It's Time To Put It All On The Line

So, I have a new thang: following this WGA strike. I'm too lazy to post links to relevant sites, like other legitimate bloggers. You'll have to get your Google on to find out more about it. It sounds like the writers are tired of only making 4 cents from every DVD sold with their byline on it, and even more tired of getting absolutely no royalties at all from their shows running on the internet, iTunes, or other alternative media. They say that, if they don't stand up for their fair share now, they will never be fairly compensated for the creative work that they do.

Now, I'm a Republican, and I appreciate the business that the studios are in - large investments, large risks - and I love me my entertainment escapes, but this sounds a little too much like a girl working really hard every night and her pimp is taking all of her money when she is doing all of the work. Just sayin'.

I'm all for this strike. I'm a firm believer that you have to stand for what's right and true, no matter how hard the wind is blowing in your face. No matter what nasty punches the other side pulls. Sometimes you have to draw the line and stand on your side of it and say, "I do this for those who would come after me." Lock arms with those next to you, carry large signs with the truth for all to see, and commit that it will not be over until there is a just resolution.

And that's why I support the WGA strike.

For you

Yesterday was your birthday. I just want you to know that I remembered you all day.

You came and you gave without taking, but I sent you away

As if I haven't had enough pain and disappointment recently, my Barry goes and does this:

'Copacabana' Singer Calls Conservative Co-Host 'Dangerous'
By Dean Goodman, Reuters

"Pop singer Barry Manilow, a major Democratic fundraiser, said on Monday he has scrapped plans to appear on the television talk show "The View," because he did not want to be interviewed by its conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Manilow was scheduled to appear on the ABC morning show Tuesday, the same day his new album, "The Greatest Songs of the Seventies" hits stores. But those plans fell through because of his issues with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, an abortion opponent and supporter of the Iraq war.

"I had made a request that I be interviewed by (co-hosts) Joy (Behar), Barbara (Walters) or Whoopi (Goldberg), but not Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out," he said in a statement on his Web site.

Is this what celebrities think they can do now? "I'd be happy to go on Hannity and Colms, but don't let the jerk on the right interview me. His views are dangerous and offensive.I'll answer questions from the guy on the left." Or "Sure, I'll go on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, but don't let that big Irish guy interview me. He is offensive. Have the drummer interview, or better yet, bring that chubby guy back. He was funny, and he doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities."

"It's really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs." Yeah, bummer for you they already have a format for this program.

In an earlier statement to the news Web site TMZ.com, which broke the news, Manilow said Hasselbeck was "dangerous" and "offensive."

But a source close to "The View" said "we canceled him," because producers refused to comply with Manilow's "completely disrespectful" demands.

The source told Reuters that Manilow had appeared on the show twice in the past year when Hasselbeck was present, and had been booked for Tuesday's appearance since July. The source could not think of a similar incident with another guest happening in the past."

Since when has my Barry been a political figure? I kind of always thought that he was too busy writing the songs and standing on the edge of time to be an active citizen and all. I admit that he breaks my heart posturing on the wrong side of the aisle, and I'm not that kind of woman who "has to watch what the ladies are going to do" every morning on the View ... but I think it's pretty ridiculous to cancel a national spot simply because you don't like the views of one of the hosts. I mean, did his PR rep not tell him that the show is called "The View"? Did this rep also forget to mention what a sissy he would look like if he canceled? I just don't get it.

"Manilow has been a generous contributor to Democratic Party candidates, according to data compiled by the Federal Election Commission.

This year, he contributed the maximum-allowable $2,300 each to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards, as well as to Ron Paul, a maverick Texas Republican."

Ron Paul drives me insane.

He has also been a big supporter over the years of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California lawmaker on the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Barry, come on! Barbara Boxer?!?! Uuuuuhhhhh ... this is worse than Hilary. But not as bad as Nancy Pelosi. If this article had mentioned Nancy, I might have had to give up my official Fanilow status. *Phew* Close call!

As it stands, though, I am disappointed. Very disappointed.

excerpt

Sometimes when our merciful God

Chooses to love us in ungentle ways

We scream and resist

But His infinite mercies,

Renewed every morning,

Are what heal our soul

Oh dear one! you have been His mercy to me

But oh! so severe!

Even this wounding is part of His healing

Love’s dangerous work makes us beautiful indeed

What's in a name?

(excerpted from "What is Man?" by Bishop Kallistos Ware, AGAIN Magazine, Vol. 27 No. 2, Summer 2005)

In the beginning of the era of modern philosophy in the early seventeenth century, the philosopher Descartes put forward his famous dictum, "Cogito ergo sum"—"I think therefore I am." And following that model, a great deal of discussion of human personhood since then has centered round the notion of self-awareness, self-consciousness. But the difficulty of that model is that it doesn’t bring in the element of relationship. So instead of saying "Cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am," ought we not as Christians who believe in the Trinity to say, "Amo ergo sum"—"I love therefore I am"? And still more, ought we not to say, "Amor ergo sum"—"I am loved therefore I am"?

One modern poem that I love particularly, by the English poet Kathleen Raine, has exactly as its title "Amo Ergo Sum." Let me quote some words from it:

Because I love

The sun pours out its rays of living gold

Pours out its gold and silver on the sea.


Because I love

The ferns grow green, and green the grass, and green

The transparent sunlit trees.


Because I love

All night the river flows into my sleep,

Ten thousand living things are sleeping in my arms,

And sleeping wake, and flowing are at rest.


This is the key to personhood according to the Trinitarian image. Not isolated self-awareness, but relationship in mutual love. In the words of the great Romanian theologian Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, "In so far as I am not loved, I am unintelligible to myself."

If, then, we think of the divine image, we should not only think of the vertical dimension of our being the image of God; we should also think of the Trinitarian implication, which means that the image has a horizontal dimension—relationship with my fellow humans. Perhaps the best definition of the human animal is "a creature capable of mutual love after the image of God the Holy Trinity." So here is the essence of our personhood: co-inherence; dwelling in others.

What is said by Christ in His prayer to the Father at the Last Supper is surely very significant for our understanding of personhood: "That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John17:21). Exactly. The mutual love of the three Divine Persons is seen as the model for our human personhood. This is vital for our salvation. We are here on earth to reproduce within time the love that passes in eternity between Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.

Then I woke up

We were on the beach, and the water was beyond beautiful. Clear, turquoise, like a jewel swelling then receding from the white powder sand. We commented on how perfect and beautiful it was, and just watched the tide for awhile. We went back inside to the dining room, sunny and warm as the beach outside. We went about our work and all was well.

Then I was on a train - a freight train - and it was going at a breakneck speed. I was not alone - the kids were with me - but I didn't know how we got on, and I didn't want to be on, and I knew as we approached a rising right turn that there was no turning back. We would have to ride the train around to wherever it was going.

My phone rang. I looked down to see that it was the one person I knew would never call me again. I almost didn't want to talk to her. I answered the phone and I heard her say it was time, but the wind from the train was rushing in my ear and I pretended I couldn't hear her. So I said, "Hello? Who is this?" (though I knew who it was). And she didn't answer. And I hung up.

The train arrived.

I was back in the dining room but it was dark and the mood dank. There were fewer tables, the chairs were brown metal, and the carpet was grey with dirt and worn. There were cigarette ashes on the floor and an ash tray. I saw him wiping down a table like he was trying to erase his life. He looked up at me and we didn't say anything to each other.

I called her back. I don't think I said anything, just listened. But it was awkward and I felt like someone else wanted this, not me.

Then I looked up and saw the water again. And I walked down some stairs, my son walking next to me, and I held his hand as we walked up to a desk where a familiar man was working. He was lean and long, his knees not under the desk. He was talking on the phone, his sleeves rolled up to his elbows, but I knew he was expecting us and I leaned down to my son and told him to say hello. I didn't see the man's face but I could feel his smile as he continued to talk on the phone but acknowledged my boy. He and I didn't say a word but I lightly ran my hand on his side as a greeting and could feel his skin which felt like home.

O Nathan, where art thou?

27-3 But God was not at all pleased with what David had done, and sent Nathan to David. Nathan said to him, "There were two men in the same city—one rich, the other poor. The rich man had huge flocks of sheep, herds of cattle. The poor man had nothing but one little female lamb, which he had bought and raised. It grew up with him and his children as a member of the family. It ate off his plate and drank from his cup and slept on his bed. It was like a daughter to him.

4 "One day a traveler dropped in on the rich man. He was too stingy to take an animal from his own herds or flocks to make a meal for his visitor, so he took the poor man's lamb and prepared a meal to set before his guest."

5-6 David exploded in anger. "As surely as God lives," he said to Nathan, "the man who did this ought to be lynched! He must repay for the lamb four times over for his crime and his stinginess!"

7-12 "You're the man!" said Nathan. "And here's what God, the God of Israel, has to say to you: I made you king over Israel. I freed you from the fist of Saul. I gave you your master's daughter and other wives to have and to hold. I gave you both Israel and Judah. And if that hadn't been enough, I'd have gladly thrown in much more. So why have you treated the word of God with brazen contempt, doing this great evil? You murdered Uriah the Hittite, then took his wife as your wife. Worse, you killed him with an Ammonite sword! And now, because you treated God with such contempt and took Uriah the Hittite's wife as your wife, killing and murder will continually plague your family. This is God speaking, remember! I'll make trouble for you out of your own family. I'll take your wives from right out in front of you. I'll give them to some neighbor, and he'll go to bed with them openly. You did your deed in secret; I'm doing mine with the whole country watching!"

13-14 Then David confessed to Nathan, "I've sinned against God."