An Appeal To Stewart Shepherd

To: Mr. Stewart Shepherd
Focus on the Family

From: Norman 5875
Lapsed and Failing Christian

Mr. Stewart,

A few weeks ago I happened to catch your video, via the "mainstream media," where you asked your viewers, in a playful way, to pray for rain over Denver the night Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination for President. I understand, though do not respect, the idea that you intended this as a joke. Needless to say, I didn't find it funny.

But, in doing research for this blog I found your rebuttal video to the "mainstream media," where you read from the "knee-jerk Liberal dictionary" or some such, quoted Sean Hannity about Keith Olbermann's ratings (what's his obsession with that? It's not healthy) and basically made a tongue-in-cheek apology for making a joke that wasn't very funny. Or, as I detected, further made fun of those who don't think like you by implying they're too full of hatred, blinded by ideology or stupid to understand your extremely well put together and funny joke.

I'm pretty sure I hate you.

Let's back up, since that was a little strong and you are a man of God, which probably entitles you to a bit of leeway. See, I was shaped and molded by many "Men of God," and found a large majority of them to be true followers of Jesus Christ - forthright, honest, fair and compassionate. Very few of them were snarky, even fewer of them out and out hated and if they did so, they did it on the inside where it was dealt with spiritually. I presume you've undergone most of the same training, read some of the same books and studied the Bible in the same ways as most of these men and I wonder where the disconnect comes in. You see, the men who shaped me were influential and caring and drove me closer to God, or so I felt. When I watch you and your sarcastic, partisan, self-centered comments, it makes me want to burn down a church.

I don't think you realize you have that effect. I truly believe you have good intentions, or did at one point. I'm sure you talk big about love (truthfully, I don't know that much about you). But here's what I do know - love is always about sacrifice, and Christianity has the biggest, most gaudy example of this in the known universe in the form of Jesus Christ. When you love, you often overlook, care, reach out, embrace and sometimes hold your nose or tongue to make love possible. What you're doing, Mr. Shepherd, is calling me an asshole.

See, I'm voting for Barack Obama because I believe he's the better man for the job. I believe he's smarter, more capable of mobilizing the public and genuinely believes in people. He served in lower class communities for years - there's that pesky sacrifice thing coming up again. I like the guy, even though I've never met him. And you made a joke about God pouring "Old Testament" rain on the guy. Let's say you were really not joking and wanted this prayer chain to form and for God to hear and disrupt Obama's speech. That's pretty terrible in my book because you're using God, overtly and without wiggle room, to advance a political agenda and that makes me want to cry for the state of the faith in which I was raised. But, let's say you were joking and just have no ear for comedy. The implication then is you'd joke about God's overt action into politics. Joking about God usually isn't smiled upon too much by you folk. Ask Kevin Smith. That makes you a hypocrite, pretty much.

But then, the coup de grace - your response video where you overtly mock anyone who called you on your shit for either a) being a partisan right down to the cross around your neck or b) not being funny while making fun of God. By pulling out that "funny" Liberal handbook or through any of the other ham handed jokes you attempted, you called me an asshole. And I don't like to be called an asshole. In fact, if I were called an asshole in church, I would leave that church, which is sort of what's happening.

See, when you people at Focus on the Family mix your politics and your religion love is never a bi-product. Hate comes out, intolerance comes out, stubbornness (which, our Bible tells us is not a sign of love) comes out, but not love or compassion or caring or anything like it, and it makes me want to go away from you. And while I find myself running away from you and what you stand for, I also find myself running away from everything you and your ilk are connected to, right down to the wafer placed on my tongue Sunday mornings. You and your people are not the only reason but you are part of the reason I feel myself losing my grip on what I thought God was and who he was to me. By calling me an asshole for voting for Obama, and implying that I will get wet while you are dry makes me so angry it breaks bonds that true Men of God spent decades creating. And I feel it happening and it makes me want to cry.

Even if you were funny, I'd find you sad. As it stands, you're not only a bad evangelist and bad Christian in terms of outreach (again, I don't know your soul) but you're a lousy fucking comedian and a political hack piece of shit in my opinion. And I'm not going to waste one prayer, however many I have left, on someone like you.

Blessings, douchbag.

Norman

Two Quick Videos

This first one is brilliant. That's the only real word for it.



This second one has many more words such as "ooooh," "ouch," "oh my gawd," "yowza" "that is so mean," "holy god" and "what the hell is wrong with you for promoting this sort of video."

Here ya go.

Maximus The Goat Boy

At this point in my life I feel like Bill Hicks and his comedy was one of the low level building blocks responsible for the man I've become. Every time I get really pissed off because others are being hurt, every time I tear something apart and go two or three steps too far, (mostly in my mind, never outside of it unfortunately), any time I'm really really drunk or overindulgent for the sake of the soul - that's Bill Hicks.

So to hear Russell Crowe is considering taking on the lead role in a Bill Hicks bio pic...I'm kind of sad and nervous. And curious.

Hick's story is amazing and if you don't know it, pick up "American Scream" by Cynthia True or the superb DVD simply called "Bill Hicks" put out a couple years back. The dude was unique and powerful but his story of comedy from an early age, rage from an early career, excess upon excess, spirituality upon spirituality, cancer upon pancreas and a departure well before the aliens came to pick us up is rife for adaptation, actually. I'm just firmly of the mindset that I don't want to fucking see it.

Would Crowe be good? Probably. I don't care. I've honestly never thought about a bio pic, never cast it in my head, never considered plunking down $8 to see the movie. And I'm not stupid, if they made it I'd see it. But the fact it will get made as Oscar bait makes me sad. Russell Crowe has Oscars and chops but there's not an actor alive I'd consider for the part. It's just never been an option.

Hicks means a lot to me and I would sacrifice body parts to listen to him do a set on the last 8 years. But his life and work was never a movie...never entertainment. That, and he never hit the mainstream because he never sacrificed his pure material. Don't believe me? Spend 7 minutes with the guy below.

I hope this doesn't happen. I won't be outraged or angry, just sad. Very sad.

The Body(ies)

I was lucky enough to be able to attend the "Bodies Uncovered" exhibit in Kansas City this weekend, and for those who don't know what "Bodies Uncovered" is, it has nothing to do with burlesque or stripping. To its possible detriment.

No, "Bodies Uncovered" is an exhibit that tours the world in which dozens of human bodies are dissected and preserved using a special polymer process that stops decay, preserves size and the illusion of moisture and allows for some seriously in depth looks at actual human bodies. Some people are skinned and kept in one piece, others are sectioned (in every way you can imagine) and others are used for organ specimens or other various exhibits.

I'm not squeamish, by and large, but I had heard some good questions raised about this exhibit...like where do you get your hands on more than 40 human bodies. Rumors swirled but it's mostly accepted that the bodies came from volunteers. I find that odd, because among other pieces on display there was a dead woman with a dead fetus inside her dead womb kept in one piece for my viewing and supposed enhancement of my appreciation for the human body. It makes one wonder.

Still, it's undeniable that by spending time with perfectly preserved human bodies I DID walk away with a better understanding of what's going on inside me. And a desire to never eat anything again. From a scientific viewpoint, I'd never seen the body as a whole and it truly is awesome how all these little bones and cartilage and veins work together to create something else, something bigger than the sum of its parts.

But, and this is a big but...EWWWW. And HOLY SHIT. And GLUPGT.

Example: There was a dude (and we knew it was a dude because he was anatomically correct..why wouldn't he be?) who was cut into around 10 sections vertically from face to back. Then a different dude diced vertically from side to side. Then, and this was the coup de grace, a dude cut into fillet Mignon-looking sections from toes to head which covered nearly 10 feet of display space, or as Ron Popiel would put it, "more than 9 feet of genuine diced human." It's amazing and it's educational but then you get to the section with the eyes and next thing you know this isn't "random diced guy" but "diced guy who had a mother and father and probably people who loved him." If he was there of his own free will, it doesn't make it any less disturbing for me. If he wasn't, I feel like I'm aiding a crime or at the very least an act of perversity.

But then there were pieces of incredible beauty. At one point, the veins and arteries in a human hand lay suspended in liquid - literally thousands of individual strands making something we all recognize at the end of our elbow. It was breathtaking.

So the question is "does something with scientific and possible artistic value yet undeniable controversy merit appreciation, further study or both?" I think it's both, with a healthy dose of EWWWW on my part. I believe we're even more than the some of our physiology, and whatever that might be weighed heavy on me as I saw the raw elements that make up humans. My head said "this is good and important" and whatever spirituality I have left was pulling back hard. Either way, it was worth stepping into the display. Very worth it.

Wiener Dog Blog: Ouchee

Hey Cole.

Whats.

My paw hurts.

What?

My paw. The thing I walk on. It hurts.

Oh.

It's why I yelped just now.

You just yelped just now?

Yes.

Why?

My paw hurts, you skinny bitch. I just told you that.

Is it because you had something to eat?

No. I have an ingrown claw.

Is that something you can eat?

No. It's the thing that comes out of your paw. You scratch with it.

It sounds like it's yummy.

It's sticking into my foot. The fat guy says I need to have something surgery tomorrow.

Surgery?

Yes. I think it's a yummy food. Maybe a doughnut or a bear claw.

See! I told you you could eat it.

I can't wait for my surgery tomorrow.

Can I come with you?

No. It's special for me. I get a surgery because I have an ingrown claw.

You're so lucky.

Maybe you can smell my breath when I come back.

I'm leaving. You're a jerk.

OK. I'm going to lick my paw for the next 7 hours until they take me to get my surgery.

I'm shaking my ass at you.

(slurp slurp slurp)

Updates to come.

Everybody Takes A Hit

I'm not much of a debater (certainly not a master...debator...) but one of the biggest knock down drag out verbal altercations I was ever in involved the basic concepts of comedy. My friend was arguing that all comedy, no matter what it was, involved a certain level of schadenfreude. To put it another way, there wasn't a laugh to be had in this world that wasn't, at least in the abstract, at the expense of a person or object. I ran the list - knock knock jokes (the joke is on you for being surprised), George Carlin routines, especially his language stuff (the joke is often on those who use the language incorrectly) and many others. The only headway I made in the argument was puns because puns are "clever" comedy and don't really hurt anyone. I was then informed the pun is usually at the expense of a subject. Not always, but often.

I remembered that debate, which I lost, today when I read about the new movie "Tropic Thunder," and how groups who work with the developmentally disabled are complaining about a part of the film where Ben Stiller portrays a special needs person. They feel assaulted, which they have every right to feel. They want to organize protests, which they have every right to do. But as someone who has been laughed at and the butt of a great many jokes (deservedly so), I don't understand how this group doesn't realize that 1) they're picking a bad target at a bad time and 2) if they've ever laughed at anything, anytime, they're complicit in mocking. All we're talking about is a matter of degree.

First off, "Tropic Thunder" is a film with a lot of good buzz behind it and one white actor, Robert Downey Jr., portraying a black man. This movie, straight ahead, says "we're probably going to do some offensive stuff" which doesn't justify doing offensive stuff. When you make a statement as strong as putting a white man in blackface, you're either an idiot, a racist, or pretty damn sure you have something satirical to say. In this case writer-director-star Stiller is lampooning Hollywood conventions. In the case of Downey in blackface, it's an actor making a "transformation" into a different character, something ripe for lampooning. It's the same concept behind "Simple Jack," the character (played by Stiller) who is offending the developmentally disabled advocates.

Again, having something to lampoon doesn't quite equal intent - you can't say "President Bush is an idiot so I'm going to make an art exhibit simulating baby rape." In that case, the intent of your art would widely be misconstrued. But in the case of "Tropic Thunder" there's a long history of people playing developmentally disabled characters for the purpose of winning Oscars, and it's that convention being made fun of. As I understand it, he's not making fun of the developmentally disabled, he's making fun of people who profit by portraying them, which could be called a despicable practice.

Strangely, I also see exactly where the protest is coming from. Politically, if I supported a cause and saw a high level actor making fun of my cause, I might see it as a chance for some publicity. Or I might honestly be indignant and feel that "this is too much" without caring about the context. Again, this is fine. You have a right to ignore context and I have a right to see Tropic Thunder, as the artist intended, free of guilt because I disagree with your position.

Final idea - While Stiller is probably doing this parody in a good way, there's the fratboy mentality of calling someone a "retard" or making fun challenged folks in a mean way that I don't find acceptable. I don't think "Tropic Thunder" is part of this subculture which is truly treating the developmentally disabled in a despicable way. Then again, posters on the Internet are not easy to fight and a $100 million movie starring three recognizable actors is. Again, I understand it politically, I just don't agree with it.

On Fire!

I may not know much about stoner humor, but I know what I find funny.

For example, I know that the meandering, PHC soaked breakfast-after-the-action scene at the end of "Pineapple Express" went completely over my head, not eliciting one grin out of me. I also know that watching some poor projectionist try to beat out a fire in the projection booth with a rag before "Express" began was one of the funniest damn things I've seen in a long time.

Today is my birthday and by way of a present, my wife said "go catch a movie." I'm a fan of Judd Apatow in general and kinda sorta a fan of Seth Rogen, so "Pineapple Express" it was. Not to get too into a review, but the movie was fun and goofy with an uneven sense of action and characters that thought they were much more interesting than they were. Subplots went nowhere quickly and at the end, it was kind of a middling success. I'm not sorry I saw it, in other words, but I probably don't need to see it again.

When I got to the theater for my Sunday afternoon matinee, the theater was about 1/5 full. The designated start time came, the lights dimmed, the pre-movie show began and then promptly stopped. The lights came up and the 40 or so folks in the theater looked back to see what the hell. We were treated to the site of the projection room filling with smoke and a dude trying to put out the film stock, which was visibly on fire. It wasn't a big fire. It wasn't an "oh God we need to get out of here" fire. It was just enough to see the orange and just enough panic the poor dude in the booth.

I don't know if it was the way he was beating the film spooled out on the platter or what, but pretty much everyone started laughing. The dude in the booth gave us the "thumbs up" sign after the danger had passed and shortly thereafter we smelled the burning film stock. It smells like if someone had poured Kool-Aid into some sort of acid.

It took about 10 minutes for the movie to start, and even then the film was a little "streaky" with white light reaching to the top of every frame. No matter. It wasn't a bad flick and now I know what burning film smells like.

One more word on "Pineapple Express:" It has my favorite fight scene of the year consisting of three white guys destroying a house, beating each other and then apologizing for it. -Punch- I'm sorry dude. -smack- Oh, that might have been too much. It struck me funny, but not as funny as the rapid beating of a rag against burning film.

Vote for Me!

A couple days ago I posted a picture of a sign I found at a book sale and submitted it to Failblog.org, a fantastic little site.

Turns out they liked it enough to put it up for a vote. I'm on the top of the second page labeled "Science Fail."

You could go to www.failblog.org/vote and vote for me...if you wanted to...

Picture Monday: Butter Princess

Is it the subject or the media that makes this butter sculpture so...off? Since I've never met the subject, it's hard to say, but Ms. VanderKool's butter rendering had my stomach doing flippies when I first saw it. It's as if a David Lynch town came alive, held a state fair and carved Laura Palmer out of a buttery spread. -shudder-

What I found was Minnesotan's take great pride in their butter sculpture. When I was in Minneapolis I asked people about it and they all smiled and spoke in a manner which said "we're not ashamed of our ridiculous sculpture." Then I spoke to some Minnesota ex-patriots and they did the same thing.

Weird. On several levels.