My Heretical View of Jesus

My dad used to call me a red-letter Christian. I think that meant I paid attention to the words of Christ in red and ignored the rest. I did use the red letters as my basis, but I incorporated other biblical passages into my personal theology that were consistent with the red letters.
I am not comfortable picking and choosing which words of Jesus to use and which to ignore. I have tried hard to incorporate them as a unified whole. Based on my lifetime of study into the historical Jesus and three years in seminary, I humbly offer my heretical look at Jesus.

1) Jesus was wealthy and a his family was of royal Davidic blood and priestly lineage. His friends were rich and powerful people.
2) Jesus was a well-educated priest. He had a thorough knowledge of Jewish law and doctrine.
3) He opposed the Romans and their Herodian puppets. The Romans and Herodians executed him using a Roman form of punishment, crucifixion.
4) His disciples were wealthy relatives.
5) He was opposed to Jewish priests Pharisees who collaborated with the Romans. The father referred to in the cleansing of the temple would  have been Solomon, whom Jesus was related to.
6) Jesus' ministry was largely a critique of the ruling elite. There are many parallels between what Jesus said and the Jewish prophets.
7) The nature miracles were part of traditions surrounding Jewish royal and holy families. There were many reports of miracles during the Maccabeean period as well. The Jewish festival of Hannukkah celebrates one of those miracles.
8) The version of Jesus and his disciples as poor fisherman is due to a lack of understanding of the zodiacal signs (Virgo -virgin; Aquarius - water bearer; Pisces -fish; Aries - lamb) imposed on the Jesus narrative when it combined with pagan sun worship under the Romans. This is why Jesus' birthday is celebrated near the winter solstice and John the Baptist's birthday is celebrated near the summer solstice.
9) Jesus didn't write anything down because his insights were not meant for public consumption, they were designed only for initiates and family members.
10) The parables were designed to give the public insights into the Kingdom of God (which initiates entered into) if they could figure out their meaning.
11) According to genealogies of James, Jesus was married but had no children that had children. His only son, Justus (mentioned in one of Paul's letters) died a celibate ascetic.
In a bible study class once a conservative West Point graduate was reduced to tears during our study of the Sermon on the Mount. He said that if Jesus did nothing else, the message of the Sermon on the Mount made him divine.
I was distressed to learn later in seminary the church's official position on the Sermon on the Mount. That it didn't matter. But it did to the retired military officer. And it does to me. And always will.

Happy Birthday Jesus! Merry Christ's Mass! Historical Jesus Versus Theological Christ

In seminary I was told that Christianity had nothing to do with Jesus. Christianity, I was told by my elders and superiors, was a theological reflection on the passion, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, focused on his eventual return to establish a kingdom on earth and punish the wicked.
The assistant dean of the seminary told me she was instructed by her elders when she was in seminary to 'drop the Jesus stuff' or she had no future in the Christian church. Evidently, she drop-kicked Jesus, having risen to rank of assistant dean at a prestigious seminary.
My lifetime studies of the historical Jesus and the history of Christianity have led me to the conclusion that Christian doctrines are man-made obstacles to understanding what Jesus said and meant. The Christian doctrines we are familiar with today emerged from a 4th century conflict between the Jewish and gentile wings of the movement.

The Christian church after the 4th century became a mix of gentile religions promoted by the Emperor Constantine to consolidate his power. Added to the mix were the cult of emperor worship, the cult of sun worship, the blood cult of Mithras, and the phallic cult of political elites. In addition, many local pagan gods were added as saints to win over the populace. The efforts were enormously successful, as Christianity grew from a fringe movement to the dominant force in western Europe.
The version of Jesus that emerges from this dominant force of Christianity has very little to do with the historical Jesus. In that context, what I was told in seminary makes sense. This does not mean it does not have worth, or that it is not real for people who believe in it. But it is important to know it has nothing to do with historical realities.
As mentioned in a previous blog, there is so little information on Jesus from the first century that we are just guessing. Fortunately, there is an incredible amount of information surviving about Jesus' brother James. What is highly likely is that Jesus' family controlled the movement after Jesus' death. James was stoned to death in 66 AD after entering the Holiest of Holies in the temple in Jerusalem, i.e. acting as a High Priest.
Jesus' family needs to be understood in the context of the Maccabees. They were a kingly, priestly family that sought to purify the temple and did not consider Herodian and Roman appointed high priests as legitimate.
The details in the gospels of Jesus' trial were probably taken from James' trial and make more sense in that context. Texts on James mention that Saul (Paul) was a rival and used his contacts with Herodians and Romans (these are mentioned in Acts) to have James killed.
The Jewish historian Josephus mentions that someone named Saul turned traitor and opened the gates of Jerusalem to the Romans. Texts about James call Saul/Paul the Traitor and the Enemy. Roman records show that the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) had an audience with Judas' (brother of Jesus) grandson asking him if his family had given up on their claim to the Jewish throne.
The answer came in 132 AD when Jewish freedom fighters again rebelled against Rome. There are links again to Jesus' family being involved. The revolt was so successful that emperor Hadrian (117-138) had to withdraw from England and bring his best legions to Judea to put down the revolt. Roman and Jewish losses were so horrific that it was only time the Romans won a war and had no victory parade afterwards.
The Jewish royal family fled to areas outside the Roman empire, settling in areas like Scotland, Ireland and Germany. Scottish kings trace their genealogy to James, brother of Jesus. The King James version of the Christian bible is named after James VI (1566-1625) a Scottish king of this line who also became King of England.
The Frankish Merovingian kings also traced their lineage to James, brother of Jesus. Most of the branches of Christianity deemed heretical by the Roman church have links to Jewish Christian groups led by people related by family to either Jesus, James or Judas.
The controversial book, The Da Vinci Code, was strongly criticized by the Roman church because it begins to shed light on these issues. To sum up, in creating their theological Christ, the Roman church did violence to the historical Jesus.
Fortunately for us, the words of Jesus, printed in red in my bible, remain to this today. There have also been discoveries in the last century of more texts containing the words of Jesus. Combined, these give us insight into the most remarkable person in human history.

The Beginnings of Christianity: Part Two - Historical Jesus and the Maccabean Revolt

Historical Jesus research became popular after German scholars and theologians in the 19th century revealed that most of teachings of western Christianity dated from the 7th to 9th centuries. The desire to discover connections to the Jesus of the first century began and has continued unabated to this day.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence remaining from the first century and most attempts have been incomplete and disappointing.
For our purposes, we will attempt to put the historical Jesus in an historical, not theological perspective.
To do that, we have to go back in time to Alexander the Great. The empire that Alexander left to his successors in the 4th century BC included Judea. His successors included the Ptolemies and the Seuclids. The Ptolemies, based in Egypt, ruled Judea until the end of  the 2nd century BC when the Seuclids, based in what is now Syria, Iraq and Iran, gained control.
The Ptolemies had left the Jewish people in Judea practice their religion, but the Seuclids eventually forced their version of Hellenism upon Judea, putting a statue of Zeus in the temple in Jerusalem. This lead to a revolt of Jewish priests intent upon restoring purity to the temple.
These families of priests, known as the Maccabees, eventually defeated the Seuclids and rededicated (purified) the temple in 165 BC. This event is celebrated to this day as the Jewish festival of Hanukkah.
It is important to understand for a study of historical Jesus that the Jewish people were not unified in opposition to the Seuclids.
Many Jews favored the Hellenistic culture that Alexander the Great introduced into the region. In many ways, this Hellenistic culture was more advanced than the semi-nomadic culture that existed prior to Alexander. This divide among Jews between an ancient, tribal culture and a more modern, urban culture often centered upon religious rites and traditions.
This conflict continued when the Romans ended a century of Judean independence in the first century BC. The Romans placed the Idumean royal family of Herods on the throne of Judea to rule in their stead. Idumeans lived south of Judea and were the descendants of Esau. For this reason, the Idumeans were not considered of royal Jewish blood. To bolster his claims as Judean king, Herod the Great (king when Jesus was born) married into the Maccabean (also known as Hasmonean) royal family.
According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the politics in Judea at this centered on whether a group was pro-Roman (and the Hellenistic culture the Romans adopted from the Greeks) or anti-Roman desiring the freedom and independence of Judea.

[The Monty Python movie Life of Brian brilliantly captures the myriad Jewish splinter groups and how they spent more time fighting each other than they did the Romans.]
In Gospel accounts, Herod orders all first born Jewish males killed and Jesus' family flees to Egypt. Historically, there is no record of this. But Herod did systematically attempt to kill all possible heirs to his throne. This included all of his children from the Hasmonean princess he married and as many from the Jewish royal family as he could find.
It is highly likely that Jesus was of royal Jewish blood. Herod had no interest in Jewish peasants. He was interested in competitors to his rule. The fact that two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) have extensive genealogies linking Jesus to David (kingly) and Aaron (priestly) lineages strongly backs up this position.
At the time of Jesus' crucifixion, the conflict between the Roman and anti-Roman factions in Jerusalem had nearly reached a boiling point.
Why was Jesus crucified? Were Jesus and his disciples pro-Roman or anti-Roman? Who took over the movement after Jesus was killed? Was Jesus a Hellenistic Jew?
The answers to these questions and more in Part Three.

The Beginnings of Christianity - Part One

It is fitting to discuss during the celebration of the birth of Christ the beginnings of the religion founded in his name. To understand the beginnings, we have to go to 19th century Germany where biblical scholarship began. Without biblical scholarship, what we know about Christianity's origins reads like a comic book or graphic novel.
In the 19th century, Prussia began the consolidation of Germany from a multitude of independent city-states and petty fiefdoms into a modern Central European state that dominated world politics in the first half of the 20th century.

The Prussian state, led by chancellor Otto Von Bismarck through much of the century, clashed with the Pope, who still had control over many of the southern German states and municipalities. The central issue relating to the Pope's power was the doctrine of apostolic succession. This doctrine stated that Jesus gave control of the Christian religion to Peter, who became the first Pope. Peter then handed this authority down to the next Bishop of Rome and that succession continued throughout the centuries.
Bismarck and other German politicians disputed this claim, and encouraged and funded research to this regard. In studying this claim of apostolic succession, the German theologians did indeed discover that the claim that Jesus gave control to a bishop of Rome was fabricated. Not surprisingly. That's what they were paid to do.
But what was surprising was what else they found out. What they discovered was that there was no link to the first three centuries at all. Christianity, as it was being practiced in Western Europe during the 19th century, had tenuous claims to the 4th century, but mainly derived from the 7th to 9th centuries.
To their horror, they discovered that Christian monks in the 7th to 9th centuries deliberately set out to destroy all knowledge that did not support their version of Christianity's origins. They BRAGGED about doing it. They bragged about changing and editing documents to make them fit. They bragged about destroying documents that couldn't be edited to make them fit.
Some of this attitude is captured in the book and film, The Name of the Rose, set in 1327 (starring Sean Connery and F. Murray Abraham).
The end result is that there isn't much information on the first three centuries of Christianity. Fortunately, in preserving the works of orthodox church fathers, who constantly railed against their many enemies, these monks also preserved several contrary opinions on Christian origins.
Recent discoveries like the Dead Sea scrolls and Nag Hammadi find in Egypt, shed further light on the origins. Even if the church had not set out to deliberately destroy knowledge, it would have been difficult to preserve documents from thousands of years ago.
We need to understand in all humility, that we just don't know that much and need to proceed with caution. Any one that says they know for sure what happened around the time of Jesus' birthday and later with the beginnings of Christianity is lying. Whether lying deliberately or out of ignorance, it is important to know they are not telling the truth.
What shocks a lot of seminary students in their first year is this knowledge that what we were told in Sunday school is a complete fabrication. It takes another two years for seminary students to figure out how to become ministers once they know this.
More conservative seminaries spare students this angst by not telling them at all. Seminary students that do discover this can either engage in denial (this can't be right, what I leaned in Sunday school IS true) or they decide they are more interested in helping people than they are the absolute correctness of their church in regard to historical realities.
Next, we'll look at historical Jesus research and how this fits into Christian origins.

The Idea Realm Looks at Romney's 47 Percent

I mentioned in an earlier post how I prefer inhabiting an idea realm than a people realm or event realm. In discussing philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives I suggested conservatives don't feel the masses can be educated to think for themselves and must be told what to do. Liberals believe with the proper education and training the masses can be trained to think for themselves.
Democracy from this perspective is a liberal idea. The U.S.A. is not a democracy, however. It is a representative republic. A representative republic has democratic features but distrusts the masses to the extent that governance is left to an elected or appointed few. Regarding presidential elections, it can be argued that the Electoral College is a conservative idea and the popular vote is a liberal idea. Please note which perspective is entrusted with selecting the president.
It is from the perspective of an idea realm that Governor Romney's statements on 47 percent of the electorate interest me. It is noteworthy that Romney denigrates a section of the voting public, choosing to talk in the people realm, claiming that people who pay no income tax are 'victims' who feel 'entitled' to receive benefits from the government.
Leaving aside that the tone is condescending, patronizing and self-righteous (a pattern of behavior exhibited by graduates of Ivy League schools) his analysis is deeply flawed.
Romney's analysis that a large segment of the population can not be taught to take care of themselves is a conservative idea. In this respect, President Obama has a liberal perspective when he states that he believes people can be trained and educated to take care of themselves and work themselves off of government support programs.
The flaws in Romney's analysis do not flow from this philosophical difference, which is why I believe Congressman Ryan stated that Romney was 'inarticulate.' The flaw is in not understanding the demographics of the segment of the population he is disparaging.
This is worrisome, because it may mean Romney has a deeply flawed view of the demographics of the country as a whole. If so, then it is doubtful that any policy derived from this perspective can be effective or efficient.
What's worse is that if Romney does understand the demographics and does not care about huge segments of the population. This is behavior typical of someone educated with an MBA. It is behavior totally unsuited to an elected official, which Obama has pointed out.
In a representative republic, elected officials represent EVERYONE. Romney's idea of government is plutocratic, not democratic. In this sense, he is the kind of fiscal conservative that has dominated Republican politics since the populism of Teddy Roosevelt was deemed subversive.

In the idea realm, it is Romney's undemocratic view of governing that is most disturbing. If the Democrats have any competence, which is always a concern, they should be able to exploit this to their advantage.
It is noteworthy that Republican candidates farther down the ballot are distancing themselves from Romney's statements. That is more significant than Democrats manipulated outrage with their talking heads.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The ramifications are immense. For me, it provides further evidence that Ronald Reagan was a puppet of plutocrats whose goal is to destroy the prosperity of the middle class and working class. Romney was talking to fellow plutocrats when he made his 'secret' remarks. Only plutocrats can afford $50,000 lunches. I'm a McDonald's dollar menu guy myself.

Standard Deviations and The Philosophical Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

When people talk they can exist in one of three realms. The 'idea realm', the 'event realm' and the 'people realm.' I am most comfortable in the 'idea realm', less comfortable in the 'event realm' and not at all comfortable in the 'people realm.'
In short, I would rather talk about ideas than people, especially myself. Standard deviations fascinate me. Here's a diagram:

There are many different kind of intelligences, let's wrap them all into one for clarity and argument sake and say the mean represents average intelligence and that 64.2% of the population is of average intelligence. Another 27.2 percent is within two standard deviations of the mean, meaning more than 91% of the population is of average intelligence, or slightly above or slightly below. That's most of us.
When I ask people what percentage of people could read or write in ancient times, they usually don't know. That's because nobody knows. Scholars argue that it was between 5 and 10 percent. The point is that not many people could read or write.
Those that could wrote the books and wrote the laws. Most of the 91 percent group in ancient times were slaves.
Fast forward to the U.S.A. in 2012 and the literacy rate is about 99 percent. Slavery was abolished about 140 years ago. The philosophical question today is the same one in ancient times: what is the attitude of  those who write the laws toward the 91 percent?
The conservative approach is that the majority of people can not think for themselves and need to be told what to do.
The liberal approach is that the majority of people can think for themselves if they are properly educated.
We do not know the answer to this question, which is why it is a philosophical question. But it determines the framework that liberal and conservative ideas operate in. There is evidence to support both conclusions. In the long run, high levels of literacy and abolition of slavery are relatively recent events.
In the short run, we need to understand that our decisions are based upon which model we favor.
During this presidential campaign, while people are talking about Romney and Obama (people realm) and others are talking about events (debates, polls) I find myself wondering about ideas. Mainly, whether democracy (which is a liberal idea) can work in a country that prefers to think people need to be told what to do (which is a conservative idea).

America: The Land of Religious Extremism

Question: To which country did religious extremists in Europe emigrate?
Answer: United States of America

Question: Why did religious extremists leave Europe?
Answer: Because most Europeans wanted them to.

Question: Were Puritans religious extremists?
Answer: Depends on whether you consider genocide extreme.

Question: Did Puritans commit genocide?
Answer: Depends on your perspective. If you are Irish or a Native American your answer might be 'yes.' If you are a Puritan or can't read history your answer is most likely 'no.'

In the United States there appear to be two versions of Christianity operating. One version appears to be untouched by the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. The other version appears to be an apologist for a soul-less brand of Capitalism.
Both versions appear to be supporters of the Republican Party. From the congressman in Missouri whose remarks on rape belong in the Middle Ages to Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Bachman we have evidence of people untouched by critical thinking or analysis.
It is not surprising that Republicans in Texas want to eliminate the teaching of critical thinking and analysis in public schools. By electing people like George W. Bush and Rick Perry as governor it is evident that they abandoned reason awhile back.
Then there are the soul-less Capitalist apologists that support people like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Romney and Ryan give enough lip service to religion to keep the extremists in their party happy, but what they really worship is a brand of atheistic soul-crushing amoral Social Darwinism promulgated by writers like Ayn Rand, one of Ryan's greatest influences (at least until he decided to seek national prominence).
It didn't used to be like this. Religious wackos used to keep to themselves and only abuse their own people. Capitalists like Teddy Roosevelt were opposed to monopolies and trusts. Heck, Teddy was known as the 'Trust Buster.' Couldn't call Romney that.
Everything changed when religious extremists decided to organize themselves politically. Ironically, to gain political power they allied themselves with the amoral wing of the Republican party. They made a bargain with the devil. They would give the devil control over fiscal policy if they could control social policy - i.e. impose their extremists views on society.
Bit by bit, piece by piece, law by law, policy by policy, America has lost its soul. We are now a country full of hate governed by fear. As a country we are descending into a Dark Age where reason and logic are viewed as alien and intolerance and ignorance are viewed as evidence of religious faith.
It didn't used to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way.

It took awhile, but England recovered from its Puritan tyranny under Oliver Cromwell. Most of those Puritans who fled England after Cromwell died came to the United States. Their descendants, biological and philosophical, appear to be in charge in America today.
Those of us, Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal, who value critical thinking and analysis, and understand the role reason and logic can play in making a society work for the benefit of everyone and not just a chosen few, we're still the majority. And that matters if we're still a democracy.

Question: Is the United States a democracy?
Answer: TBD

The Wonderful World of Sheldon Cooper

I grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons. One of the most distinctive voices in cartoons belonged to Sheldon Leonard, an actor who usually played villains in movies. But I remember him primarily as the voice of Linus the Lionhearted.
So when I read that the two main characters in the popular sitcom 'Big Bang Theory' were named Sheldon and Leonard, thinking they were inspired by the voice of Linus, I felt obliged to watch the show. It was a wise move.
The show is hilarious. Like Chuck Lorre's other hit show 'Two and a Half Men' it is well written. What Sheldon Cooper's character, played by Jim Parsons, adds is physical humor reminiscent of Buster Keaton. Together with Leonard, played by Johnny Galecki, the physical humor sometimes approaches levels reached only by Laurel and Hardy.
Sheldon is the character I most identify with on the show. I do not have a genius level IQ but I have spent a lot of time in my life explaining things in great detail to people not even remotely interested in what I'm talking about. It took me a long time to figure this out.
Sheldon is learning this, too, as the character Penny, played by Kaley Cuoco, occasionally reminds Sheldon that "you're just boring people, sweety."
Like Sheldon, I have very little patience for people who haven't figured out what I have and whose minds don't work as quickly as mine does. Sheldon's frustrations are real to me, I am convinced most of the time that most people are idiots.

Sheldon is annoying, arrogant, obsessive, compulsive, phobic and totally lacking in social skills. That anyone puts up with him is amazing. Not surprisingly, the friends he does have also have high IQs, poor social skills and similar interests (playing Halo, paintball and attending Comic-Con).
The relationship that Sheldon develops with Penny is fun to watch. Sheldon's child-like qualities seem to bring out maternal instincts in Penny, while Penny's social skills and common sense bring something approaching equilibrium to Sheldon's world.
Not surprising, some of the best Sheldon moments are interactions with Penny. One of my favorites is the Christmas Penny surprises Sheldon by announcing she is going to give him a gift, which turns out to be a napkin signed by Leonard Nimoy.
But the episode that sticks with me is one where Sheldon, struggling to be more aware of other people's feelings, notices that Penny is despondent. He asks what is troubling her. When she tells him he replies by saying that most of her problems could be solved by money.
He then proceeds to offer her money, holding it out in his hand like somebody would offer a playing card.
"Here, take as much as you want." Sheldon explains that he doesn't need it, he has what he wants.
What a wonderful thing to say.
Although I'm about five years late to the dance, Big Bang is on syndication on several cable channels, so I'm catching up at a rapid rate. Sheldon and his cohorts are a welcome reminder that television does not have to speak to our lowest common denominator to be successful. Live long and prosper!

Why I Don't Trust the Mormon Church and Why Mitt Romney Makes Me Uneasy

I understand Mitt Romney will get the Republican nomination and could be the next president of the United States of America. I know Romney is a Mormon. I don't trust politicians. I don't trust Mormons. Romney is both.

My first experience with Mormons was a grade school classmate whose family converted because they liked playing board games together. I liked playing board games and would have converted if they would have let me. But they moved away.
My next experience was reading a Sherlock Holmes story 'Study in Scarlet' based on actual events depicting Mormon blood feuds. Past is past and history is history, so I didn't hold that against current day Mormons any more than I hold the Spanish Inquisition against Catholics.
All that changed when I went to college in southern California. I was working in a student center as a custodian, cleaning toilets and washing windows to pay for my tuition. Occasionally, I would help with audio visual set up in the student center for big meetings. I became good friends with the set up director and sometimes he would invite me to sit with him in the lighting booth and listen in on meetings.
We listened to sorority and fraternity 'secret' initiations. I was amazed how puerile both were, but that's another story.
One day, we listened in on the Mormons. Adult church leaders were giving speeches to Mormon students. The adult leaders used words like 'infiltrate' and 'pretend' and 'blend in' and 'take over' and 'ultimate victory.'
Student members were encouraged to pretend to be loyal Americans, fit in, blend in, and infiltrate society at all levels for an eventual take over of the country to prepare for the coming of Jesus and establishment of His Rule in the Latter Days.
This was in the early 1980's. It's 2012 and a Mormon could be president. Those college classmates of mine listening to those speeches are, like me, in their 50's now. Are they still 'pretending' and 'infiltrating?' Are they still playing board games with their families?
My parents were born-again Christians who believed the world would end in their lifetime and that Jesus would come on the clouds of Heaven and restore His Rule on earth. As a result, their long range planning was non-existent and their deaths left their children straddled with debts, struggling to tie up the loose ends of their worldly estate.
I don't think that people who hold religious views like my parents did should be in government service. People can believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes. But if you really believe the end of the world is imminent, then you shouldn't be in a position making public policy for people who do not share your views and want to make a better future for your children and grandchildren.
I should say, a better future that does not rely on being lifted into the clouds of heaven by Jesus. There is a reason for separation of church and state. It should be philosophical as well as financial. The two don't mix.  Today, our country is straddled with debt and spending is out of control. We are spending like there is no tomorrow precisely because some people in power really believe there will be no tomorrow.
I can not assume Romney shares the views of Mormon church leaders. I do not share the views of my parents. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney was a moderate in a liberal state. I do not know the break down demographically of how born-again Christians support Romney. Not all born-again Christians are social conservatives. Many are egalitarian. It is not cut and dried.
But I don't trust Romney. I don't trust secret societies in general, whether it's Skull and Bones or the Masons or Amway. I've listened to John Kennedy's speeches about being a Catholic and about how dangerous and harmful secret societies are to our country.
I haven't heard anything convincing from Romney that addresses the concerns of how his beliefs will affect his policy decisions. Maybe part of that is due to Romney's inability to be convincing about ANYTHING.
I admit that due to my upbringing I am uneasy and distrustful of people with strong religious beliefs. I will vote for the candidates that I believe will work hard for the benefit of ALL Americans. I am not convinced Romney will.

Random Thoughts on American Politics in 2012

Now that it is officially 2012, I can without guilt start paying attention to the 2012 elections. I actually started thinking about the 2012 elections in 2008. But I felt guilty about it. Because I'm a junkie and that's what junkies do. They feel guilty about doing what they shouldn't but do it anyway.
Presidential election years are immense fun. Democracy, a form of government where the unwashed masses decide their leaders in a manner that can only be described as insane, demands that every once in a while the unwashed masses vote.
* Presidential elections are a joke. They are predetermined, scripted affairs. One thing I've learned about the rich and powerful is they do not leave events to chance.
* Mitt Romney would have to die not to be the Republican Party nominee for president.
* Barrack Obama would have to die not to be the Democratic nominee.
* Presidential elections have always been scripted. Take a look at the line from Jefferson to Madison and Monroe. Aaron Burr fought against the predetermined outcome. How did that work out for him?
* Ron Paul is fighting against the predetermined outcome. How is it working out for him?
* To say that it is inevitable that Romney is going to win after gathering 12 delegates only makes sense when you understand the outcome is predetermined.
* The powers that be will go to any lengths to insure their outcomes happen. The Supreme Court's intervention in 2000, as well as 1876, illustrate this.
* It could be argued that Kennedy's election in 1960 went against the script. JFK's assassination in 1963 can be seen as a correction. RFK's assassination in 1968 can be seen as a preemptive action to make sure it didn't happen again.

* Pat Paulsen in 1968 and beyond and Stephen Colbert today shed light on the insanity of American politics.
* I am biased toward the print media. Television coverage of elections is a waste of time. Only the print media is worth paying attention to.
* Most polls are fairly accurate. I follow Nate Silver's polling especially . He is an uber-nerd who knows more about politics than all the pretty boys and girls on TV. Silver is the Big Bang Theory of American politics.
* Obama has continued Bush II's policies. They continue to be disasters. The Clinton's policies actually had the country in pretty good shape.
* Check out how Clinton handled the WTC bombing in 1993. That approach in 2001 would have worked.
* I don't see how Romney will be any different than Bush II or Obama. Maybe that's the point. Sorry Ron Paul. Sorry Rick Santorum. I am not sorry, Newt.
* Newt Gingrich is a failed insider. So was John McCain. Maverick. Yeah, right. Sarah Palin may have been a maverick. Palin had no chance to ever be president. I can't see her following any script but her own.
* I wanted Michelle Bachmann to stay in the race. Her husband is  a hoot and a half.
* Herman Cain, although he won't win the tiara, deserves the Mr. Congeniality title for the warm and fuzzy way he acts toward women.
* Obscene amounts of money will be spent in the 2012 presidential race to go through the motions of a predetermined outcome and give us peasants the illusion that we actually live in a democracy.

The Republican Party Today Is Not The Party Of Eisenhower, Or Sadly, Even Richard Nixon

Sarah Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was when she ran for the second highest office in the land. Herman Cain, running for the highest office in the land, does not know that China has had a nuclear arsenal for 45 years.
My great grandfather was a Republican state senator. My grandfather was a Republican county officeholder. My father is a Republican civil engineer. They would be, and are, horrified and disgusted by the Republican Party today.
Being stupid and ignorant is one thing, being proud of being stupid and ignorant is another. Exalting stupidity and ignorance while denigrating intellect and reason is downright moronic. But that describes the Republican Party today, a party whose base seems to be the most moronic people in the country.
These Morons, about 20 to 25 percent of the population, used to vote Democratic. They were opposed to equal rights for women. They were opposed to equal rights for people of color (is that what you're supposed to say today? It changes every five minutes). They were opposed to desegregation. They were opposed to equal rights for immigrants (especially the Irish).

Beginning with Richard Nixon, a lot of things began with Richard Nixon, the Republican Party started courting the Morons. They took over the country in 1980 with one of their own, Ronald Reagan. Reagan's IQ didn't register when he was living but goes up every year now that he's dead.
Fast forward to 2000, when a former alcoholic and cocaine addicted bike riding Ivy League cheerleader, nicknamed 'Dubya' especially for the Morons, became president. Americans like genial idiots. It's the Forrest Gump thing.
When I worked in the newspaper business most people assumed I was a Democrat because they were. When I accepted a job working for Republican Agricultural Commissioner Cleve Benedict, many of my colleagues jokingly called me a traitor. They didn't know my background.
I'm proud of being a Republican. America is a republic, not a democracy. It matters to get that right. I liked and admired William Buckley. He was not a Moron. In 1974, I defended Richard Nixon. I knew then, and it has since been demonstrated, that Watergate was a CIA setup. Richard Nixon was many things, but he was not a Moron. He was a Quaker.
My speculation is that in the 1960s, after getting rid of JFK, the GOP leadership decided to go for the Moron Vote. They have been successful. The Democrats, with most minorities continuing to vote for them, have remained competitive. Have I pointed out that most of the Moron Vote is white?
The Republican Party used to be the country club elites, dispensing wisdom to the unwashed masses. This wisdom was usually ignored. Today, these elites have conspired with the Morons to destroy the middle class in America. The middle class will never recover.
I can't figure out why the country club elites decided to turn on the middle class. It is obvious they have done so. In response to the Occupy Wall Street movement, I have to say income disparity in this country is a failure of our republic (reread the preamble to the constitution, please).
I don't blame the Morons. I blame those who have manipulated them. I blame those who keep putting forward the Sarah Palins and Herman Cains as their mouthpieces. They have ruined this once great country.

An Insider's Take on Corporate America's Decline

At least once a year I trek to Blacksburg, Virginia, where I grew up and some family still resides. I make a point of visiting a friend from my parent's church who retired to Blacksburg in the 1990s. He served in WWII, helping perform autopsies for the Army Medical Corp. After the war, he went to college on the GI Bill and became a chemical engineer.
He was a pioneer in computer programming for oil refineries, using emerging technologies to modernize the way refineries produced oil and other petroleum products. He recalled that in the 1940s and 1950s the CEOs of the giant oil companies (he worked for two in his career) were gentlemen who treated their employees with dignity and respect. They also didn't make outrageous salaries or bonuses.

In the 1960s, he remarked that the CEOs started coming from Ivy League business schools (rather than working their way up the ladder in the industry). They were primarily lawyers and accountants.
In his own inimitable style (he's from Texas) he called them a 'bunch of bastards' that didn't know anything about how to run a refinery. They were only interested in making money. By the time he retired in the 1990s, he considered the oil industry hopelessly inept and stupidly managed. He has especially harsh words for BP, a company that had been cutting corners and ignoring the advice of engineers for decades.
The statistics bear out his personal experience.
At the beginning of the 1960s, average CEO pay was 10-11 times that of the average worker. During the Bush administration, 2000-2008, it rose to 319 times. The Bush family oil companies are a good example of competently run businesses in the 40s and 50s ruined by an Ivy Leaguer coming out in the 1960s.
My friend worked directly with vice presidents and CEOs. He had insider's knowledge. I take his perspective seriously. It is more informed and more knowledgeable than what you will find in the media, where bobble-head dolls mouth talking points and play cutesy with each other.
I encourage people to seek out those in this generation (those who started working in the 40s) and ask them what changes they have seen in their lifetimes. It's chilling. What kind of stories will we be telling in 30 years? Will we be proud of this generation of CEOs? Don't think so. They're a 'bunch of bastards.'

Why I Am Not A Protester

I am not a protester. I do not join protests. I do not pick up signs and walk picket lines. I do not chant slogans. Not because I don't agree with some of the positions espoused in picket lines, but because I think protesting primarily is intended to make protesters feel good about themselves.
I do not have a 'Spartacus complex.' I theorize the 'powers that be' encourage protest movements to get those who disagree with them in one place so they can subdue them. And then they crucify them and line the Appian Way with their crosses.
I do not have a 'Martyr complex.' I do not feel a need to be dead like Jesus or Gandhi. People die every day for causes they have been manipulated emotionally into believing are worth dying for.
Throughout human history one percent of the people have controlled everything. It has always been thus and always will be. No amount of chanting slogans, carrying signs and camping out is ever going to change that.
The rich and powerful do not care if you protest. They do not care if you call them names. They can not be shamed, because they have no shame. You cannot appeal to their better natures because they have no better natures. The people who run the world are cold-blooded, ruthless, soulless entities that are far more intelligent than we will ever be.
It is also clear that these powerful people rule through puppets (our elected officials) who are brain-dead stupid but do what they are told. The president of the U.S. or the Prime Minister of Britain is far more worried about what their masters will do to them if they don't obey than they are whether some peasants are carrying pitchforks.

Let's look at American history. This country was founded by spoiled rich kids who had no future in Europe because of certain hereditary laws (mainly primogenitor) and wanted to make a fortune overseas. Don't take my word for this. Do some research on the land grants given to these wealthy families in the colonies.
For example, a young George Washington got paid to survey the immense lands in Virginia granted to Lord Fairfax.
Because these spoiled rich kids didn't get their hands dirty, they needed cheap labor to accompany them to the colonies. Do you see where this is going? What started with indentured servants was bound to end in a system of slavery because the people in charge were primarily interested in cheap labor (think immigration policy today).
The Constitution, or Scripture for Rich People, institutionalized the money making machine for these spoiled rich kids (glamorized today as Founding Fathers, most of them were horse's arses). Which is why to this day, the toadies for the wealthy genuflect before the constitution and get all weepy.
To keep the peasants from storming the castles, a variety of methods have been employed. 'Divide and Conquer' works very well. So does 'Deflect and Distract.' When those methods fail, the legal system is used to snuff out discontent or rebellion.
The 'Occupy Wall Street' movement will not suceed. It will fail. Those who have power will not give up power. Those who have wealth will not share it. If leaders emerge form the movement, they will be co-opted. If they can not be bought, they will be eliminated.
The only change is going to come from those who have power. What makes FDR so astonishing and remarkable is that he came from the privileged class. He did not obey his masters. I do not know why. Maybe because of his experience with polio. For reasons we may never know, FDR promoted policies that showed concern for the welfare of those who were not descendents of the rich families who founded this country. Ever since FDR, the spoiled rich kids have been trying to overturn FDR's New Deal.
Another anamoly is LBJ's Great Society. LBJ was put in power by those who thought it necessary to nip JFK's policies in the bud. (what is it with these initials?) LBJ backfired on them. He gave the 'Masters of War' (Bob Dylan's words) the war profits they wanted, but his social policies were too-FDR like. LBJ had to go.

In comes Nixon, setting the stage for the genial puppet of the wealthy, B-movie actor Ronald Winston Reagan (or 6-6-6 as Bill Hicks pointed out). Like fellow actor Roddy McDowell, Reagan was most known for a movie that had a chimp in it. And with the genial 'aw-shucks' Ronny as lead puppet (check out the British puppet show Spitting Image), the assault on FDR's policies began in earnest. The attacks continued through the Bush/Clinton/Bush years.
My liberal friends who thought Obama would be another FDR or JFK have been profoundly disappointed. It matters not who the president is, any more than it mattered who the prime minister was in the Harry Potter books. The muggles are not in charge. Never have been, never will be.

Time To Grow Up, America

The level of political discourse in America has become increasingly juvenile. As our problems escalate, as people lose their benefits, their jobs, and their homes we call each other names and yell at each other. How is this working out?
New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine, a conservative and libertarian, wrote recently about what he would do if he were in charge. He would make sure that  "anyone who tries to be witty by using terms like "Dimmocraps" or "Repuglicans" or by calling the New York Times "The New York Slimes" or calling current president "Obummer" or "Nobama" or some variant thereof" would be publicly humiliated.
Those who make the following statements would also be publicly ridiculed:

• Any invocation of children. "We must do this for the sake of the children.The children are our future."
• Any promise to balance a budget by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse."
• A double-dunking for anyone who compares a political opponent to Hitler.

Let's be real for a few moments, if you would be so kind. Let's talk about pensions. When my dad retired as a university professor he was making a six-figure salary. His retirement income exceeds 50K a year. After attending seminary, if I had decided to work as a minister, I would have earned 25K.
Put aside that would be around one-fourth of the income my dad made. Think instead about the 50K pension. Who is going to pay for it? If I'm earning 25K, I'm probably not paying much in taxes.
When you add up the taxes all my brothers and sisters are paying, we're still not close to 50K. Again, who is going to pay for my dad's retirement?
Extrapolate this throughout the country where a lot of people who made decent bank during the 60s and 70s and are now retired are drawing decent pensions. Who is paying for this when their children aren't even making half of what their parents did? When tax rates have plummeted since the 1970s?

Putting aside political rhetoric, if you could see your way clear to, let's discuss possible solutions. One, we could cut pensions. Two, we could raise taxes. These are not the only options, however.

But given how juvenile our political discussion has become, this is all you hear in the media. Raising wages without raising taxes would bring in more revenue as people climb into higher tax brackets. Creating more jobs, lowering unemployment in conjunction with this would create even more revenue.
When the housing crisis hit, I wondered why the banks were the ones who were bailed out. It made more sense to me to bail out homeowners.
I thought owning a home was part of the American dream. Isn't it the government's job to help Americans achieve the American dream?
If the billions of dollars handed out to the banks were instead given to homeowners as mortgage subsidies, people could have made their payments and kept their homes. And guess what? The banks would have continued to receive mortgage payments. They wouldn't have failed and people could have kept their homes.
That this option wasn't even discussed by Democrats and Republicans confirmed that they don't care about working America or average Americans. They don't care at all. THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL!
The growing protest in Manhattan called 'Occupy Wall Street' is based upon this growing realization that neither political party cares about average Americans.
But turn on the telly and what do you hear? Political pundits calling the protesters names. It didn't take long for some commentators to bring out the Hitler and Nazi metaphors. Grow up, already. We are all adults here. Let's start acting like adults.

Dealing With Death, Grief and Loss - Every Day We Write the Book

When my mother died and I checked the paper to read her obit, I also read every other obit. I did it to remind myself that I wasn't the only one who lost a mother that day. Every obit in the paper that day, and every day, was a reminder that all of us lose those we love. We lose parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents and children.
None of us are exempt. We are all affected. And some day, we will all die. Maybe not on the same day, as so many seem to want.
When I was training to be a minister I spent a summer visiting seriously ill people with the senior minister of our church. The senior minister had suffered great tragedies himself. His sister was raped, tortured and murdered.
After a month of meeting with people, offering comfort and prayer, he shared with me how much it amazed him that people faced with imminent death chose not to talk about it, preferring reciting worn out cliches and vague niceties.
Maybe because his sister died so horribly and suddenly, he appreciated being given the time to reflect and prepare. He knew first-hand that not everybody gets to say goodbye.
My mother died within a week after suffering a stroke that took away her ability to speak. But we could, and we did, say goodbye. She died surrounded by her husband and six children. We understood we were fortunate to be able to say goodbye.
Every day, I look at the obits. I don't read them all, there are so many it would take all day. But  it reminds me that the human condition is to be born, to live and to die. My understanding now in middle age is that these categories are not as separate and distinct as I once believed them to be.
Being born, living and dying are a continual state of being. They are actually aspects of the same condition, occurring simultaneously. Every once in a while, I get paid to talk about the afterlife. I mix Mark Twain, the Bible, quantum physics, personal experience and anecdotes to arrive at conclusions that go beyond cliches and generalizations.
Afterwards, I enjoy hearing other people's experiences. Every one has their own views on what the afterlife is, or if it even exists. This indicates to me that people who allow only one perspective are most likely incorrect.
In late June, my dad and his wife visited us for our son's graduation. On the last day of their visit, my dad received news from his doctor that he needed surgery, it looked like he had a spot on his pancreas. His surgery revealed the cancer was so widespread it was inoperable. He is now receiving hospice care at home.
Sadly, his older brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer several months ago. My aunt and uncle, my cousins and their families are in my thoughts and my tears.
I understand I am not alone in my grief. Last week, Linda and I were invited to a friend of our son's 'going away to college' party. Earlier in the summer, they lost a family member in his 40's without warning. They had two weddings during the summer and they talked about how much it hurt not to have their brother/uncle/friend there.
None of us are spared tragedy. Seems that avoiding it, or not having it, isn't as important as how we cope and how we help others cope.
There are people who can help us. There are nurses, doctors, social workers, hospice workers, ministers and volunteers. The immediate and extended family may be so grief stricken as to be unable to help as much as they would like. Religious communities can be vital in this regard.
I would go so far to say, that given the human condition, this is the greatest service religious communities can provide. Theology is pretty much useless (this is coming from someone who has spent a lifetime studying theology) in helping people cope with grief and loss.
Another reason I look at obits every day is to keep the logistics of death in mind. I realize that it is never all about me. It's about all of us. We are all interconnected, we are all affected by each other. We all need each other. All the time.

Note: The picture is a 'Mandelbrot set' fractal based on a complex quadratic polynomial. It supports the thesis that within defined parameters there are infinite possibilities.

A Few Random Thoughts on Why Rich People Don't Want to Pay Taxes

The latest manufactured crisis/phony/fake melodrama concocted for our distraction is the 'debate' over the debt limit. This phony crisis also has invoked the wrath of the religious right, (i.e. those people who worship manna/money), who chant with the zeal of religious extremists that the wealthiest people in our country should not pay taxes.
This has me thinking, why? When I learned civics in school we were told that taxes are what civilized societies pay to be, well, civilized. Taxes pay for schools, roads, bridges, waste treatment plants, libraries, parks and for our communal defense. Individually, we can't afford these things. Communally, through paying taxes, we can. So why are rich people opposed to paying taxes?
Some reasons may be:
#1 Rich people, through most of history, have never paid taxes.
True. Think of the Dark Ages with the lord sitting in his castle and peasants working the fields. Who paid taxes? Yes, it was the peasants. The lord of the manor owned everything of value, including any woman about to be married (I'm not making this up, in England, the lord could sleep with a bride on her wedding night before the groom could).
In ancient societies, where 98 percent of the people were slaves, did the rich pay taxes? No. Rich people don't think they should EVER have to pay taxes.
#2 Rich people are not human.
I have seen little evidence that rich people are anything other than cold-blooded, ruthless predators that lack compassion and remorse. We are said to have a brain that is part mammal, part reptile. The reptile part is older. Rich people, in my view, are descendants of an earlier humanoid race that is mostly, if not totally, reptilian.
#3 Rich people do not believe in God.
The greatest evidence that God does not exist is that rich people throughout history have behaved as if there is no God.
#4 Rich people think they are gods.
The reason for number #3. Most of the writing of what Protestants call the Old Testament is about rich people who have deluded themselves into believing they are gods. Monotheism is an idea promulgated by a pharaoh in Egypt to consolidate his power and reduce the power of the priesthood that was opposed to him. The Christian version of monotheism (later modified by Islam) was initiated by a Roman emperor who wanted to consolidate his power by merging many religions that existed in the Roman Empire into one.
The gist of this is that rich people, whether they are monarchs or Murdochs, believe that they are gods that are entitled to all the wealth and benefits they receive.
#5 Rich people think most of us are bloody peasants.
Monty Python spoofs this concept savagely in their film 'The Holy Grail,' where King Arthur acts like a horse's ass throughout the film, especially toward people that don't recognize his authority.
#6 The prosperous American middle class of the 1950's and 60's was an anomaly.
This is the most difficult part to understand for those of us born in that period. The America we grew up in did not exist before the 1940s and hasn't existed since 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. It ain't coming back either. We are going back to feudal times where the vast majority of us live like serfs. A prosperous middle class threatens those on the top of the pyramid. The middle class throughout history has been firmly under the control of the wealthy.
An independent, literate, educated middle class is the greatest threat to the rich. Since 1980, government policies have sought to eliminate whatever the middle class had going for it. To this regard, the rich have been very successful.
#7 Taxes benefit the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
Rich people don't give a crap about other people. Remember when Enron executives were caught on tape laughing about how many old women would die because they would be unable to afford higher energy costs? They thought it was funny. I'm not making this stuff up!
#8 Rich people have better things to spend their money on than paying taxes.
If rich people paid more in taxes they couldn't afford that 8th Hummer, 5th mansion or all those trips to Thailand to have sex with children.
#9 Rich people are so inbred they no longer have the intellectual abilities to understand their actions are becoming increasingly mutually destructive.

It's a just a matter of time before this planet is no longer able to sustain a high level of life for most humans. Most rich people aren't intelligent enough to care about the environment. If we understand them as reptiles then it becomes apparent that a high quality of life for predominantly mammalian species is not a priority.
#10 It's only going to get worse.
This is the most depressing part. Remember Spartacus? Remember Jesus? What happened to them? Rich people crucified them. The same rich people whose descendants are running our country today. Enough said. Time to check out whether Jennifer Lopez is having an affair and Will and Kate's wedding gifts. No strike that, think I'll reread the Sermon on the Mount. Thank you, Jesus.

Think Globally, Act Locally - Take Care of Business in Your Hometown

Former Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell Convicted of Bribery

I went to a Protestant seminary that is considered liberal. That means that liberals AND conservatives could go there. If it was a conservative seminary, then it would mean ONLY conservatives could go there. My understanding/experience of religious conservatives is that they are intolerant of ideas and concepts they do not agree with.
Religious liberals maintain they are tolerant of ideas and concepts they do not agree with, but they make it clear that they believe their ideas are superior to yours if you disagree with them.
Since my main interest is in the exchange of ideas it matters not to me if people agree with me, but whether they are capable of having an open and intelligent dialogue. I don't have everything figured out, and I strongly distrust anyone who claims they have ANYTHING figured out.
In this spirit, when some of my liberals friends in class one day got all vexed over Third World Debt, I pointed out that being manipulated to spend time, emotion, energy caring about something thousands of miles away benefited the systems that allowed the conditions they were upset about to exist in the first place.
The biggest impact a person can make is locally, in their own hometown. I am more concerned about the former mayor where I live being convicted of bribery (see photo above) than I am Casey Anthony.
I would suggest that if a banker lives in your hometown has contributed to the environment that has created massive debt in the third world, that you picket his house. If the local politicians that go to your church are found to be corrupt, make them stand before the congregation and explain their behavior.
Better yet, vote them and their cronies out of office. That's what happened here in Secaucus. All of the former mayor's cronies on council have been defeated. The various town officials that have embezzled town funds are being indicted and removed from their positions.
In a reaction to the way the high school principal and school supt. treated a high school student who questioned school policies, the town voted down the school budget by a wide margin. Secaucus is one of the few localities in the state that had regularly voted for its school budget, even if it meant tax increases.
Corruption in New Jersey is rampant, but in a movement that transcends partisan politics, voters are working to clear out the miscreants. If they are successful, it will be because they have spent time and energy working on the local level rather than worrying about the latest distractions on FOX News, CNN and other national media outlets.

No One Can Sing the Blues Like Blind Willie McTell - A Nearly Perfect Bob Dylan Song

By 1983 Bob Dylan was emerging from his Born-Again period and returning to his prophetic roots. Dylan's work had always been biblical, but from 1979 to 1981 it narrowed to the 'end-of-times' evangelical born-again variant. He toured the country for three years encouraging his audience to repent of their sins.

The critics reaction to this was scathing. Audiences booed (not for the first time in Dylan's career).

Because my background is Pentecostal, I understood it thoroughly and was painfully familiar with it. My hope was that Dylan was intelligent enough to work his way through it. We all have to crawl through shit sometimes to get to freedom (see 'Shawshank Redemption').

Dylan worked his way through it, and musically, what he created was stunning and breath taking. The album 'Jokerman" was greeted with relief by critics who thought Dylan had renounced his Pentecostalism. They didn't understand what had happened.
Dylan did not abandon it, he incorporated it within his being and became stronger, wiser and more connected than before to the Divine Force that flows through the universe. The songs he wrote in 1983 that weren't included on Jokerman were stunning, powerful and spiritual. Many of these were included in the Bootleg Series released in 1991.
One of those songs was 'Blind Willie McTell.'  Dylan on piano and Mark Knopfler on acoustic guitar are the only musicians. The song evokes the ghosts of slavery while lamenting there is no one left to sing the blues to confront those ghosts.
Dylan surveys the landscape amidst these ghosts of past oppression and sees only greed and corruption today. The only appropriate response is to sing the blues and nobody could sing the blues like Blind Willie McTell. The images Dylan invokes are haunting and disturbing. Plantations are burning, whips are cracking, rebels are yelling, tribes are moaning and the undertaker's bell is tolling.
 Filled with despair as the blues singers who reminded us of our spiritual bankruptcy are now all departed, Dylan struggles to take their place. In doing so, he does not abandon his born-again Pentecostalism. He takes from it what is true and prophetic and incorporates it into the biblical vision he always had (see 'Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' and 'I'm All Right, Ma'). What emerged was something powerful and profound. Dylan didn't think the songs belonged on the album released in 1983. The only reason Dylan has given that he didn't include 'Blind Willie McTell' on Jokerman was that he didn't get it quite right.
We never get things perfectly, we never do. But sometimes we get close. This song gets very, very close.

Dylan's 'Foot of Pride,' A Prophetic Call For Judgement 'That We'll Never See'

When the first Bootleg Series came out (vol 1-3) I was struck by how many incredible Dylan songs never made it to record. 'Foot of Pride' is one of them. The lyrics are so stunning I print them in full.

Foot Of Pride

Like the lion tears the flesh off of a man
So can a woman who passes herself off as a male
They sang “Danny Boy” at his funeral and the Lord’s Prayer
Preacher talking ’bout Christ betrayed
It’s like the earth just opened and swallowed him up
He reached too high, was thrown back to the ground
You know what they say about bein’ nice to the right people on the way up
Sooner or later you gonna meet them comin’ down

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

Hear ya got a brother named James, don’t forget faces or names
Sunken cheeks and his blood is mixed
He looked straight into the sun and said revenge is mine
But he drinks, and drinks can be fixed
Sing me one more song, about ya love me to the moon and the stranger
And your fall-by-the sword love affair with Errol Flynn
In these times of compassion when conformity’s in fashion
Say one more stupid thing to me before the final nail is driven in.

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

There’s a retired businessman named Red
Cast down from heaven and he’s out of his head
He feeds off of everyone that he can touch
He said he only deals in cash or sells tickets to a plane crash
He’s not somebody that you play around with much
Miss Delilah is his, a Phillistine is what she is
She’ll do wondrous works with your fate, feed you coconut bread,
spice buns in your bed
If you don’t mind sleepin’ with your head face down in a grave

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

Well, they’ll choose a man for you to meet tonight
You’ll play the fool and learn how to walk through doors
How to enter into the gates of paradise
No, how to carry a burden too heavy to be yours
Yeah, from the stage they’ll be tryin’ to get water outa rocks
A whore will pass the hat, collect a hundred grand and say thanks
They like to take all this money from sin, build big universities to study in
Sing “Amazing Grace” all the way to the Swiss banks

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

They got some beautiful people out there, man
They can be a terror to your mind and show you how to hold your tongue
They got mystery written all over their forehead
They kill babies in the crib and say only the good die young
They don’t believe in mercy
Judgement on them is something that you’ll never see
They can exalt you up or bring you down main route
Turn you into anything that they want you to be

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

Yes, I guess I loved him too

I can still see him in my mind climbin’ that hill
Did he make it to the top, well he probably did and dropped
Struck down by the strength of the will
Ain’t nothin’ left here partner, just the dust of a plague
that has left this whole town afraid
From now on, this’ll be where you’re from
Let the dead bury the dead. Your time will come
Let hot iron blow as he raised the shade

Well, there ain’t no goin’ back
When your foot of pride come down
Ain’t no goin’ back

Copyright © 1983 by Special Rider Music

Bob Dylan's Desolation Row - A Masterful Masterpiece Of Misery and Misadventure

'Highway 61 Revisited' was the first Dylan album I owned. The first side began with 'Like A Rolling Stone' and ended with 'Ballad of A Thin Man.' Breathlessly, I flipped the vinyl over to listen to the second side. I thought to  myself, how can we top that first side?
'Queen Jane Approximately' starts the second side off well. Then it just kept getting better. When the acoustic guitars launched into Desolation Row, I was exhausted. I just laid back and listened, already treated to the most amazing musical experience of my young life.
'They're selling postcards of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown.'
Wow, that's how the song started. After a blind commissioner and a restless riot squad, we get to the refrain 'as Lady and I look out tonight from Desolation Row.'
Cinderella and Romeo inhabit the second verse, ending with Cinderella 'sweeping up on Desolation Row.' The song continues with a cast of characters culled from the Bible, Shakespeare and Classic Literature. The penultimate verse begins with a nod to Roman/Greek Mythology 'Praise be to Nero's Neptune, the Titanic sails at dawn.' The Poets Pound and Eliot are invoked and 'nobody has to think too much about Desolation Row.'
The last verse lets us in on the joke 'I had to rearrange their faces and give them all another name.' The weariness and depression sets in as the writer states 'right now I can't read too good, don't send me no more letters, no, not unless you mail them from Desolation Row.'

I had forgotten about this song for years until I watched the brilliant, dystopic movie 'Watchmen.' The soundtrack featured a version of Desolation Row by the band My Chemical Romance. The song did not feel out of a place in a movie that reminds us that the American dream is really a nightmare.
I gravitate toward the dark and the deep. Pop mainstream Top 40 music makes me ill. Cotton candy for the brain. I need music that feeds the soul and stimulates the gray matter. I can't tell you what 'Desolation Row' means. But it seems to capture some basic elements of the human condition, hopelessness and helplessness.
Rather than sugarcoat how awful life can be, this song stares into the abyss and triumphs through sheer will power. Listening to it allows us to do the same.