on this issue."
Part 1:
These naked parents reportedly broke their 6-year-old daughter's back in an alleged attempt to exorcise demons from the beloved child. If their intended mission was not successful, there are certain Biblical mandates that could have compelled them to (in the words of the prophet Barney Fife) "nip it in the bud." That being the sweet bud of life that was their precious child.
The first textual basis that comes to mind is from the book of Bob Dylan, chapter "Highway 61 Revisited," verse 1:
Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No"--Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
Well, Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"
Secondarily, from the New Testament of the King James Bible (summation follows citation):
Mark Chapter 9
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
11 And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
14 And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
15 And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16 And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
17 And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?
29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
In other words, professor, if the child was foaming and gnashing (verse 17) and had lost her saltiness (verse 50), the naked parents could be viewed as Abrahamically justified in "cutting off" the offending appendage (i.e. their 6-year-old daughter), lest their whole family be cast into the fire that will not be quenched where their worm won't die (verses 43-50).
Part 2:
Now, the above is New Testament, and the following is Old & New. I don't know if this would effect the relative Abrahamicity of the matter at hand, but it seems to me that the whole Biblical thing is Abrahamic. So here goes:
Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 both plainly state "Thou shalt not kill."
Again in Matthew 5:21-22, Matty not-so-casually mentions:
"21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
So, on the whole, the authors of the Bible clearly make the case for the "not killing."
Part 3 (offering my own judgement):
There is no God, so any attempt to justify atrocity through Biblical means is totally fucked up. On the other hand, the "not killing" thing is a time-proven Good Idea, in addition to being Abrahammockly (sic) mandated.
Thusly, in my judgment, these folks are a shining example that insane people should not breed.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Kudos intrepid examinee on the Highway 61 reference. I am now sitting here trying to think of other pop culture examples of that foundational Biblical tale. (That Bill Paxton flick "Frailty" is the first thing that comes to mind and does in fact resonate with the Atlatna exorcism murder in certain ways) At the risk of being branded a heretic I will admit that I like the P.J. Harvey cover of Highway 61 as much as I like the original.
As per your question regarding Abrahamicity, yes indeed the "whole Biblical thing is Abrahamic." As is all that Islam business.
Curious note that you end on there. Quite Platonic in its way what with the social engineering implications and all. I suspect you might have made a good futurist. I have always wondered if the world wouldn't be a better place if right handed people quit breeding. Perhaps I could organize a cult (we could move right into the old Nuwaubian digs) for the purposes of carrying out these experiments. Coming soon: The Trickgnosis Institute for Eugenic Research.
A++++++ for you dear matriculator
Sherlock Homo
An interesting little piece on the sexuality of Sherlock Holmes. Probably gay, but in practice celibate. The book being reviewed (sort of) looks worthwhile, but what's most interesting in this article is the suggestion that 19th century literature was full of clear cultural markers of sexuality that we can no longer spot. This of course is nothing radical for anyone with any sort of litcrit inclinations. But the idea that certain dimensions of a text can be lost quickly while the text is still (seemingly) perfectly intelligible...that's intriguing. Because it hints at just how much we must inevitably miss in every imaginable context. A dreary sunday in the library adrift in the palimpsest. Someone come soon and ask me a stupid question.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
happy happy joy joy part 3...
let's add the atlanta "exorcism" child murder to the day's festivities. this is an excerpt from the most recent ajc story:
Christopher Carey, 29, and Valerie Carey, 27, both are
charged with murdering that daughter, Quimani, 6,
during an act that family members told police was
aimed at ridding her body of demons.
Police discovered the girl's body early Monday at the
Savannah Suites motel in downtown Atlanta, hours after
the mother and father were spotted, along with their
two other children, a 2-year-old boy and 7-year-old
girl, walking nude in near-freezing cold down Piedmont
Avenue.
When police attempted to stop the couple on the
street, they simply kept walking. The couple said an
officer who approached them did not exist and that God
had commanded them to walk in the nude, according to a
police report.
Both resisted arrest, punching and kicking at the
officers, and, once subdued, refused to give
information about themselves, police said. "Instead
they just constantly stated the words 'love' and
'Michael Jackson,' " the report said.
An Atlanta police spokesman, Sgt. John Quigley, said
he had no explanation for the parents' behavior.
Although police are skeptical about the family's story
concerning an exorcismlike ritual in which the girl
was strangled, stabbed and beaten, Quigley said, "In
their minds there's some religious connection."
The girl's body was found on the motel floor,
partially covered. Pages had been ripped from a Bible
and placed on her body.
Police said the two other children may have been
involved in some kind of defiling of the girl's dead
body. Both were placed with the state Division of
Family and Children Services.
I can only wonder how it is that Michael Jackson figured into their thinking. Here's the "Intro to Religion" exam question:
"Explain how the Atlanta exorcism child murder could be interpreted as an instance of Abrahamic religion. Cite specific details from the case and relate these details to Biblical narratives using textual examples. Then make a case for why the murder should not in fact be construed as an illustration of Abrahamic religion. Finally, offer your own judgement on this issue."
Go ahead--I'm an easy grader.
Combine the exorcism murder with the Nuwaubian child molestation trial and we have had a week in Georgia that even Flannery O'Connor could not have imagined. Though I suspect you could argue that the particular religious worldview of her work presages this kind of thing.
I think one could get a good documentary out of this. "A week in the life of Georgia" sort of film that would follow both the murder and the molestation trial, cutting back and forth between them. I think you'd have to take your cue from Errol Morris and avoid drawing explicit connections that let the viewer know how they should be reacting, but instead let the logic of the thing unfold organically. If you don't know Errol Morris, you ought to check him out and I'd suggest starting with the film *Mr. Death*, though others would recommend other films first. His website is worth a look too.
Christopher Carey, 29, and Valerie Carey, 27, both are
charged with murdering that daughter, Quimani, 6,
during an act that family members told police was
aimed at ridding her body of demons.
Police discovered the girl's body early Monday at the
Savannah Suites motel in downtown Atlanta, hours after
the mother and father were spotted, along with their
two other children, a 2-year-old boy and 7-year-old
girl, walking nude in near-freezing cold down Piedmont
Avenue.
When police attempted to stop the couple on the
street, they simply kept walking. The couple said an
officer who approached them did not exist and that God
had commanded them to walk in the nude, according to a
police report.
Both resisted arrest, punching and kicking at the
officers, and, once subdued, refused to give
information about themselves, police said. "Instead
they just constantly stated the words 'love' and
'Michael Jackson,' " the report said.
An Atlanta police spokesman, Sgt. John Quigley, said
he had no explanation for the parents' behavior.
Although police are skeptical about the family's story
concerning an exorcismlike ritual in which the girl
was strangled, stabbed and beaten, Quigley said, "In
their minds there's some religious connection."
The girl's body was found on the motel floor,
partially covered. Pages had been ripped from a Bible
and placed on her body.
Police said the two other children may have been
involved in some kind of defiling of the girl's dead
body. Both were placed with the state Division of
Family and Children Services.
I can only wonder how it is that Michael Jackson figured into their thinking. Here's the "Intro to Religion" exam question:
"Explain how the Atlanta exorcism child murder could be interpreted as an instance of Abrahamic religion. Cite specific details from the case and relate these details to Biblical narratives using textual examples. Then make a case for why the murder should not in fact be construed as an illustration of Abrahamic religion. Finally, offer your own judgement on this issue."
Go ahead--I'm an easy grader.
Combine the exorcism murder with the Nuwaubian child molestation trial and we have had a week in Georgia that even Flannery O'Connor could not have imagined. Though I suspect you could argue that the particular religious worldview of her work presages this kind of thing.
I think one could get a good documentary out of this. "A week in the life of Georgia" sort of film that would follow both the murder and the molestation trial, cutting back and forth between them. I think you'd have to take your cue from Errol Morris and avoid drawing explicit connections that let the viewer know how they should be reacting, but instead let the logic of the thing unfold organically. If you don't know Errol Morris, you ought to check him out and I'd suggest starting with the film *Mr. Death*, though others would recommend other films first. His website is worth a look too.
joy to the world
well there's finally a verdict in the York/Nuwaubian Moor trial. York was convicted of child molestation and racketeering. York is without question one of the most fascinating American figures of the last fifty years. It won't be long before someone writes a book about him; I'd guess it would be some sort of journalistic attempt at biography, but eventually it will be followed by something academic.
here's the ajc story on the verdict:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/24york.html
And if sustained and widespread child molestation isn't depressing enough, the NYTimes Magazine this week features a long piece on the importation of sex slaves into America. These are women, actually they are usually children, in the third world either lured here with promises of jobs or simply kidnapped who then find themselves in forced captivity in various American cities (Atlanta is mentioned) where they are rented out to men by their captors. Reading this made me ashamed to be a human being, but I suggest reading it nonetheless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html
(The NYT site requires free registration)
here's the ajc story on the verdict:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/24york.html
And if sustained and widespread child molestation isn't depressing enough, the NYTimes Magazine this week features a long piece on the importation of sex slaves into America. These are women, actually they are usually children, in the third world either lured here with promises of jobs or simply kidnapped who then find themselves in forced captivity in various American cities (Atlanta is mentioned) where they are rented out to men by their captors. Reading this made me ashamed to be a human being, but I suggest reading it nonetheless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html
(The NYT site requires free registration)
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
oy vey...
I know for a fact that some of you could benefit from this. Not sure if it works for goyishe porn aficionados, but it's worth a shot.
Rabbi offers prayer for Web porn surfers
JERUSALEM, Israel (Reuters) --An Israeli rabbi has composed a prayer to help devout Jews overcome guilt after visiting porn sites while browsing the Internet.
"Please God, help me cleanse the computer of viruses and evil photographs that disturb and ruin my work ..., so that I shall be able to cleanse myself," reads the benediction by Shlomo Eliahu, chief rabbi in the northern town of Safed.
Eliahu, quoted by Israel's largest daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, said he had responded to a deluge of queries from Orthodox Jews worried that the lure of Internet sex sites was putting family relationships at risk.
The rabbi recommends that Jews recite the prayer when they log on to the Internet or even program it to flash up on their computer screens so they are spiritually covered whether they enter a porn site intentionally or by mistake.
Rabbi offers prayer for Web porn surfers
JERUSALEM, Israel (Reuters) --An Israeli rabbi has composed a prayer to help devout Jews overcome guilt after visiting porn sites while browsing the Internet.
"Please God, help me cleanse the computer of viruses and evil photographs that disturb and ruin my work ..., so that I shall be able to cleanse myself," reads the benediction by Shlomo Eliahu, chief rabbi in the northern town of Safed.
Eliahu, quoted by Israel's largest daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, said he had responded to a deluge of queries from Orthodox Jews worried that the lure of Internet sex sites was putting family relationships at risk.
The rabbi recommends that Jews recite the prayer when they log on to the Internet or even program it to flash up on their computer screens so they are spiritually covered whether they enter a porn site intentionally or by mistake.
Monday, January 19, 2004
thanks
Ok...straight to the chase:
may I write your eulogy? It need not be "the" eulogy, merely "a" eulogy, but if you are reading this you are someone I care enough about, yes you, that's right, to want to have my say at such an auspicious moment. Don't get all kind of crazy ideas, it is a simple question. And yes...ok, fine, I've had a lot to drink. And yes, I'm a seriously flawed bastard, but I was paying attention even when you think I wasn't. And I still think the world of you. You are free to say no, with the absolute guarantee of no hard feelings. This trust is what makes us good pals and I know that each of us may know things that the other doesn't want broadcast, even (especially?) in the strange space (public?private?) of a funeral. I realize this is quite a request, and a far step removed from a friendster testimonial, but jesus, sometimes you're the only thing that keeps me plugging along. I've said enough and even when I am stone cold sober I'll tell you that I meant every word of this.
may I write your eulogy? It need not be "the" eulogy, merely "a" eulogy, but if you are reading this you are someone I care enough about, yes you, that's right, to want to have my say at such an auspicious moment. Don't get all kind of crazy ideas, it is a simple question. And yes...ok, fine, I've had a lot to drink. And yes, I'm a seriously flawed bastard, but I was paying attention even when you think I wasn't. And I still think the world of you. You are free to say no, with the absolute guarantee of no hard feelings. This trust is what makes us good pals and I know that each of us may know things that the other doesn't want broadcast, even (especially?) in the strange space (public?private?) of a funeral. I realize this is quite a request, and a far step removed from a friendster testimonial, but jesus, sometimes you're the only thing that keeps me plugging along. I've said enough and even when I am stone cold sober I'll tell you that I meant every word of this.
Saturday, January 17, 2004
Pokemon versus Islam
well...I'm glad this is finally settled.
http://www.cesnur.org/2004/pokemon_01.htm
Shaykh al-Qaradawi Joins Saudi War Against the Pokemon
In 2001, Saudi Arabia banned the Pokemon throughout the Kingdom. Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an authoritative cleric close to the Fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, well-known for his lectures on al-Jazeera and for his participation in inter-religious dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, has now joined the fight with a fatwa dated December 30, 2003, whose translation follows.
Saeedah - Malaysia Title Pokemon Games
Question As-Salamu `alaykum! Please I would like to know the stance of Islam on the children's cartoon known as "Pokemon" which has sparked off frenzied controversy, to the extent that it has been banned by the Saudi government. Some people misconstrue the word "Pokemon" as implying polytheism, while others say that it is Latin in origin, referring to certain animals. Please kindly enlighten us on this issue.
Date 30/Dec/2003
Mufti Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
Answer Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear sister in Islam, thanks a lot for your question which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to people of knowledge to get themselves well-acquainted with the teachings of Islam as well as all aspects of life.
In response to your question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
"Pokemon is a cartoon film series, a Japanese production and specially made for kids. It has recently gained a wide acclaim throughout the world, including the Arab world where most of the kids are fascinated with it. Also, it has been translated into Arabic and articulately presented in classical Arabic: this is one of its positive aspects. Moreover, this cartoon is devised in a form of game, which necessarily means that there will be winners and losers.
However, recently, it has caused an uproar and fiery debate as to its legality in the Islamic point of view, and I personally have been bombarded with questions from here and there, especially from parents whose main concern is to give their children a very pure Islamic upbringing.
As for giving a fatwa on such a sensitive issue, it is incumbent upon the mufti to first of all have a clear vision on a given issue before he can utter a word as to its legality. What I mean is that, before condemning an act or anything as unlawful or sanctioning it as lawful, one has a duty to have first hand awareness of it, know its nature and all that it relates to. In doing so, it should be set aside from any unsubstantiated information, which may, in one way or the other, be somehow prejudicial to the whole issue. The fatwa to be given in such case must rest on a cogent and convincing proof, and when it comes to a cartoon series like this, we have to consult people of more experience and expertise among believers, males and females, as Allah says: 'None can Inform you like Him Who is Aware.' (Fatir: 14) And He also says: 'Ask any one informed concerning Him!' (Al-Furqan: 59) He, further, says: 'If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message.' (An-Nahl: 43)
Upon consulting these people, who have clear information on this cartoon, watched it, and digested all its contents, we came to the conclusion that the cartoon contains some items that call for its urgent ban and condemnation as being unfit for our children's taste, especially at this precious age where they become wild about everything. They need special attention, and this is pursuant to the Prophet's words: 'All of you are guardians, and all of you will be questioned as regards things under your guard.' (Reported by Ibn `Umar, and it is an agreed-upon hadith), and Almighty Allah says in this regard: 'O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones.' (At-Tahreem: 6)
Basis of the unlawfulness of Pokemon:
1- The cartoon contains items that run counter to the Muslim's creed, as it indirectly tries to give support to the controversial Darwin's theory of evolution, which indicates that every living species undergoes a gradual development, in the sense that the existing species produces new ones through adaptation to new surroundings. According to this theory, man, before reaching his present form, has undergone a series of evolutionary changes, from simpler forms up to the stages of being in the form of an ape, deemed to be closely related to man. This cartoon tries to enhance this theory, by instilling in children's minds, Darwin's idea on the gradual development of characteristics of insects.
2- It distorts the pure minds of children by presenting to them things that have no basis in human reasoning, and that are just the product of the authors' imagination, totally opposed to Almighty Allah's Scheme regarding nature. It diverts the child's attention from his surrounding nature by presenting fictitious animals to him. This is totally against Allah's Order mentioned in the following verse: 'Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made?' (Al-Ghaashiyya: 17)
The camel is mentioned in this verse for it is the animal common in the Arab world, and, thus, easy to be understood by people living in the region. So the best thing for us is to inculcate in our children's full awareness what exists in their surroundings.
3- The cartoon poses a great risk to the child's mental development and his conduct, for it presents images full of action and violence, trying to make him believe that life is always a scene of battles where survival is for the fittest: another of Darwin's dogma.
No doubt, all of us have seen the negative effects of horror movies, which have posed as a disadvantage to most Western countries. It is no wonder that serial killings take place on a daily basis among children at school.
4- Pokemon is also a game supporting gambling which is totally forbidden in Islam, as it is considered part of Satan's abomination.
The cartoon game involves playing with cards, which are sometimes purchased at high prices. A competition exists between the winning card and the losing cards; this is governed with rules known to those who play this game. In the course of this game the possessor of a winning card (Joker) has an upper hand in totally subduing his counterpart, who is left with no option but to comply with unfair rules. It completely resembles the old practices of pre-Islamic era; of course they have been rendered forbidden, thanks to the just rules of Islam.
5- This game 'Pokemon' also contains some signs that have their meanings and known to their proponents, like 'The Hexa Star', which has something to do with the Zionists and Masons, and it has become an emblem for the cancerous and usurping state known as Israel. There are other signs, also like 'The Triangles', which relate to the Masons, as well as other symbols of atheism and the Japanese religion. All these signs and symbols have many side effects on our children in the long run.
Given all these facts, I consider that this cartoon game or movie is forbidden, as this prohibition will save the intellect and conduct of our children being jeopardized, and allow us to redirect and guide rightly to spend their money in a better way.
As for some words which people claim that the program contains, like a statement 'I'm a Jew' or 'Be a Jew', and so on, this still remains controversial, as some Japanese have denied that, so we cannot make any judgment on something as controversial as this.
What we Muslims should do is produce our own materials that portray our creed, ideology, heritage and civilization; all hands should be on deck in accomplishing this noble task of producing healthy and good games and media for our children. In fact, we have to admit that a lot have been done in this area, and most of them have been translated into classical Arabic, but still we need to upgrade it in order to preserve the minds and manners of our children.
May Almighty Allah help us!"
http://www.cesnur.org/2004/pokemon_01.htm
Shaykh al-Qaradawi Joins Saudi War Against the Pokemon
In 2001, Saudi Arabia banned the Pokemon throughout the Kingdom. Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an authoritative cleric close to the Fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, well-known for his lectures on al-Jazeera and for his participation in inter-religious dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, has now joined the fight with a fatwa dated December 30, 2003, whose translation follows.
Saeedah - Malaysia Title Pokemon Games
Question As-Salamu `alaykum! Please I would like to know the stance of Islam on the children's cartoon known as "Pokemon" which has sparked off frenzied controversy, to the extent that it has been banned by the Saudi government. Some people misconstrue the word "Pokemon" as implying polytheism, while others say that it is Latin in origin, referring to certain animals. Please kindly enlighten us on this issue.
Date 30/Dec/2003
Mufti Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
Answer Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear sister in Islam, thanks a lot for your question which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to people of knowledge to get themselves well-acquainted with the teachings of Islam as well as all aspects of life.
In response to your question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
"Pokemon is a cartoon film series, a Japanese production and specially made for kids. It has recently gained a wide acclaim throughout the world, including the Arab world where most of the kids are fascinated with it. Also, it has been translated into Arabic and articulately presented in classical Arabic: this is one of its positive aspects. Moreover, this cartoon is devised in a form of game, which necessarily means that there will be winners and losers.
However, recently, it has caused an uproar and fiery debate as to its legality in the Islamic point of view, and I personally have been bombarded with questions from here and there, especially from parents whose main concern is to give their children a very pure Islamic upbringing.
As for giving a fatwa on such a sensitive issue, it is incumbent upon the mufti to first of all have a clear vision on a given issue before he can utter a word as to its legality. What I mean is that, before condemning an act or anything as unlawful or sanctioning it as lawful, one has a duty to have first hand awareness of it, know its nature and all that it relates to. In doing so, it should be set aside from any unsubstantiated information, which may, in one way or the other, be somehow prejudicial to the whole issue. The fatwa to be given in such case must rest on a cogent and convincing proof, and when it comes to a cartoon series like this, we have to consult people of more experience and expertise among believers, males and females, as Allah says: 'None can Inform you like Him Who is Aware.' (Fatir: 14) And He also says: 'Ask any one informed concerning Him!' (Al-Furqan: 59) He, further, says: 'If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message.' (An-Nahl: 43)
Upon consulting these people, who have clear information on this cartoon, watched it, and digested all its contents, we came to the conclusion that the cartoon contains some items that call for its urgent ban and condemnation as being unfit for our children's taste, especially at this precious age where they become wild about everything. They need special attention, and this is pursuant to the Prophet's words: 'All of you are guardians, and all of you will be questioned as regards things under your guard.' (Reported by Ibn `Umar, and it is an agreed-upon hadith), and Almighty Allah says in this regard: 'O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones.' (At-Tahreem: 6)
Basis of the unlawfulness of Pokemon:
1- The cartoon contains items that run counter to the Muslim's creed, as it indirectly tries to give support to the controversial Darwin's theory of evolution, which indicates that every living species undergoes a gradual development, in the sense that the existing species produces new ones through adaptation to new surroundings. According to this theory, man, before reaching his present form, has undergone a series of evolutionary changes, from simpler forms up to the stages of being in the form of an ape, deemed to be closely related to man. This cartoon tries to enhance this theory, by instilling in children's minds, Darwin's idea on the gradual development of characteristics of insects.
2- It distorts the pure minds of children by presenting to them things that have no basis in human reasoning, and that are just the product of the authors' imagination, totally opposed to Almighty Allah's Scheme regarding nature. It diverts the child's attention from his surrounding nature by presenting fictitious animals to him. This is totally against Allah's Order mentioned in the following verse: 'Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made?' (Al-Ghaashiyya: 17)
The camel is mentioned in this verse for it is the animal common in the Arab world, and, thus, easy to be understood by people living in the region. So the best thing for us is to inculcate in our children's full awareness what exists in their surroundings.
3- The cartoon poses a great risk to the child's mental development and his conduct, for it presents images full of action and violence, trying to make him believe that life is always a scene of battles where survival is for the fittest: another of Darwin's dogma.
No doubt, all of us have seen the negative effects of horror movies, which have posed as a disadvantage to most Western countries. It is no wonder that serial killings take place on a daily basis among children at school.
4- Pokemon is also a game supporting gambling which is totally forbidden in Islam, as it is considered part of Satan's abomination.
The cartoon game involves playing with cards, which are sometimes purchased at high prices. A competition exists between the winning card and the losing cards; this is governed with rules known to those who play this game. In the course of this game the possessor of a winning card (Joker) has an upper hand in totally subduing his counterpart, who is left with no option but to comply with unfair rules. It completely resembles the old practices of pre-Islamic era; of course they have been rendered forbidden, thanks to the just rules of Islam.
5- This game 'Pokemon' also contains some signs that have their meanings and known to their proponents, like 'The Hexa Star', which has something to do with the Zionists and Masons, and it has become an emblem for the cancerous and usurping state known as Israel. There are other signs, also like 'The Triangles', which relate to the Masons, as well as other symbols of atheism and the Japanese religion. All these signs and symbols have many side effects on our children in the long run.
Given all these facts, I consider that this cartoon game or movie is forbidden, as this prohibition will save the intellect and conduct of our children being jeopardized, and allow us to redirect and guide rightly to spend their money in a better way.
As for some words which people claim that the program contains, like a statement 'I'm a Jew' or 'Be a Jew', and so on, this still remains controversial, as some Japanese have denied that, so we cannot make any judgment on something as controversial as this.
What we Muslims should do is produce our own materials that portray our creed, ideology, heritage and civilization; all hands should be on deck in accomplishing this noble task of producing healthy and good games and media for our children. In fact, we have to admit that a lot have been done in this area, and most of them have been translated into classical Arabic, but still we need to upgrade it in order to preserve the minds and manners of our children.
May Almighty Allah help us!"
Friday, January 16, 2004
send me off
How's that "Tango till they're sore" song go? I'd tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past...
If I were able to make some sort of top ten worst days of my life list, the last 24 hrs. would definitely make it. It was bad enough after the events (disastrous,no try again, humiliating, yes but there are more apt terms I think, give me a minute) of last nights liquor workout, or more specifically the events which followed. Which I'm not going to divulge right now, suffice it to say that it all went downhill in a hurry after the young lady did the "topless shot." So I woke up today feeling mighty low and then things got a whole lot worse.
It's always a challenge to find the good in those failures that change the direction of your life. I try to imagine unforeseen possibilities and the potential to pursue things I could not have otherwise. I'm having a hard time believing myself at the moment.
so send me off to bed forever more...
If I were able to make some sort of top ten worst days of my life list, the last 24 hrs. would definitely make it. It was bad enough after the events (disastrous,no try again, humiliating, yes but there are more apt terms I think, give me a minute) of last nights liquor workout, or more specifically the events which followed. Which I'm not going to divulge right now, suffice it to say that it all went downhill in a hurry after the young lady did the "topless shot." So I woke up today feeling mighty low and then things got a whole lot worse.
It's always a challenge to find the good in those failures that change the direction of your life. I try to imagine unforeseen possibilities and the potential to pursue things I could not have otherwise. I'm having a hard time believing myself at the moment.
so send me off to bed forever more...
Thursday, January 15, 2004
I'm a going fishing too
This is my favorite song of the moment. It's called "Fishing Blues" by Henry "Ragtime Texas" Thomas. It was recorded in 1928 and is on volume 3B of Harry Smith's *Anthology of American Folk Music* (which if you're not already familiar with you oughta be). The words to Fishing Blues:
Went up the hill about 12 o'clock
Reach right back and got me a pole
Went to the hardware got me a hook
Thread that line right on that hook
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Looked down the river about 1 o'clock
Spied a catfish swimming around
I got so hungry, didn't know what to do
I'm a-gonna get me a catfish too
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Put on the skillet, never mind your lid
Mama gonna cook 'em with the short'ning bread
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Here's a note on Thomas from the Anthology home page:
"Henry "Ragtime Texas" Thomas (1874-1950s?) was middle aged when he recorded for Vocalion Records between 1927 and 1929. His musical style was so unique that Thomas has continued to be intriguing to modern listeners. Because of his age, his recordings mark one of the few examples of forms of archaic 19th Century African-American music to make it to disk. A blues singer and songster, one of the more impressive facets of his playing was his use of the quills (a form of pan-pipe made from cane). The quill solos along with his backup guitar gave his songs an other-worldly quality.
Thomas himself was a rather shadowy character. He was born and raised in the Big Sandy area of Texas. He played the streets of Dallas and various country dances. Interviews with living relatives in later years paint the picture of a hobo and a wanderer who was often able to travel by train as entertainment for the other passengers (Mac McCormick in the notes to Yazoo 1080/1). Folklorist McCormick quite likely had a chance meeting with Thomas on the streets of Houston in 1949 and described him as a big man, perhaps 6"3" dressed as a hobo (McCormick in the notes to Herwin 209). People occasionally claimed to have seen someone who might have been Ragtime Thomas. It is not known when he died but if McCormick is correct we know he at least was still alive at the end of the 1940s."
Went up the hill about 12 o'clock
Reach right back and got me a pole
Went to the hardware got me a hook
Thread that line right on that hook
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Looked down the river about 1 o'clock
Spied a catfish swimming around
I got so hungry, didn't know what to do
I'm a-gonna get me a catfish too
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Put on the skillet, never mind your lid
Mama gonna cook 'em with the short'ning bread
Yeah, you been fishing all the time
I'm a-going fishing too
I bet your life, your loving wife
Catch more fish than you
Any fish bite, you got good bait
Here's a little something I would like to relate
Any fish bite, you got good bait
I'm a-going fishing, yes, I'm going fishing, I'm a-going fishing too
Here's a note on Thomas from the Anthology home page:
"Henry "Ragtime Texas" Thomas (1874-1950s?) was middle aged when he recorded for Vocalion Records between 1927 and 1929. His musical style was so unique that Thomas has continued to be intriguing to modern listeners. Because of his age, his recordings mark one of the few examples of forms of archaic 19th Century African-American music to make it to disk. A blues singer and songster, one of the more impressive facets of his playing was his use of the quills (a form of pan-pipe made from cane). The quill solos along with his backup guitar gave his songs an other-worldly quality.
Thomas himself was a rather shadowy character. He was born and raised in the Big Sandy area of Texas. He played the streets of Dallas and various country dances. Interviews with living relatives in later years paint the picture of a hobo and a wanderer who was often able to travel by train as entertainment for the other passengers (Mac McCormick in the notes to Yazoo 1080/1). Folklorist McCormick quite likely had a chance meeting with Thomas on the streets of Houston in 1949 and described him as a big man, perhaps 6"3" dressed as a hobo (McCormick in the notes to Herwin 209). People occasionally claimed to have seen someone who might have been Ragtime Thomas. It is not known when he died but if McCormick is correct we know he at least was still alive at the end of the 1940s."
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The Art of Transparent Public Speaking
Yesterday was the first day of the semester. A new class and a new group of students awaiting me. I was five minutes late because I had it in my head that the class started at 1:15. I'm not sure why; I knew the class was actually from 1-2:15. I looked at my watch and thought "hmmm...it's almost five after I guess I'll go over early and meet some of them as they come in." Then the realization that I was in fact late struck me. Thankfully I was close by.
I introduced myself, had everyone introduce themselves, and went over the syllabus. I sort of wish I'd thought of something clever, some amusing activity or something, to start the class with to really hook em. Make them think this guy is different, maybe I'll like this class. One of my grad school profs, Brian Mahan used to do a free association word game thing. He could pull it off, but if it failed it would really fail miserably I think. I generally try to avoid anything too cutesy in teaching. As we were going over the syllabus one of the students asked if we would be watching any films or going on any field trips. I responded with a small diatribe about being against using films in a class, that it was lazy pedagogy and nobody really benefitted because watching movies is such a passive activity. I went on to stress my emphasis, I may have called it old school (oy vey), on reading and discussion.
I also harped at great length on the need to read carefully and actively and how the effort that they put into the reading would dictate their success in this course and the success of the course itself. I repeated the theme often enough that they must all have gotten the message. Whether that will translate into their working to develop good reading habits remains to be seen. I did promise them that if they worked hard to develop the habits I was going to spend the semester trying to inculcate, that they would not only benefit from the class, but would be better students in all their other classes. I guess I'll find out what kind of a salesman I am.
I also...God help me...made some remark about how most teachers run their classes. I think I said something to the effect of "I will actually read, correct and extensively comment on your papers unlike those teachers you've had who probably never read your papers, never returned them and assigned you a grade based on how much they liked you." Why did I say that? I'm certain that it's true far more often than anyone would care to admit but nevertheless saying so seems rather gauche. I guess I should just accept that I may be gauche. Who knows maybe it even works in my favor with some of them. I also told them that I believed the teacher and the class should be as transparent as possible. Not sure how the whole thing went over; I imagine I could seem either inexperienced (guilty as charged though not as inexperienced as most graduate students), or like I was affecting some sort of radical posture (not sure how I plead on that one).
The students in this class seem as though they might be a livelier bunch than the group I had last semester. Too early to tell but they did at least ask some questions. One of them is an egyptian-american who apparently speaks numerous languages and has lots of ideas. Which could be good, though some of his questions hint at the possibility that he could be one of those students who always wants to know why we are doing A rather than B or C. Which is ok, and fits in nicely with my stated desire to be transparent. But I do want those kind of questions to be informed and to the point. In this case, he stayed after class to express his disappointment that the class was not going to be a history of Islam class, asking if we would spend any time looking at the crusades or Andalusia amongst other topics. I told him I would love to teach a standard "history of Islam" kind of class, but this was specifically an Islam in America class and there was just no way to cover that sort of material in this class. I thought to ask him if he had bothered to look at the title of the course before he registered for it, but I was quite polite. We'll see how things progress on that front.
I'll be very curious to see how many drop the class. I lost a few in the first week or so last semester and I would expect that would be the case this time around too. Especially with my emphasis on the quantity and quality of reading they were going to have to do. I ended the class with a quick demo of the sort of outlining of texts they were going to have to do. I will repeat this again tomorrow in the hopes that they will begin to see the logic of it quickly. I am trying to do things a little differently this time around in light of the lessons learned last semester. Mostly I think I need to keep a careful check on my mouth until I get to know them a bit.
Oh...and try to cut down on the number of times I say uh and ummm. Drives me crazy. Is there such a thing as the art of public speaking anymore?
I introduced myself, had everyone introduce themselves, and went over the syllabus. I sort of wish I'd thought of something clever, some amusing activity or something, to start the class with to really hook em. Make them think this guy is different, maybe I'll like this class. One of my grad school profs, Brian Mahan used to do a free association word game thing. He could pull it off, but if it failed it would really fail miserably I think. I generally try to avoid anything too cutesy in teaching. As we were going over the syllabus one of the students asked if we would be watching any films or going on any field trips. I responded with a small diatribe about being against using films in a class, that it was lazy pedagogy and nobody really benefitted because watching movies is such a passive activity. I went on to stress my emphasis, I may have called it old school (oy vey), on reading and discussion.
I also harped at great length on the need to read carefully and actively and how the effort that they put into the reading would dictate their success in this course and the success of the course itself. I repeated the theme often enough that they must all have gotten the message. Whether that will translate into their working to develop good reading habits remains to be seen. I did promise them that if they worked hard to develop the habits I was going to spend the semester trying to inculcate, that they would not only benefit from the class, but would be better students in all their other classes. I guess I'll find out what kind of a salesman I am.
I also...God help me...made some remark about how most teachers run their classes. I think I said something to the effect of "I will actually read, correct and extensively comment on your papers unlike those teachers you've had who probably never read your papers, never returned them and assigned you a grade based on how much they liked you." Why did I say that? I'm certain that it's true far more often than anyone would care to admit but nevertheless saying so seems rather gauche. I guess I should just accept that I may be gauche. Who knows maybe it even works in my favor with some of them. I also told them that I believed the teacher and the class should be as transparent as possible. Not sure how the whole thing went over; I imagine I could seem either inexperienced (guilty as charged though not as inexperienced as most graduate students), or like I was affecting some sort of radical posture (not sure how I plead on that one).
The students in this class seem as though they might be a livelier bunch than the group I had last semester. Too early to tell but they did at least ask some questions. One of them is an egyptian-american who apparently speaks numerous languages and has lots of ideas. Which could be good, though some of his questions hint at the possibility that he could be one of those students who always wants to know why we are doing A rather than B or C. Which is ok, and fits in nicely with my stated desire to be transparent. But I do want those kind of questions to be informed and to the point. In this case, he stayed after class to express his disappointment that the class was not going to be a history of Islam class, asking if we would spend any time looking at the crusades or Andalusia amongst other topics. I told him I would love to teach a standard "history of Islam" kind of class, but this was specifically an Islam in America class and there was just no way to cover that sort of material in this class. I thought to ask him if he had bothered to look at the title of the course before he registered for it, but I was quite polite. We'll see how things progress on that front.
I'll be very curious to see how many drop the class. I lost a few in the first week or so last semester and I would expect that would be the case this time around too. Especially with my emphasis on the quantity and quality of reading they were going to have to do. I ended the class with a quick demo of the sort of outlining of texts they were going to have to do. I will repeat this again tomorrow in the hopes that they will begin to see the logic of it quickly. I am trying to do things a little differently this time around in light of the lessons learned last semester. Mostly I think I need to keep a careful check on my mouth until I get to know them a bit.
Oh...and try to cut down on the number of times I say uh and ummm. Drives me crazy. Is there such a thing as the art of public speaking anymore?
Monday, January 12, 2004
This Yeasty Darkness
Happy thought for the new year. This is from an article called “Unreason’s Seductive Charms”. It’s a quote from Rebecca West (not sure I remember who she is).
Only part of us is sane. Only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our 90’s and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set life back to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations. Our bright natures fight in us with this yeasty darkness, and neither part is commonly quite victorious, for we are divided against ourselves…whew. And some more than others.
Well Equipped Instructor
Got the written comments from my teaching evaluations the other day. They are all positive. One student wants his papers back promptly. I concur. After the first month or so, and despite the fact that I liked my students, the prospect of reading their papers inspired a certain amount of dread and I would have liked nothing better than to get rid of them as fast as humanly possible. Instead I started procrastinating. Here are the comments:
"Excellent job teaching. His ability to adapt to current events helped me put things in perspective."
"No Comment. Oh I forget, he is a great teacher-I learned a lot." (No comment was underlined twice on the paper. Who knows.)
"Good instructor, very good class makes clear what Islam is and how it emerged; well equipped instructor; has all answers and encourages us to learn "
"This class was very intensive, and Professor Noble did a great job."
"Overall an outstanding instructor, was very well prepared, knowledgeable of the material, very thought provoking. In the future would like to get papers back in a timely manner but again overall an outstanding teacher. I highly recommend him to my peers!!" (The two exclamation points were really there)
So five out of the thirteen that finished the class bothered to write comments. And while the comments make me happy, it’s quite possible that the rest of them reamed me on the standardized evaluation. But of course these will go in the old teaching portfolio, should I ever bother to put one together.
By far my two favorite comments are: "well equipped instructor" that one's going on a business card pal, and "has all answers". That one sounds straight out of the gypsy booth at the carnival. TRICKGNOSIS: HAS ALL ANSWERS
"Excellent job teaching. His ability to adapt to current events helped me put things in perspective."
"No Comment. Oh I forget, he is a great teacher-I learned a lot." (No comment was underlined twice on the paper. Who knows.)
"Good instructor, very good class makes clear what Islam is and how it emerged; well equipped instructor; has all answers and encourages us to learn "
"This class was very intensive, and Professor Noble did a great job."
"Overall an outstanding instructor, was very well prepared, knowledgeable of the material, very thought provoking. In the future would like to get papers back in a timely manner but again overall an outstanding teacher. I highly recommend him to my peers!!" (The two exclamation points were really there)
So five out of the thirteen that finished the class bothered to write comments. And while the comments make me happy, it’s quite possible that the rest of them reamed me on the standardized evaluation. But of course these will go in the old teaching portfolio, should I ever bother to put one together.
By far my two favorite comments are: "well equipped instructor" that one's going on a business card pal, and "has all answers". That one sounds straight out of the gypsy booth at the carnival. TRICKGNOSIS: HAS ALL ANSWERS
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Nuwaubian Debacle
A story from today's AJC on Malachi York and the ongoing Nuwaubian Moorish debacle in Eaton Georgia:
'This little town didn't back up'
Eatonton feels relief as nearby cult wanes
By BILL TORPY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
EATONTON -- The grandmother and community activist now smiles when thinking of the "wanted" poster once put out on her. Georgia Benjamin-Smith says the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors once offered $500 for dirt on her and others who were seen as enemies of the outlandish religious group.
Benjamin-Smith can now venture a grin because she senses an end to a conflict that has roiled Putnam County for much of the past decade.
Malachi York, the religious leader who moved his flock from New York to property near here a decade ago to build his idea of Utopia -- complete with pyramids, obelisks and a Sphinx -- went on trial last week in federal court on charges of child molestation and racketeering.
"It's been a nightmare, but we did something New York couldn't do," said Benjamin-Smith, referring to other investigations into the group there that never produced any charges. "We stayed on it and didn't back up. This little town didn't back up."
Many Eatonton residents -- at least those who will talk about the 58-year-old York and his followers publicly -- say they are happy his case has finally come to trial and that the trial is not being held nearby. The trial has been moved to the Georgia coastal city of Brunswick, where it is being held under security so tight that early in the week some armed law enforcement agents wore masks to avoid being identified.
"People are quiet now, very quiet; they're waiting," said Benjamin-Smith, who says she found herself at odds with the Nuwaubians when she resisted the group's efforts to take over the local NAACP chapter. The Nuwaubians at the time also were locked in court battles with the county on zoning and building matters and accused county officials of racism, conspiracy and harassment.
Some in the community told Benjamin-Smith to back off. "I was told more than once, 'Leave him alone. He's just a black man trying to have something,' " she said. "But I had a gut feeling something was wrong. I'd say, 'What's wrong with you? Don't you see what's going on?' "
Sandra Adams, a county commissioner, also ended up on the "wanted" list. "This was made a racial thing and it tore the community apart," Adams said. "Al Sharpton, who is running for president, came down here and attacked us."
At one time, the Nuwaubians claimed to have 5,000 members and the Eatonton property drew national black leaders like Jesse Jackson, in 2001, and Sharpton, in 1999.
Activity on the 400-plus-acre compound now is minimal. Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills, who has had run-ins with the Nuwaubians since 1997, believes fewer than 40 people now live there, down from an estimated 200 at its late 1990s peak. York's arrest in May, 2002, crippled the organization, Sills said. What is left of the ever-morphing sect remains in a holding pattern.
The grand Egyptian-style arch at the entrance of the Nuwaubian "holy land" is water-damaged and rotting.
Outside the gate, a life-size statue of an Indian stands sentry, peering into the distance. The Indian wears a beard resembling York's. The Indian represents York's newest incarnation. He now says he is a Yamassee Creek Indian named Chief Black Thunderbird Eagle and leader of an indigenous nation. In the past, he has called himself a Muslim imam and a being from outer space.
These days York is most notably an accused child- molester. He has spent the past week in a heavily fortified federal courthouse, where he is on trial for 13 child molestation and racketeering charges. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Prosecutors allege York, who was arrested 20 months ago, used his teachings, his group's isolation and his own cult of personality to create and maintain a carefully orchestrated system to sexually abuse children. Several former members have testified that York sexually abused them when they were children.
York says he is innocent. His lawyers say the alleged victims testifying against him are part of a conspiracy of disgruntled former Nuwaubians caught up in a power struggle.
"The truth will come out," Frederick Johnson, a York supporter, vowed as he and a handful of other supporters waited to be escorted on an elevator by U.S. marshals to a third-floor courtroom where they watch the trial on closed-circuit TV. The courtroom where York is being tried is closed to all but credentialed media members. And the jury remains anonymous, unknown to the defense and even federal prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal moved the trial from Macon because of pre-trial publicity. But he locked down the courthouse, fearing that Nuwaubians might intimidate witnesses and jurors and disrupt the proceedings.
In past hearings elsewhere, York's followers have packed courtrooms and have stood outside chanting and banging drums. About 200 Nuwaubians introduced themselves to Brunswick residents by marching in the Christmas parade, wearing colorful costumes, mummy outfits and bird and cow masks and handing out flyers. "I guess you'd call them New Age Egyptian," Brunswick police Sgt. Kevin Jones said.
Brunswick residents like retired paper mill supervisor Jimmy Williamson were bemused by the spectacle and impressed by the costumes. He was picking up his mail at the post office housed in the courthouse and passed through a phalanx of federal, state and local law enforcement agents.
"This a good trial for the G-8 conference," Williamson said, referring to the meeting of world leaders set for June at nearby Sea Island.
Most people passing the courthouse glance at the police, and residents still smile talking about the Christmas parade, but there is little local interest in the trial.
During the first week of a trial expected to last three to four weeks, there were few disruptions. Police said one man claimed he was Jesus, blocked traffic and was arrested. About 40 York supporters, most conservatively dressed and polite, have attended, many taking copious notes of the testimony.
"We were expecting more [York supporters]," said Sgt. Jones. "I don't know where they all went."
Sheriff Sills, in Brunswick for the trial, says the "only thing predictable about this group is that it is totally unpredictable. They could all be dressed in clown outfits tomorrow and it wouldn't surprise me a bit."
Johnson complained the expectations of big crowds and of trouble at the courthouse were produced by law enforcement officers' fears.
"This excessive show of force tells the jurors that we're here to protect you from a threat," Johnson said. He also claims that isolation and mental "torture" helped prompt York's two guilty pleas last year to the molestation charges. A federal judge refused to accept the 15-year plea deal, saying it was too lenient.
The Nuwaubians have long raised conspiracy theories. One of the newest Nuwaubian charges is a "bulletin" on the group's Internet site claiming Judge Royal "hates" Nuwaubians because his great-great-great-grandfather was a Confederate soldier who fought the Creek Indians.
If convicted on racketeering charges -- that York allegedly operated the group to commit crimes -- the federal government could seize the property outside Eatonton and sell it.
Benjamin-Smith thinks a conviction of York will kill off the group.
"With the king bee gone, [the followers] will scatter like ants," she said.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/11york.html
'This little town didn't back up'
Eatonton feels relief as nearby cult wanes
By BILL TORPY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
EATONTON -- The grandmother and community activist now smiles when thinking of the "wanted" poster once put out on her. Georgia Benjamin-Smith says the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors once offered $500 for dirt on her and others who were seen as enemies of the outlandish religious group.
Benjamin-Smith can now venture a grin because she senses an end to a conflict that has roiled Putnam County for much of the past decade.
Malachi York, the religious leader who moved his flock from New York to property near here a decade ago to build his idea of Utopia -- complete with pyramids, obelisks and a Sphinx -- went on trial last week in federal court on charges of child molestation and racketeering.
"It's been a nightmare, but we did something New York couldn't do," said Benjamin-Smith, referring to other investigations into the group there that never produced any charges. "We stayed on it and didn't back up. This little town didn't back up."
Many Eatonton residents -- at least those who will talk about the 58-year-old York and his followers publicly -- say they are happy his case has finally come to trial and that the trial is not being held nearby. The trial has been moved to the Georgia coastal city of Brunswick, where it is being held under security so tight that early in the week some armed law enforcement agents wore masks to avoid being identified.
"People are quiet now, very quiet; they're waiting," said Benjamin-Smith, who says she found herself at odds with the Nuwaubians when she resisted the group's efforts to take over the local NAACP chapter. The Nuwaubians at the time also were locked in court battles with the county on zoning and building matters and accused county officials of racism, conspiracy and harassment.
Some in the community told Benjamin-Smith to back off. "I was told more than once, 'Leave him alone. He's just a black man trying to have something,' " she said. "But I had a gut feeling something was wrong. I'd say, 'What's wrong with you? Don't you see what's going on?' "
Sandra Adams, a county commissioner, also ended up on the "wanted" list. "This was made a racial thing and it tore the community apart," Adams said. "Al Sharpton, who is running for president, came down here and attacked us."
At one time, the Nuwaubians claimed to have 5,000 members and the Eatonton property drew national black leaders like Jesse Jackson, in 2001, and Sharpton, in 1999.
Activity on the 400-plus-acre compound now is minimal. Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills, who has had run-ins with the Nuwaubians since 1997, believes fewer than 40 people now live there, down from an estimated 200 at its late 1990s peak. York's arrest in May, 2002, crippled the organization, Sills said. What is left of the ever-morphing sect remains in a holding pattern.
The grand Egyptian-style arch at the entrance of the Nuwaubian "holy land" is water-damaged and rotting.
Outside the gate, a life-size statue of an Indian stands sentry, peering into the distance. The Indian wears a beard resembling York's. The Indian represents York's newest incarnation. He now says he is a Yamassee Creek Indian named Chief Black Thunderbird Eagle and leader of an indigenous nation. In the past, he has called himself a Muslim imam and a being from outer space.
These days York is most notably an accused child- molester. He has spent the past week in a heavily fortified federal courthouse, where he is on trial for 13 child molestation and racketeering charges. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Prosecutors allege York, who was arrested 20 months ago, used his teachings, his group's isolation and his own cult of personality to create and maintain a carefully orchestrated system to sexually abuse children. Several former members have testified that York sexually abused them when they were children.
York says he is innocent. His lawyers say the alleged victims testifying against him are part of a conspiracy of disgruntled former Nuwaubians caught up in a power struggle.
"The truth will come out," Frederick Johnson, a York supporter, vowed as he and a handful of other supporters waited to be escorted on an elevator by U.S. marshals to a third-floor courtroom where they watch the trial on closed-circuit TV. The courtroom where York is being tried is closed to all but credentialed media members. And the jury remains anonymous, unknown to the defense and even federal prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal moved the trial from Macon because of pre-trial publicity. But he locked down the courthouse, fearing that Nuwaubians might intimidate witnesses and jurors and disrupt the proceedings.
In past hearings elsewhere, York's followers have packed courtrooms and have stood outside chanting and banging drums. About 200 Nuwaubians introduced themselves to Brunswick residents by marching in the Christmas parade, wearing colorful costumes, mummy outfits and bird and cow masks and handing out flyers. "I guess you'd call them New Age Egyptian," Brunswick police Sgt. Kevin Jones said.
Brunswick residents like retired paper mill supervisor Jimmy Williamson were bemused by the spectacle and impressed by the costumes. He was picking up his mail at the post office housed in the courthouse and passed through a phalanx of federal, state and local law enforcement agents.
"This a good trial for the G-8 conference," Williamson said, referring to the meeting of world leaders set for June at nearby Sea Island.
Most people passing the courthouse glance at the police, and residents still smile talking about the Christmas parade, but there is little local interest in the trial.
During the first week of a trial expected to last three to four weeks, there were few disruptions. Police said one man claimed he was Jesus, blocked traffic and was arrested. About 40 York supporters, most conservatively dressed and polite, have attended, many taking copious notes of the testimony.
"We were expecting more [York supporters]," said Sgt. Jones. "I don't know where they all went."
Sheriff Sills, in Brunswick for the trial, says the "only thing predictable about this group is that it is totally unpredictable. They could all be dressed in clown outfits tomorrow and it wouldn't surprise me a bit."
Johnson complained the expectations of big crowds and of trouble at the courthouse were produced by law enforcement officers' fears.
"This excessive show of force tells the jurors that we're here to protect you from a threat," Johnson said. He also claims that isolation and mental "torture" helped prompt York's two guilty pleas last year to the molestation charges. A federal judge refused to accept the 15-year plea deal, saying it was too lenient.
The Nuwaubians have long raised conspiracy theories. One of the newest Nuwaubian charges is a "bulletin" on the group's Internet site claiming Judge Royal "hates" Nuwaubians because his great-great-great-grandfather was a Confederate soldier who fought the Creek Indians.
If convicted on racketeering charges -- that York allegedly operated the group to commit crimes -- the federal government could seize the property outside Eatonton and sell it.
Benjamin-Smith thinks a conviction of York will kill off the group.
"With the king bee gone, [the followers] will scatter like ants," she said.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/11york.html
My Difficult Friend
Oy vey. I'm an hour and a half into my shift and I don't really feel any better yet. Though measuring discomfort is a tricky thing. I won't say pain, though that too is notoriously tough to gauge, as pain would seem to lend a dignity to my current state that it is certainly unworthy of. However as I sit here typing and trying to ascertain the particular unpleasantness of my condition it seems that perhaps my head does hurt less than it did when I woke up this morning.
brief thesaurus interlude here: measure, gauge, ascertain, determine, assess, evaluate
I woke up because I needed to pee. Normally I can ignore that but once I was awake the pounding behind my temples kept me from going back to sleep and I slowly recalled why I felt so miserable. In addition to the dull, throbbing headache I felt like I needed to throw up and even as I write this the mere thought of vomiting makes me begin to salivate in anticipation of doing so. Oh alcohol you are a difficult friend. I did not throw up though there was some fire in the bottom land that seems to have abated only temporarily.
Despite my wretchedness I did manage to get to work on time. Early even, with a bagel in hand which is mostly uneaten at this point. The alarm from the emergency exit was activated once again. It isn't loud and not especially alarming. Annoying at best. But it continues to be a mystery. No one can figure out why it is going off. And it only gets set off in the middle of the night when no one is here. At first I thought that perhaps someone was hiding in the library after we closed then using the emergency exit to make their escape but I've searched every nook and cranny of the library after closing and no one was here. A mechanical failure of some sort seemed the most likely culprit but the maintenance folks have come out and replaced the alarm itself to no avail. Perhaps we have a ghost in the library. It's been so slow as of late that I have far too much time to sit around pondering this.
Some of the events from last night that I should recall: One young lass who shall remain nameless giving me a friendly flirty little kiss and telling me that if we weren't such buddies she'd be hitting on me hard. Now I had suspected as much but it was nice to have it confirmed. I believe that might have been my cue to further encourage her, and while I have thought about it, I know she's trouble and I think it wise to remain just buddies. I did ask a different gal to go out with me and thinking about it now I realize that I was none too subtle. After asking her, I went to the bar for another drink and her friend, who is a bar acquaintance of mine, told me that he'd put in a good word for me but she wasn't interested. Well, of course I had to hear it for myself so I asked her what she'd decided. This is where it gets strange. She says "ask me again in two weeks." Pardon? At which point I launch into what may have been a harangue (tirade, rant, diatribe, jeremiad) about how I would not be at all offended if she simply said no, there would be no hard feelings, I would not be embarrassed and nor should she and so forth. I'm not sure but I wonder if my tone did not imply, hell make explicit, my ongoing frustration with what I see as the depressing lack of honesty in human communication. Surely a topic best left for later. Despite my making it clear that "no" would be ok, she stuck to her guns and told me to ask again in two weeks. Now I'm left to wonder what difference two weeks is going to make and the possible significance of her saying this. If she really wasn't interested then why set herself up to be asked again? But if she was interested then why not just say yes? As I'm thinking about this now (after also sitting here pondering the difference between "ambivalent" and "ambiguous") I'm remembering that I might have also said something like "I'm not gonna be any better looking in two weeks." I cannot conclusively confirm that I said this but I have a suspicion that I did indeed unleash the drunken wit or lack thereof. It's probably best that I stop trying to remember this. In any case I expect I will ask again in two weeks if only to get to the bottom of this deep and confounding mystery. Though I do wonder what I'll do if I see her before then. Pretend it never happened until two weeks passes? Sarcastically indicate that I'm anxiously counting the minutes?
Had an interesting conversation with a bar gal pal who is mostly pal of a pal. I'd never sat and talked to her for that long. I wonder now if it was evident that I was drunk. There are degrees of drunkenness of course and I do well up to a certain point and despite my misery today I don't think I really did anything to embarrass myself. I hope so anyway. Oh alcohol you wiley rascal.
brief thesaurus interlude here: measure, gauge, ascertain, determine, assess, evaluate
I woke up because I needed to pee. Normally I can ignore that but once I was awake the pounding behind my temples kept me from going back to sleep and I slowly recalled why I felt so miserable. In addition to the dull, throbbing headache I felt like I needed to throw up and even as I write this the mere thought of vomiting makes me begin to salivate in anticipation of doing so. Oh alcohol you are a difficult friend. I did not throw up though there was some fire in the bottom land that seems to have abated only temporarily.
Despite my wretchedness I did manage to get to work on time. Early even, with a bagel in hand which is mostly uneaten at this point. The alarm from the emergency exit was activated once again. It isn't loud and not especially alarming. Annoying at best. But it continues to be a mystery. No one can figure out why it is going off. And it only gets set off in the middle of the night when no one is here. At first I thought that perhaps someone was hiding in the library after we closed then using the emergency exit to make their escape but I've searched every nook and cranny of the library after closing and no one was here. A mechanical failure of some sort seemed the most likely culprit but the maintenance folks have come out and replaced the alarm itself to no avail. Perhaps we have a ghost in the library. It's been so slow as of late that I have far too much time to sit around pondering this.
Some of the events from last night that I should recall: One young lass who shall remain nameless giving me a friendly flirty little kiss and telling me that if we weren't such buddies she'd be hitting on me hard. Now I had suspected as much but it was nice to have it confirmed. I believe that might have been my cue to further encourage her, and while I have thought about it, I know she's trouble and I think it wise to remain just buddies. I did ask a different gal to go out with me and thinking about it now I realize that I was none too subtle. After asking her, I went to the bar for another drink and her friend, who is a bar acquaintance of mine, told me that he'd put in a good word for me but she wasn't interested. Well, of course I had to hear it for myself so I asked her what she'd decided. This is where it gets strange. She says "ask me again in two weeks." Pardon? At which point I launch into what may have been a harangue (tirade, rant, diatribe, jeremiad) about how I would not be at all offended if she simply said no, there would be no hard feelings, I would not be embarrassed and nor should she and so forth. I'm not sure but I wonder if my tone did not imply, hell make explicit, my ongoing frustration with what I see as the depressing lack of honesty in human communication. Surely a topic best left for later. Despite my making it clear that "no" would be ok, she stuck to her guns and told me to ask again in two weeks. Now I'm left to wonder what difference two weeks is going to make and the possible significance of her saying this. If she really wasn't interested then why set herself up to be asked again? But if she was interested then why not just say yes? As I'm thinking about this now (after also sitting here pondering the difference between "ambivalent" and "ambiguous") I'm remembering that I might have also said something like "I'm not gonna be any better looking in two weeks." I cannot conclusively confirm that I said this but I have a suspicion that I did indeed unleash the drunken wit or lack thereof. It's probably best that I stop trying to remember this. In any case I expect I will ask again in two weeks if only to get to the bottom of this deep and confounding mystery. Though I do wonder what I'll do if I see her before then. Pretend it never happened until two weeks passes? Sarcastically indicate that I'm anxiously counting the minutes?
Had an interesting conversation with a bar gal pal who is mostly pal of a pal. I'd never sat and talked to her for that long. I wonder now if it was evident that I was drunk. There are degrees of drunkenness of course and I do well up to a certain point and despite my misery today I don't think I really did anything to embarrass myself. I hope so anyway. Oh alcohol you wiley rascal.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Blahg
Blast off...
Welcome. To me I suppose. At this point anyway. Here I go entering the world of secluded, solipsistic, psuedo-celebrity for those tragically lacking an audience. Making the inner outer and perhaps discovering just what I do not in fact want anyone else to know. Hail to the inevitability of self-censorship. Who know's what's riding on it?
cheers for now,
monk
Welcome. To me I suppose. At this point anyway. Here I go entering the world of secluded, solipsistic, psuedo-celebrity for those tragically lacking an audience. Making the inner outer and perhaps discovering just what I do not in fact want anyone else to know. Hail to the inevitability of self-censorship. Who know's what's riding on it?
cheers for now,
monk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
