What Women Wear...Part III

The time has come, it's finally here, the moment you've all been so anxiously waiting for...Part III of the do's and don'ts in the world of women's fashion. Now, we've addressed several issues from shoes to jeans to hair to belts. It's time to get into a little more detail. Alas, before I begin, let me just state that my opinion shouldn't matter one bit to you when it comes to this. And like I said, it is an opinion, not a fact. (though all guys will agree with me...whatever)
Tonight I was at a friends house when the topic of shoes came up in discussion. (And one more thing, I may repeat something that has already been discussed. Sorry) Two of my friends had recently purchased a pair of those shoes that are like full heels and look like they were woven together. It's the ones that you tie them like 6 inches up your ankle. I think I had previously said I didn't like them, and I'm still not a huge fan. Some girls do look good in them. They have to match your personality if I know you, and you assume a personality if I don't know you. Sorry if that makes no sense. Now, don't wear these shoes with shorts. Skirts, whether they're long or short (preferably long, like seriously) are the way to go with these shoes. Enough about that, let's talk about the long Polo shirt/dress things. Buy one in every color. I personally love them and have never met a guy that didn't. I think it's a texture thing, I don't know. They're just hot. Wear some sandals with it and you're set. Don't overformalize the shoes you wear with it. That says "I give a damn" when that's not the look you're going for. Moving on...
By the way, there's no order to this. I'm just thinking and writing, which brings me to jeans. I may be wrong here, but I think the high waist jeans are coming back in. Why, I have no idea. Fashion trends suck. As soon as something starts growing on me, it's not "in" anymore, though I stand by the fact that jeans and tanktop is always money. Anyhow, I'm not getting into jeans now, I touched on that already. Oh yeah, I forgot about another thing. At the Auburn game the other day, I saw a girl wearing a bra with clear straps. Why not just wear a strapless bra? Her straps were clear, but obviously still very visible which in essence defeated the purpose rendering it tacky? Is that the word? Whatever. I'm sure there's an answer for that and I'll be like "aaaaahhhh."
I'd like to have one of my friends (a girl) write a blog in response to this series. I'd love her to touch on all the issues I have and will continue to discuss, and talk about all the ridiculous things guys wear from day-to-day. Well, it's my bedtime. I'm gonna go ahead and post this and finish it tomorrow, where I will also get into personality traits as well. Haha, this is ridiculous. Peace

New Cooperative Blog

Attention ladies and gents,

Stephen Potts, Ben Pierce and myself are all working on a new blog together called Cerebrus. I hope you visit and enjoy it. It will probably end up being a lot of writing about theology, religion, and other cultural endeavors.

Check it out!

An Early Morning Rant on the Importance of Theology

It's very frustrating when people say as Christians, to Christians, "Can't we all just drop the disagreements and get along?" or, "It's about a relationship, not a religion!" Seriously, to my believing soul these statements sound like nails screeching on a chalkboard, not only because they're patently un-Christian, but also because they're full of double standards.

These people argue that the least common denominator of Christian living should be love, especially for the brothers and the sisters in the faith. This is fine, and to a large extent I agree with it, but before you can be living in love for other believers, it might be nice to have a helpful definition of what "love" really is, beyond a good emotional feeling or a few nice words. I suppose, were I to question one of these atheological types about the nature of love, they'd say that "God is love." And there you have a non-statement, if you take their perspective on the frivolity of theology seriously. God is love, but we must not know too much about God's nature, because it's just important to have a relationship. But if God is love, it does not stand to reason that God is only love, or that God is not wrath, which the Bible shows to be true. If we want to get some kind of a grip on love, it is worth studying the nature of God, Christ, and the Spirit. We should take it a step further, because if God is love, then he certainly acts lovingly, and we should see in what way he acts lovingly. If people choose to pursue a life of love without solid foundations for it as evidenced in the Bible, So really, the idea of dropping important theoogical discussions is foolish because we lose crucial and objective standards for our attempts to love each other. If you ignore theology, you can call whatever you want love, regardless of whether it actually is or not.

As far as the Christian religion goes, and it certainly is a religion and will be one till glory comes, it is important to note that it is a religion of relationships, namely of God to humanity and person to person. When people suggest otherwise, they're trying to make a religion for themselves. It would be funny to watch the double-standard, if it wasn't as sad as it is. The statement that it is all about relationships is, in error or fact, a religious, theological statement that is made to which others must assent. In fact, these people are some of the most religious people I know in their pleas to come to this conclusion.

Some argue that the nature of this relationship doesn't demand a theological or systematic perspective on Scripture. They seem to think that the nature of God is unnecessary for discussion, or that God is somehow beyond any kind of theological statement. While I appreciate their radical view of the transcendence of God, God has made himself known through his prophets and ultimately through his Son, and we may know true things about God using the means he has graciously left us. Call me cynical, but I really think this perspective is reflective of American laziness, not a real Scriptural or religious conviction. If I am in a relationship with someone, I want to know as much about them as possible. While, with fallen human beings, we may not always be able to take people at their word, or we see alterior motives for actions, God is not so deceptive. One of the things that makes the relationship of God to his people so sound is that God has given his people revelation to trust, and God cannot lie.

Christianity's uniqueness doesn't come from it's being a relationship instead of a religion. If you harp on the virtues of pursuing a relationship with God and neglecting the religious aspects of that pursuit, you're not being unique, just stupid. Every religion is concerned about man's relationship to a higher power, so seeking a relationship isn't exactly unique. The plurality of religions shows that there is something innately religious in man's nature, which is explained by Paul when he says that everyone knows God. The power of Christianity comes from the Gospel, in which, quoting Dorothy Sayers, God is both the "victim and the hero." It is unique in that God chose to suffer for our sake, and that our relationship to God is based on his work, not ours.

I often hear that theology won't make a difference in someone's life, or that theology puts God in a box. I don't like arguing from personal experience, but I think that even my basic knowledge of some aspects of theology have enriched my life to the point where such statements seem, to be honest, tragic. It has not put God in a box, but has opened my eyes to the gracious ways he relates to his people. But don't take my word for it. The writers of Scripture encouraged people to take the Bible seriously, and to really know what it says. Paul praised the Bereans for holding his teachings against the doctrines of the Old Testament, and towards the end of the New Testament Peter tells believers to be prepared to make a defense of Christian hope.

And it is the Christian hope which is so fundamental to our religion. I hear people saying "I just need to do this correctly," or "I'm really at a place where I need to focus on X right now," as if human achievements would bring some significant measure of instant holiness. While we strive for holiness and may obtain a small measure of it, we need to remember that we are fallen, and until Christ returns we will remain. Our relationship with God, from our eyes, is incredibly flawed. But Christ has saved us, and God sees His righteousness as ours. Christ promises to return and deliver us once and for all. That is a Scriptural perspective, a theological one. And it chances everything.

Deliver me (from bad music this summer)!

Cut the Chatter, Red 2, coming at you from Maryville, TN, the Smoky Mountain Mecca (not really, but sort of!).

Earlier this year I wrote a series of blogs on music and I haven't kept that up for a number of reasons. Even though I've heard some great bands, there usually isn't a comparable other worth crafting another episode of Battle of the Bands. There is some wonderful music this year, but either its been coming out at a trickle or I've been snooping around in the wrong places. As a result, I ended up spending a lot of time going through old classics while keeping an ear to the ground for some new releases that would stimulate my musical soul. I really enjoyed Andrew Bird when I got his album, but one person can't shoulder the load for the entire musical community.

Starters - Beirut
In any event, yesterday I drove from Auburn to Maryville, TN and that moment came. I downloaded the Beirut album (not the EPs) a while ago but I had never added them to my iTunes or burned a copy of the album for driving enjoyment (I don't have one of those bourgeois iPods...yet). While Beirut's Gulag Orkestar is a 2006 release that did not appear on Hawkins' roster for 2006, I think it would have been a top contender last year. I can't remember ever listening through an album a second time immediately after the first, but I spun Orkestar around again. It's something like indie meets world music from the Balkans, along with some Latin flair. The title track sounds like something you'd expect to hear in a Tarantino flick during the opening credits. I will definitely be listening to these guys for quite some time.

Heavy Hitters - Dinosaur Jr. and The Ponys
I grew up listening to oldies, country, and R&B, but I cut my musical teeth on rock classics like Queen, the Who, Rush, and Led Zeppelin, as well as shred oriented Dream Theater, Metallica, and Joe Satriani. Great solos, guitar hooks, and riffs aren't always prominent in the alternative world, and I mourn that. It doesn't frustrate me, because the alternative/indie world is really the only place where artists are independent, interested in saying something, and doing something on their own. But Dinosaur Jr. and the Ponys both seem to provide some solution to that problem. It is very seldom that I want to pick up my bass and learn a riff to an alternative groove, but "Double Vison" on the Ponys' Turn the Lights Out has me jonesing to get back to Pensacola to learn some riffs. Similarly, Dinosaur Jr.'s Beyond features great guitar licks, which might be some of the more significant solos in years. Earlier I had reviewed Deerhoof's Friend Opportunity, and while I enjoyed it more than Deerhunter, and not to be defamatory to that band, but it's presence as a rock band, even though they weren't completely going for that, is unconvincing. Not so with the Ponys and Dinosaur Jr.

If you have any interest in current rocking, check these guys out.

A Champion is Born: Chris Burdeshaw

Cut the Chatter Red 2 is going to provide the watching world with an interesting view into my life as I handle moving to Austin and making new friends. It's also going to give me a forum to comment on the friends I have had these past four years at Auburn. Sometimes, when you think of Auburn, you don't think of too much besides football and polo wearing boys and girls. But I recently discovered that there is one pretty neat thing about Auburn. A sports champion lives here, and his name is Chris Burdesahw.

I met Chris in a smoky bar one evening. He just outdrank a 350 lb. lineman. He then looked the bartender in the eye, didn't pay and left the bar, driving all the way home to Perry. I didn't see him until a year later when he started attending Auburn. When he came back I thought he was not just a great drinker, but kind of a jerk for endangering the lives of others. This was until I went to a bar with him once. He had 4 quadruple shots of vodka (in honor of John Bonham), and he walked a line. No harm done.

But at that point I only respected Chris. That was until I watched him play soccer, which is also known as the "Beautiful Game." But when Chris plays soccer, it's f@#%ing hot.

You won't see Chris on ESPN highlight reels. You won't read about him in the paper, and you won't see him on the cover of magazines. As a goalkeeper, Chris doesn't make those athletic, fingertip saves in the last mind-jarring minutes of a soccer game. You see, Chris likes to keep his sheets clean, and when an opponent is coming in for a shot on goal, Chris reads the situation and as soon as the ball leaves the strikes foot, it's in Chris' loving care. It's all about positioning for Chris, which is why you won't see him on any ESPN Top Ten's anytime soon. There's nothing to show, unless you want to watch opponents mouth the f-bomb as the camera follows.

When the Coaches' Poll was asked, "Who is most likely to break the Madden curse?" they answered resoundingly, "Chris Burdeshaw." The reported reminded the coaches that the Madden curse in fact applied to [American] football. Bobby Knight, longtime NFL fan, picked up a folding chair and decapitated the reporter.

Most recently, some friends of ours ran a marathon. Burdeshaw remarked that this was nothing and that he could do it any day of the week. The girl marathon runners (let it be known that they ran a half marathon, 13.1 miles) challenged Chris to run a marathon. Chris, not bother to accept (or to exchange his flip-flops for running shoes), finished half a Gatorade and one Caramello brick and took of running. Chris returned from his full marathon in merely an hour over the girls' time for a half-marathon.

Folks, I am proud to blog with Champion Chris Burdeshaw. Be sure to notice his championship t-shirt. I told you I would give you proof.

Auburn Top Fives, Courses

So I'm done. I don't have my diploma, but I have taken all my finals, turned in all my papers, and am in the process of saying those dreadful goodbyes. This past few weeks have turned into a time of reflection on the past four years, and what better place to opine about my Auburn experience than my fine, oft-visited blog?

Unlike other Top Fives, the following Top Five Courses won't be listed in order of most important to least, but rest assured, if it's on this list, you should take the course or mourn it for not being around.

1. Public Speaking, with Laura Beth Daws

Ms. Daws is no longer an instructor, as far as I know, so you've already missed out on the best core class that Auburn has to offer. Most people moan and groan their way through Public Speaking, but Ms. Daws helped make this course one of the most enjoyable I've ever taken. The members of the class were stellar as well. Everyone was in class before it began just to socialize with the other people in the class, and it wasn't long before everyone knew each other and the course took on a life of its own. My speeches were pretty simple, but creative, which Daws encouraged. I related myself to a coffee cup, went overtime on a speech about the Alabama constitution thanks to class interest, and tried to persuade people to drink more, not less, coffee. But the crowning achievement was the group project in which we identified a problem on Auburn's campus and sought to solve it. Topics like parking were off-limits, but on-campus transit systems were free game. So my group, affectionately dubbed "The Corner Group" because of our location in the class, chose to speak on Auburn's need for a slip-n-slide/zipline system for on campus transit. We came up with the idea as a half-serious joke, but Ms. Daws challenged us to pursue the idea. And so we spoke, in A-grade form, on the costs, benefits, and awesomeness of a campus in which the concourse was a giant yellow slide and zipline towers dotted the landscape. Instead of showing up in formal attire, like our other classmates (whose presentations were interesting and thoughtful in their own particular idioms), we walked into class dressed in climbing gear or swimwear with towels slung over our shoulders. We presented last, and our classmates thanked us for going last, since our speech was so phenomenal.

2. Science Fiction as Intellectual History, with Dr. Guy Beckwith

Dr. Beckwith is amazing. On my teacher evaluation I wrote that if he taught a religion course, he'd probably convert me to whatever religion he taught. Mix a great professor with a great subject and you have an hour of awesome every meeting. We journeyed through Science Fiction from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to William Gibson's cyberpunk hit Neuromancer, making wonderful stops in between. Beckwith covered an amazing amount of relevant territory, always relating it back to our own experiences. For example, when he lectured on Henry Ford, whose ideas and practices significantly influenced Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, he talked about Ford's idea of mass consumption. Ford gave dedicated workers an extra day for the weekend, Saturday, so they could go into stores and consume goods there, thus driving local economies. We talked about the Frankenstein trope, my name for the idea that science, devoid of ethics and for some authors, religion, will create monsters, whether those monsters are Frankenstein's demon or the atomic bomb, which Walter J. Miller discusses in A Canticle for Liebowitz. The class was filled with a mix of liberal arts nerds and science and engineering geeks, so class discussions were quite interesting, to say the least. If you took the course, you know what I'm talking about.

3. Eastern Central Europe in the 20th Century, Dr. Cathleen Giustino

Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (now fragmented into like a million states), Poland, Hungary. Who knows anything about these countries? I didn't going into the course, and when Dr. Giustino asked us to describe our knowledge, I wrote "I think a lot of ethnic cleansing goes on there." But over the course ... of the course I began to appreciate the complexities of that ignored region, the cultural diversity and production, and some of the gruesome parts of that region's 20th century experience. I also was challenged to get rid of my traditional notions of democracy and communism as practiced by the United States and the Soviet Union. Of course, Russia was totally ridiculous, but the U.S. was comparable on that account. I wonder why we mythologize the history, even recent, of the U.S. but are so harshly critical of some of our modern politicians, as if this sort of national-health-care-everyone-gets-a-free-sponge-implant silliness wasn't present in some other form previously. I wrote two papers for this course that contributed to my acceptance at Texas. I wrote on the post-WWII "wild transfers" of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia. After the war, many Germans were forced to deathmarch back to their country, and death tolls ranged from hundreds of thousands to one million. You never hear about that, though. I also wrote about the Plastic People of the Universe, a psychadelic rock band (genre, not adjective), a band that went against the party line in Czechoslovakia in the late 60s/early 70s and ended up provided an infrastructure crucial to circulating anti-government publications. A fun course. Hey, it got me into grad school. And we got to watch No Man's Land, a dark comedy about the ethnic conflicts in Serbia. Right on. Sort of.

4. Europe from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, Dr. Donna Bohanan
This was my first history course that counted towards my major. I took it in the fall of my sophomore year. My first semester at Auburn I didn't have any history courses (I was an EE major for numerous reasons, and despite the jokes I hold nothing against them and their higher starting pay). My second semester I took both World History courses and realized that I wanted to a professor. Bohanan's course sealed the deal. We talk about everything imaginable, from Renaissance activity to the theology of the Reformers (which I was particularly stoked about) and the French Revolution, with the Girondin and Montangnards or however they're spelled. Dr. Bohanan is a great professor too, that demands a lot of her students but also refreshes them at crucial points in the semester, even if it's just her personality. If you're looking for an elective that is a great course, you should take this one. You'll learn some great history and the coursework won't kill you.

5. The Civil Rights Movement, Dr. David Carter
I was mildly interested in the Civil Rights Movement when I took this course, but one of our readings became one of my favorite books of my whole Auburn experience. Dr. Carter won't provide you with answers about race; instead he'll teach you how to ask some of the important questions yourself. If you want a better understanding of the race relations (or lack thereof that we sometimes see), it's probably better to take his course than watch televised events of accidental shootings and violence. I learned about the multi-faceted nature of the movement, from Dr. King's SCLC to the SNCC students that thought he stole the show while doing little community work. Then you see in the late sixties how the movement fragmented into black power, feminism, or pure idealism. The history of the movement is a great way to examine some of the ideas about race that our nation has historically and presently, and may be one of the best ways to appreciate the widely differeing experiences of both whites and blacks, and now Latino/as and other ethnic groups in society, expressing a legitimate concern for everyone.

Honorable Mention
Existentialism, Dr. Bill Davis
Dr. Davis doesn't teach this course anymore, and I don't think I'm much more sure of what existentialism is now than I did before I took it. But I did make a lot of friends which eventually cost me several hours as I would bump into them, and then get coffee and argue about who knows what. It was all very unplanned, and I suppose you could argue that was what the course taught us.

Well, I've graduated Auburn for real and I've been inspired to do a lot of thinking in the past two weeks of not posting. But when I think about the past two weeks and what they've taught me, it's that nothing reminds you of how much you hate Michael W. Smith as when you experience graduation with people who grew up on that stuff. Not that I avoided Smith completely, but I also believe in sanctification.

An Update

It's that time of year. Exams are coming up. I am blessed to have four final exams as a graduating senior. This number far exceeds the amount of exams I've had to take before, and might be the highest number I've ever had to take in a single semester. So some of my writing projects might be a little delayed. In the interest of not disappointing our readers, in the days following my final final I will finish my blog on Chris, begin and finish my blog on Lauren, and reveal my top whatevers of my Auburn experience. I will also include a tracklist for the 20 songs that helped me endure the past few years of school.

I am going to write a Part II to what might seem to be a rather depressing post a few weeks ago, as you might be expecting, but I am thinking of waiting until I get to Austin to write that one.

Incidentally, Ruth Crumplar is moving to Austin. I heard she was doing it to woo her way onto the writing staff of Cut the Chatter, Red 2. That kind of thing has happened before, but let me reaffirm our commitment to testosterone filled writing and opinions.

Stay tuned...

I'm just backing up what Pope posted on earlier. My Part III is coming soon, hopefully by tonight. Girls, read it, then live it. Peace

He's Still Alive

Lately my inbox has been flooded with emails asking, "Did you fire Chris?," or "Chris' posts are so refreshing and stimulating, when is his next one coming?," or "Does Chris have a girlfriend? My phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX!!!!"

I decided to take this opportunity to respond by saying that Chris is still alive and well, and is, in fact a champion goalkeeper. He has been goalkeeping (in the starting XI mind you) for RUF Aubun's now championship co-ed intramural soccer team and in the interest of being an excellent sportsman has taken a short sabbatical from posting duties. This comes with full approval from the editorial board, the board of directors, and the sponsors of Cut the Chatter Red 2.

As a bit of shameless blog promotion, I will be doing a feature-length story on Mr. Burdeshaw's activity on the field in the coming week or so.

Up after that is an exposé on Lauren Wilson. Is she hip, or not? How cool is she, really?

And I'm not sure what Chris has in store for us, but I'm sure it's going to be good.

Cut the Chatter Red 2 Red Alert

One of our goals here at Cut the Chatter is to provide a hall of unmanliness to show just how important it is to be manly in our modern society. Consider this video the antithesis of manliness:

The Virginia Tech Massacre

A few days ago, a disgruntled student walked through the Virigina Tech campus and slaughtered some thirty-odd students, professors, and staff. In the interests of selling advertising, media corporations sent armies of cameramen and reporters to the scene to document the carnage. This viewpoint may seem highly skeptical but I don't think it is necessarily wrong. I think this event should be covered, but not continuously for 3 days, which will turn into 3 weeks of heavy coverage overall. For all the rhetoric about anchors' hearts and prayers being with the families of the victims, they certainly aren't letting the VA Tech massacre victims grieve.

I don't want to seem insenstive to this terrible tragedy. But the only reason that people are so caught up in this event, which really has nothing to do with them, is that they routinely fail to see the gruesome results of the fall in everyday life. Perhaps that is part of the reason this crisis occurred. The death toll at Virginia Tech proves nothing that was not true last week, or the week before that. And for all of the statements about never forgetting, well, those are lies. I wonder how many people think about September 11th, or Pearl Harbor, or the Holocaust, or whatever, on a daily, weekly, or even yearly basis. I'm not saying that it's unimportant to remember, I'm just saying that most won't.

I don't want to commodify this massacre into a springboard for Christianity, but it is frustrating when news anchors ask people where God was at the time of this tragedy. For some reason, the talking heads never give a good answer (probably because they're not Tim Keller, or Alvin Plantinga) that upholds true Christian doctrine. Other times they give answers that make it seem like God is in mourning over the whole event. I've never seen a talking head reverend point to the Cross and say "That's where God is."

It's that problem of evil question all over again. How can a good and omnipotent God allow 33 students to pointlessly lose their lives, or for 3,000 to perish in a terrorist attack, or for 7 million to be systematically slaughtered in death camps across Europe?

The news anchors that dare to ask these questions don't understand that they're sitting in God's lap to slap him in the face, as Cornelius van Til made the point. I wonder how many of them are atheists. Atheists like to beat up Christians with the problem of evil. But Christians should beat up atheists with the problem of good. Christianity makes a distinction between the two, and founds this disctintion on the nature of God and his Truth revealed in his Word. But atheists have nothing to go on. "Morality" at its best is founded on evolution, which is by definition random. Even if morality comes from evolution, it is still arbitrary and pointless. In fact, it might be the next stage in evolution to give ethics a pass altogether. If true, evolution is a law, not a lawgiver. And even if morality is based on something like a feeling, as Ravi Zacharias points out, in some cultures they love their neighbors and in some they love to eat them. Their certainly must be more to morality than the presence or lack of a rumble in the belly if it is to mean anything.

And that's why Christians truly call this event evil. They see the goodness of God and see that this is something antithetical to his lovingkindness. But even if Christians are the only people who can really define good and evil, the question remains. Why did this happen? Where was God?

And this is why Christianity must be taken not only for its ethics, but also for its Truth about God. It seems trite to say that "his ways are not our ways." Certainly there is no healing in that verse. It seems like a mockery of tragedy. But Scripture isn't just a story, it is a history of redemption, and the events that it records are real. Where was God? God was watching his Son die on the Cross. Jesus is aware of the suffering humans inflict upon themselves; he suffered for even that. And after atoning for sin, he rose and ascended, promising to return one day to bring the kingdom in full, where tragedy will only be spoken of in the past tense.

It is foolish to put hope in gun control laws, an increased police presence, counselling, or community building. These things are all good and perhaps even necessary, but they will only address symptoms of human misery and not the causes. Christ addresses our root evil and can give us a taste of goodness even in our own lives. But we cannot hope in our fallen bodies and minds. Christ promises to return and bring people into glory. It is in this promise that we should hope, not in the promises of politicians. And it is from this truth and what it means for us today that we should start to address the social issues of our day, and trust in God's Word instead of political or media rhetoric. They can't do anything for Virginia Tech. The returning Christ can.

Part I: Magic

Tim's voice singing Ryan Adams lingers in my ears. It's a shame bars don't allow smoking anymore. Oh, I know the arguments, and on my communist days I support them and on my libertarian days, I argue against them. It really takes away from the whole experience. I'm happy that people take smoke breaks, so that when they walk in you can catch a whiff of the tobacco smoke and feel like you're truly at a bar.

Tonight was Kurt's 21st birthday. We fulfilled a promise we made a couple years ago to have a beer before I graduated. Tim, Alex, and Price played a mix of original and cover songs. The three of us sat alone, while the bartender talked to two patrons at the bar. Later, another group of people came in and populated the tables next to us, but we didn't know who they were. One girl was pretty cute.

That promise is funny, really. Two years ago it seemed like it would never come, as if there was an infinite distance of time and space in between the two points. We lightly mourned the fact that we wouldn't get to go out to the Ale House too often before I left for good. The summer break would turn into a permanent chasm that willl only be bridged a few more times. It is particularly ironic in that we've waited, looking forward to that moment for quite some time. Now that it's here, I wish it had never come. Satisfaction's only child is disatisfaction.

It's a shame that not many people know Sartre's quote about eternity. He advocated, like other existentialists, living a life aware of your own death so that every moment may be lived to the fullest. But then he says that without eternity, everything is meaningless. I bet that doesn't make people comfortable. I bet it freaks them out. But they scare me, because I feel like they aren't being honest. People go about their daily lives and pretend like their experiences have meaing. That frustrates me. Just because you pretend your life has meaning and that your everyday activities are worthwhile doesn't mean that somehow they actually are.

Carson Pittman interned at Georgia Southern. Fletcher and I visited some friends there last summer and I got to meet Carson. He's a pretty cool guy. He wrote once that leaving a community is like a little death. I think he's right too. Somehow leaving reminds us of our own mortality, of the mortality of our friends, and of the futility of it all. I've spent four years in Auburn cultivating friendships that will be abruptly ended with a slip of paper to hang on my wall and prove it. And isn't it bitter that in your last months in an area you make more friends?

I think Sartre's quote is pretty spot on. I think Carson's is too. I also think I am fairly logical, and the conclusion is particularly nasty. This last four years of themselves hold no meaning for me. In looking back on formerly fond memories there is neither joy nor hope. The past exists and stands against us, mocking us in the present, prophesying that in the future we will only find more occasions for disappointment, misery, loss, and despair.

The Preacher tells us that all is vanity. The word for vanity actually means vapor. That is what the past, the friendships, and the memories are. That is what now is. That is what the future will be.

Installment 2

Early praise for cut the chatter.

"word up on your blog" - Kurt Smith.

Sweet Emotion Follow-up

Martin Strel successfully swam the entire Amazon river from source to mouth. Check out his expedition here. Manly indeed.

Science and Religion

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, discusses his faith in a real and loving God and the wonderful world he created. Great read from Collins, who really does several nails smack on the head.

The SEC is for me.

While I may be moving into the heart of the Big 12 at Austin, Texas, you can bet I won't be leaving my SEC sensibilities behind. I grew up a Florida fan, and as I finish up at Auburn I think it would be a good idea to take a look at some of my SEC experiences as I've spent four years at college.

- Auburn's astonishing 13-0 season my sophomore year with 4 players going in the first round of the 2005 NFL draft. Come to think of it, that Auburn team was much like Billy Donovan's Florida Basketball team. Cadillac and Ronnie Brown threatened any defensive line with a cutting finesse or brute aggression, while Jason Campbell evolved as one of the most reliable quarterbacks in the division. The lack of a spot in the national championship game confirms for the thousandth time both the absurdity of the BCS system and the prejudice against the Southeastern Conference (and they try to make us feel like we're particularly prejudiced!).

- David Marsh racks up a few more national championships in Auburn swimming and ushers at church.

- The Florida Men's Basketball team coming out of nowhere to take down more established programs to clinch an NCAA tournament title for the SEC, as Billy Donovan leads one of the most developed and deep teams in the nation. Aggressive giants like Noah and Horford shut down the lane while Humphrey and Brewer press opposing shot-makers, and after a short jog down the court reveal that they can attack a team from anywhere on the court.

- The Florida Football team grabbing the National Championship, partially because everyone realizes the ridiculousness that Auburn went 13-0 in the SEC. Auburn, in a process of slight rebuilding and shaken from a close call with LSU, beats UF anyways. Florida still goes on to smoke Ohio State, thus seeding a trend that will develop across the university's athletic program for that year.

- Again, UF's MBB team grabs the national championship, being the first SEC team in over 50 years to repeat a championship while also being the first team to repeat with the original starters from the first year.

The list could go on if I wanted to focus on other teams from the SEC. I could also look at the intense damage most every SEC team does to sports programs from other conferences only to conted within the conference the next week. I could look at how every SEC conference game is as intense as the most heated rivalries of other conferences. I'm no sports historian, or even a sports nut, but lists like these explain why I think I might paint the exterior of my house the wonderful yellow and blue of our fine Southeastern Conference.

Correction on Part I

When I said in my Part I to throw all cargo pants in a fire, I mean capri pants. I love cargos, I hate capris. Sorry for the confusion. Part III is coming soon.

What Women Wear...Part II.

Talking about fashion on Cut the Chatter? How unmanly! Wrong. This is sweet vengeance for any male whose mother dressed him up in hideous garb for the celebration of Easter Sunday. Most men have been dressed by their mothers, and for those married guys, by their wives for far too long. So I think it's our turn to tell women what to put in their closets, and Chris and I are more than pleased to do so.

Women, in general, make better fashion choices than men. Men generally break fashion rules once a day, and so there aren't many expectations. But when women fall, they fall hard. It hurts, because in these moments you see that sometimes women can't see the forest for the trees, and when women make bad fashion decisions, everyone hurts.

You can express yourself by the way you dress. No matter what you wear (or don't wear) you are expressing something about yourself. I used to think this was a stupid way of thinking about fashion or whatever, but I'm pretty convinced that clothing is a very public means of expressing oneself. So let's look at some of the ridiculous ways girls express themselves.

Some girls are schizophrenic. I've noticed this in my world literature course, which seems to be about a third independent and about two-thirds Greek, at least in terms of fashion. Earlier this semester, when it was cold, girls would walk into class wearing a North Face jacket, jeans, and tennis shoes, obviously suggesting that they are not interested in their appearance that day. No biggie. Incidentally, these same girls have spent time layering makeup, picking out "glamorous" earrings, and fixing their hair. While I'm sure these girls are adept at doing all of these things, I think it must take at least 30 minutes to get it all right. Please. Your clothing is telling me you don't care, but the cake on your face says otherwise. You say you want to take it easy? I don't believe it.

Fashion can be a way to express yourself, but you might want to be sure that you are in fact expressing yourself and not some fashion designer out to make a buck. Every year, many girls at Auburn adopt a new handful of fashion trends. With such a quick turnover, you wonder if people are really expressing themselves or being cogs in a machine. And what does that fashion-machine express? Lets take a look at Ugg boots in Alabama. Obviously winterwear, these heavy slippers are such an aesthetic eyesore that I'm pretty sure they are only intended to be used where snow will cover up their hideous appearance. And in such climes, I am all for their use. But in Alabama? Seriously? I'm from Florida and all I need in the winter is a pair of socks and shoes, and those for only a month. I don't think that Ugg wearers actually look at these shoes and think, "Hey, these look so cute!" so much as "Everyone else has got them, I suppose I should fall in line." And what that says to me is that a girl is so caught up in the fashion whirlpool that she can no longer think for herself. Sure, this paragraph seems a little nasty, but I'll just remind you why it's important to fight fire with fire:



So how do you express yourself through fashion? Step 1: Don't shop at Urban Outfitters. A lot of people seem to think that UO offers an alternative wardrobe that runs counter to traditional fashion trends. The aesthetics seem to be different, but the methods remain the same. UO presents an image of alternative dress while relying on the same pulses of fashion and dress that clothe women so ridiculously as mentioned in this extensive Cut the Chatter exposé. T-shirts for $30, jeans scratched and torn to look like you've actually loved a pair down to its threads. Most UO wearers seem schizophrenic themselves because the prices are so high, but even worse is the UO representative who has a complete wardrobe provided by the company. It isn't really alternative, since people end up representing a different image created by someone else, instead of their own ideas and personality. I remember seeing urban outfitted people in New York City last Sping Break with their iPods. I can only assume that they were listening to real alternative music, like Jet or the Killers.

Chris will be closing out our series on fashion, and I hope you enjoy it. At the core of our frustration is the fact that so many people in their clothing choices have failed to express themselves, and express something usually far more ridiculous than themselves. Dress for yourself, not someone else.

What Women Wear...Part I.

Get excited, guys, the time has finally come. It's time to inform our girls on the thoughts we have on the clothes they wear. Now, I've probably already pissed off any girl that happens to read this. All I can say is that this is simply my opinion, and is not shared by all guys out there. (probably 96%, but whatever) And yes, I am completely aware that you're not trying to impress guys with every piece of clothing you put on. I completely understand that. We'll simply be discussing the outfit choices that obviously took some time to get ready. I am also aware that some girls can look good in anything. My final preface to this topic is that all girls are different. I know this. Height, build, skin tone, and even attitude can and do play major roles in our thoughts. (which I'm not saying you should care about)
We're gonna start with the obvious: shoes. Heels with jeans is not cool. I know it lengthens your legs and makes you a little taller, but we're just not digging it. I feel like some skin needs to be shown when wearing heels, even if it's just to mid-calf. There is, however, a limit to skin shown. Heels + short skirts = a bit scandalous. Heels are best worn with long to medium-length skirts. I'm not sure what they're called, but I'm also not a big fan of those heels that have ties that go around your ankle pretty high. Maybe it's just because it's new, but I don't like them. Shoes are obviously not my strong point, so I'll wrap this up. Flat shoes are the way to go. It doesn't matter if you're short. It's cool, we're ok with that. Just keep it simple, sandals are great. Make your shoes match your personality, and get something comfortable. All shoes really do is enhance your clothes, which I'm about to get into.
Pants have come along way these past few years, and I hate it! Honestly, if it was up to me, yall could wear jeans everywhere. You can, however, choose incorrectly on your jeans. Now I know there are is a ridiculous amount of styles of jeans, and it's hard to find a pair that fits right. I don't understand why women's jeans come in one number sizes. It doesn't make sense. No wonder it's so hard to find a pair. I mean, you find a pair that fits your body, but they're too long or short. They just assume that if you wear a 10 then you're taller than someone who wears a 8, which is obviously not always true. You buy the jeans that are just a little too long and get them hemmed, which is just a pain in the ass. With that being said, here's what I think you should consider when shopping for jeans. First of all, jeans that are too loose look weird. I'm not saying you should use pliers to put them on, they're just not made to be worn all baggy like that. It messes up your whole look. You don't see much of this, so if you think they're tight enough, they probably are. You should also consider how high on the hip they come. This is VERY different from girl to girl. Too high is no good, and too low is skanky. There is a happy-medium on every girl. I would say right at the hip bone is a good aiming point. As far as wide-bottom leg thing goes, I'm a fan of either. Colors are important as well. I feel like darker jeans are a bit more formal, and lighter jeans are for every day wear. I will touch on this subject with more detail in Part III of this series.
My personal favorite for girls pants is cargo-pants. I don't know why, I just love them. They have that casual "I don't care" look, yet they look good with a number of tops. That's just a personal thing, so I'll move on. Cargo-pants should all be thrown into a fire. Again, this is simply my opinion. I'm sure there are guys out there that like them, I just haven't met one. I don't mind them nearly as much now as I did when they first came out, so that's good. If you must wear cargos, don't wear jean cargos. Atleast wear some cacky ones or navy or whatever. Just don't wear jean cargo pants. I think half the battle of making capris look decent is the shoe you wear with them. I'll touch on this later. Maybe they'll grow on me over time, we'll see. Some trends, like these flowing ankle-length skirts that look like they have Indian symbols on them, I hated at first. They're actually kind of growing on me though. I think it's a classy throw-back look that when done correctly, can look pretty damn good. Again, we come back to shoes. Some sort of flat shoe must be worn with these skirts. I've seen girls wear high heels with them. They contradict each other, and it looks stupid. Moving on...skirts are actually quite simple, the shorter the better! ...............Haha, just kidding. Too short is trashy and quite unappealing. Anywhere from knee-length to moderate length is great. I personally like cacky skirts with a casual shirt. Any color skirt works though, it's all about the fit. Again, I am merely scratching the surface tonight. I'm going to elaborate much more on the topics I've already mentioned, and get into several others in Part III. It will include tops (all of them), make-up, and the ever-so-popular hair styles of today. My co-author, Daniel Pope, will be delivering Part II very soon. Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but not really.

If the robots win, we'll have to listen to techno. Heck no! I'll never listen to techno!

Recently Cut the Chatter has been rather dry, and I would apologize but I'm not sorry. The authors have been spending a lot of time having those real-life experiences that makes Cut the Chatter such a joy to read, such as grilling steaks, test-tasting the new Exterminator drink, busting it on a skimboard, playing flag football on the beach, and reminding Anne Kendrick that while blogging isn't stupid, she most certainly is. So expect that amateur journalism that seems so professional from Chris and myself, and check back this week as CTC will be hitting you hard on all kinds of subjects.

And now, a moment of YouTube zen:

Reclaiming a Christian Perspective on Abortion Issues

I've hesitated every other time I've thought about touching this subject, charged as it is. I've drafted a few ideas on the subject, but most of these were incoherent. I've been concerned that some very dear friends of mine might take offense at my alternative approach to this subject, and in the interest of not starting anything I have not posted my thoughts on the subject of abortion. Today, however, a group called Justice For All set up incredibly large tri-fold panels on the field in front of Cater Hall on campus. I'm guessing each panel had an area of something like 600 square feet.

These panels were filled with images of mangled, bloodied fetuses and aborted children.

I laughed when a mere thirty feet in front of these panels were tiny signs that said "Warning: Graphic Images Ahead!" I laugh sometimes to keep from vandalism or outright rage that would lead me to my first felony charge.

The title of this entry might suggest that I'm dissatisfied with current Christian perspectives on the issue of abortion. I am, and I spent an hour along with a friend of mine arguing against displays like this one with one of the men volunteering at the event. Unfortunately, I don't yet possess the intellectual fortitude to be able to figure out a good starting point for this informal essay.

Before I go into the essay itself, I want to point out that I am approaching this issue as a believer, asserting Christian theology and faith. I think it would be of practical benefit to discuss some political ideas towards the end, and finally conclude by affirming my beliefs in case, through my own inability to write, I make important aspects of my faith unclear in the body of this text.

Plainly speaking, Christians have ceased to be Christians on this issue. They have played fast-and-loose with the idea that life is sacred. They have divorced the pro-life message from the gospel. They have become "of the world," instead of independent operators within that world. Finally, they have fundamentally ignored the power of our religion's ability to change the world, opting for a political solution that really comes up to be no solution at all.

Life is sacred. The pro-life movement hinges on this principle, which it affirms to the nth degree. I agree wholly. God's first description of humanity is that it is made in his own image. Indeed, this is a huge part of the foundation for Christian ethics. My problem with the pro-life movment is not that it agrees with this idea, but that it seems to go against this idea in practice. Functionally, the life of a baby is worth more than the life of its mother, if it's mother would abort it. No pro-lifer would ever suggest that this was the case, but you can't help but notice it in the way most of them talk. Every human being is made in the image of God, even women who have had abortions. In these grotesque posters of death, no such message is found. Instead, women who have had abortions are made to appear like major contributors to a second Holocaust. If Christians are going to hope to change practices of abortion, they must hold equally high the image of God for both the unborn baby and its mother.

This is not the practice, unfortunately, to the detriment of the movement itself. There is no mention of the gospel or forgiveness in these posters. Instead, activists seem to hope that the posters will stop you with their negativity at least long enough for them to give you a message of forgiveness. When I talked to one individual today, he did not bring up the gospel until I brought up forgiveness because of Christ's sacrifice. A girl who has had an abortion does not see the gospel. She sees that she has sinned and has no hope. What kind of love is this? Not Christian love! It is program-driven social engineering that takes the moral high ground from the beginning. Pro-lifers are moral, pro-choicers are baby-killers. Unfortunately, this is leading off with the wrong foot, especially if one person is passing by and doesn't have the option of talking to a representative for the group. Women who have had abortions should not be made to go take their test without hope or love. At no point has God left us without hope! Even as he addressed Adam and Eve after their great sin, he promised a Savior! Indeed, can we call ourselves Christians if we leave others without hope? I dare say we cannot.

Christians using these practices, you might correctly guess, have become "of the world." We live in a world where popular appeals are made on the basis of emotion and psychology. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that appealed to your intellect? I've been watching the NCAA tournament, and I can't remember seeing any kind intellectual appeal apart from a Sam Adams special talking about how they brew their beers. The Christian life is not a life of emotional moralism, though. We are not supposed to leave our brains out of important matters. This failure to engage intellectually is most easily seen when a person accuses a pro-choice person of being a murderer or a killer. The rhetoric sounds cute, and Scripturally this is true. Unfortunately, the pro-choice individual doesn't see things in those terms. It's not as if they see their actions as particularly murderous. Furthermore, it's not like they actually enjoyed it. I'm guessing that 99% of women who have abortions don't become pregnant just so they can snuff out the life of a child. That is what Christian engagement is all about. It's about empathizing with the culture and then preaching the Gospel to that culture. It is not about throwing around hateful words and obscene images. Indeed, a Christian should believe that the only thing separating the non-believer from himself or herself is Christ and Christ alone. Furthermore, especially in Calvinist theology, we should not distance our sin from that of others, whether they believe or not. God is a God of our minds as well as our hearts, and we should look more into intelligent approaches to solving this important issue instead of emotional and moralizing, yet ultimately shallow rhetoric.

I don't know where to point the finger on this last one. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "it's a relationship, it isn't a religion," but that phrase does seem a likely culprit. Christians have forgotten Christ's bride, the church. Furthermore, they believe that the real way to change the world is through political activity. Unfortunatly, people are into doing their own thing. As a historian, and I'm pulling the weight of my education on this one, I quite honestly think that no real difference will be made if the government makes abortion illegal or not. The Christian message does not need a government-approved stamp to make the power of our religion as potent as it is. If we actually loved women who had abortions, and the women who considered having a child out of wedlock, they might actually consider having those children. Christianity doesn't need government approval for the church to provide a system of gospel-based support for sinners of all kinds, including Christians themselves! If as many politically-minded pro-lifers invested the same amount of resources and time as they did in loving and supporting a community, what a difference we would see! That is where the real numbers of abortion will go down.

I'm now turning to address some of the political issues I have with the movement, and most of these come from a friend of mine who I will credit if he wants me to do so.

One of the big arguments is that women have abortions because it is convenient to have them because of Roe v. Wade or whatever. Take away the basis for convenience, aborition becomes inconvenient, voila, no abortion! What simple ignorance. This is America, folks. And besides, when did people start thinking that raising a kid was convenient? I'm not a female, but physically speaking I don't think that I would much enjoy giving birth, either. Abortion will always be more convenient than that.

How do we overcome that convenience? By incentives, or comparable alternatives that, when coupled with moral incentives, become more attractive than abortion. The Justice For All group had a freedom of speech board. I took out a marker and wrote "Remind me of how many chidren you've adopted again?" Heavy on the sarcasm, I know. Because we all know that these guys don't adopt kids. Of course they don't. They don't use their funds to make that kind of a difference. They're just raising hell while actually doing nothing to help any kind of demand for adopted children. My friend suggested that true pro-lifers would picket outside abortion clinics, offering to pay all the medical bills of the pregnancy, and then take a kid to raise up in a proper home. This doesn't even have to be a political solution. People can start doing this now, instead of merely adding fuel to the fire of this debate.

I will remain ever-convinced as both a Christian and a historian that a mere law will not discourage women from having abortions. What we need to do is change the culture. How do we do this? By loving our neighbors! It really is as easy as Jesus said, at least in terms of words. And that's why this pro-life movement, in its current incarnation is doomed. It's not that it's doing too much, it's that it's doing to little. The pro-life movement in its current form would succeed if an amendment was made banning abortion. But that lacks any real substance until we start spending our lives for others' sakes. This is the demand of Scripture. It is the example of Christ. And we run from it because it asks too much of us, but when we find that we are stretched too thin, we simply need to ask more from God, who gives generously to all who ask him.

We do not need a law to start living like this now. How wonderful would it be if we never made a law banning abortion, because Christians had come so far in caring for others in so many ways that a law would be a mere afterthought to a reality that held high the image of God in humanity?

It may seem as if I am unsympathetic with the aims of pro-life activists. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it just seems like they miss a lot of points. I do think abortion is wrong. I think it is sinful, just like so many things we do without realizing it. I have probably sinned by what I've said in this very posting. But we don't need to be pointing fingers or calling people murderers; we need to look to Christ who was murdered for our salvation. That is our starting point, because that is where we learn to love.

I am pleased to report that in a pool of over fifty, both contributing authors of Cut the Chatter are in the top 20 as far as tournament bracket perfomance goes, with Mr. Pope holding first place exclusively. Mr. Burdeshaw's Sweet Sixteen has taken a bit of a bruising, but give the excellence delivered to loyal readers, we won't expect him to be down for too long.

The Madness that is March

We all know what time it is, it's tourney time. Now, as all of your brackets begin to fall apart, you ask yourself "Why the hell did I pick Duke to win against Virginia Commonwealth?" I'll tell you why, because Duke is Duke. You would expect that this Coack K led dynasty could handle a simple 10 seed and move on. Nope, they blew it. I personally hate them. Any good that Duke has ever brought to this earth went down the drain in their first-round loss to Duke. I could write about it for hours, but I'll move on.
This week of the year is always crazy. One week of school is left until we all head to our Spring Break destination, undoubtedly leaving most of us with several test this week. With tests coming, Spring Break plans being finalized, St. Patty's parties going strong, and the Masters just around the corner, one can't help but wonder "Will North Carolina win it all?" This brings me to my next point; North Carolina will win it all. Tyler Hanborough is my hero. Not really, but you get the point. You see, Tyler is currently playing with a facemask to cover his broken nose. His scoring is down, assists are down, and rebounding remains consistent. Now, how did Tyler's nose get broken in the first place? The answer is simple: Duke players are assholes. Gerald Henderson was suspended one game for his flagrant elbow to Hansborough's nose. We all know the intensity of the rivalry of UNC and Duke. In their last meeting, UNC was winning comfortably with only seconds remaining in the game. Hansbourough, still in the game and still playing hard (like true champs always do) when Satan/Devery Henderson got pissed and tried to take out TH. This is so typical of Duke. Do I have more examples? No. Just trust me. As I write this, TH has taken off his mask and once again regained his dominant form. What's the point of this blog? I simply wish to inform you that UNC is the team to beat. Screw you, Duke. GO TARHEELS!!

Good rules for dating.

The Bible can be pretty silent on principles of dating as such. Some believe it points exclusively towards a kind of physically ascetic courtship. Others think that biblical principles of marriage can steer us in the right direction for what dating should be, what kinds of demands people can make on each other in such relationships, etc.

But let's be honest, we bring a lot of cultural sentiments to the floor when we date people. For example, some of the ideas I will be discussing shortly come from the character Rob Fleming in High Fidelity, a book by Nick Hornby and a movie starring John Cusack in the lead role (with the last name being changed to Gordon to sound less, well, bobbyish). I don't think that this is a bad thing, since we're all individuals with different preferences and attitudes. I'm not suggesting the following advice is authoritative or anything, but it is something that, as I apply it more often, has only helped me in my search for, well, whate'er.

I don't believe in dating people for who they might become. I believe in dating people who they are.

This is a common sentiment, which has inspired the following thoughts which might not be so universal as the previous statement.

I don't believe in dating people for what they're music library might contain in the future. I believe in dating people for the music library they have right now. If I am hanging out a girl and she starts playing some music, I am hoping that it will be a little more intellectually and emotionally involved than Kelly Clarkson or something like that. If I hear a couple of Nickelback songs (a band I consider guilty of international terrorism, being that they are Canadian), I'm going to lose it, unless the girl keeps that stuff around to remind her how far she's come in her music collection.

If I'm scrolling through some girl's music library, I am going to hope to see lots of Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. Additionally, albums from the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Margot & the Nuclear So and Sos, Pedro the Lion, Of Montreal, the Hold Steady, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. The list goes on. A few bands will get a girl instant mega-respect, since they are relatively unknown compared to previous heavyweights, like Twothirtyeight. And if she doesn't have any Bob Dylan, that is going to be a serious relationship (possibly even friendship) issue.

Futhermore, I don't believe in dating people for what their bookshelves look like now. I believe in dating people for their present bookshelves. I'm not such a stickler on this one, since historians don't have the literary street cred of an English major. For example, most people can recognize War and Peace or something like that, but I'm pretty sure most won't identify with my woes of reading Return for Diversity or growing enjoyment in my current read, E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel. People might see my Kafka collection at get a little disturbed.

So I'm not such a tough guy on that. It would be nice to see a few books saved from world literature courses and a few other books read during a lazy summer on a porch. Again there are some power-hitters in this category, and were I to find a Flannery O'Conner collection with the pages greased from someone's thumb, with sentences underlined and favorite passages bracketed . . . I mean, be still, my freaking heart.

Finally, and this is harder to account for, films are important. I can even tolerate chick-flicks in this category, although they are definitely not artistic. But there's something to be said for the cheap emotional ride, especially if the girl is decent enough to admit it. But I'd like to hear that she's watched some good films in her time, like Magnolia, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Star Wars is absolutely non-negotiable. If she hasn't seen it, she certainly won't be seeing much more of me until she fixes that problem.

I advocate a holistic approach to using this principle. For example, a music devotee might not have an extensive book collection, but if she's got a nice film collection or movie ticket stubs scattered around, that's a good indication that she's probably on the right track. Similarly, her music collection might need some attention, but that's because she can't really listen to music when she's picking books from a shelf sagging under the weight of much fine literature.

I suppose you could relate it to this quote from Rob Gordon, in High Fidelity. "Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the damn truth."

You'd think that I was all about dating some kind of liberal arts girl who would be down with all this stuff, which is potentially true, but it's often said that you should date outside your discipline. This seems bizarre to me, but I have heard it from plenty of otherwise legitimate sources, so I probably should regard it as sound.

But as far as I'm concerned, good taste in music, literature, and film is not limited to the people wearing thrift store shirts, smoking cigarettes outside, whining about how they can no longer smoke cigarettes inside, with overflowing messenger bags. Good taste should not be a liberal arts distinctive.

Although I think I have an idea as to why it happens that way. Liberal arts guys and girls are just not going to date business or CoSaM girls or guys who don't listen to good music, watch good films, or read good books. These are the kind of people that write bad poetry that gives off the vibe of thinking that it's actually good poetry. These are the kind of people, when, if religious, still listen to shoddy Christian (non-Sufjan, non-Pedro) music, or think that Jesus is there to be your buddy-buddy.

Couple that with the "date outside your discipline, because it doesn't work inside your discipline" principle, and you see why CoLA kids have such good taste. We've got to have it, because like Goethe's young Werther, our sorrows of unsatisfaction abound. Follow? Maybe?

Then maybe I should abandon this principle. Maybe that self-evident problem is enough reason to abandon such a strict concept.

Maybe I should just get some coffee.

If ever we were chatter-ing

It's pretty exciting to think of the productivity that will come from this blog with the addition of Burdeshaw. I'm probably blogging at the same time as Chris, which is pretty fascinating.

I've gotten away from some of the other focus points of Cut the Chatter, Red 2, and that's because this blog has had a worldview focus. Tonight isn't really that much different, because I want to address an issue that came up about a week ago at my fellowship group. I promise I'll get back to topics on music and perhaps sports, now that March Madness is starting up.

One of the questions in our study asked for our perspective on justification. The question asked us how we would respond to the claim that justification meant that God treated us "just as if we've never sinned."

Anyone in the group could easily recall my reaction to the statement, as if it was high heresy or something. I suppose it's my SBC roots or something that leads me to hate this phrase, which at least on the surface level seems harmless enough. But if we take a hard look at this phrase, we begin to see some of the problems in current Christian thinking that, if left unaddressed, could lead to some serious theological complications.

"Just as if I'd never sinned." It's hard enough to pick a starting point with what's wrong, so I'll start at the beginning of Genesis. Adam was our federal head. Adam represented all of humanity in his actions and as a result, his sin is our sin. Furthermore, our nature has fallen and become corrupted. This corrupted nature and original sin is more than enough to condemn us, because we are by nature enemies of God. Being natural enemies, we could never progress outside of that original scheme without some form of divine intervention. This phrase, "Just as if I'd never sinned," ignores all this, focusing only on actual sin, or perhaps our sinful actions. But you can't ignore our sinful nature, inherited from Adam who spoke for us all (and do you really think you would have done much different if you were in his shoes? Didn't think so).

This idea is patently unamerican, since we pride individuality and personal responsibility. But if we won't have Adam, as Paul tells us in Romans 5, we can't have Christ. We ignore original sin at our own peril. If we focus on our actual sin alone, all we have to distrust is the past, which leaves us some confidence in ourselves. Yet are totally fallen, in body and soul as the Confession says, and we must learn to distrust our whole selves so that we can cry out with Paul in Romans 7 to the Lord and Savior who will deliver us from even ourselves.

Thanksfully, in our Savior's sacrifice we do not find merely and evening out of the tables. Jerry may have broken even and been in a great equilibrium in the world of Seinfeld, but really, all that does for us is leave us where we started. We begin to grasp the graciousness of God when we have not only our sins taken away, but Christ's righteousness creditted to our accounts. That grace becomes so amazing. God sees Christ's blood covering us and welcomes us as his children. Why in the world should this happen? It seems like it would have been enough to leave us even.

But God went further and gave us a right standing before God. "JustasifI'dneversinned" ignores this, suggesting that all God did was make us even. The statement says far too little, ignoring the truth that has caused Christians to pen poetry and sent musicians tuning their instruments.

The statement goes further, ignoring God's omniscience in that particular area. Additionally, when Christ returns and our faith is rewarded with sight, we will see his stricken body that bears the scars and wounds that finally convinced Thomas of the resurrection. Do we think God somehow can't see what his Son endured? Do we think that God actually pretends the wounds of sin are not indelibly on his Son's body? And yet this wounds are not merely wounds of sin, they are the proofs of grace.

The problem I have with JustasifI'dneversinnedism is that it really doesn't preach the Gospel. It's just a quip that we can easily memorize to propogate the shallow understanding of the Gospel in the South. When we try to make the Gospel simpler, we actually make it tougher to understand. It's already so simple to begin with. "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead."

If we could really learn what it means to believe those words, as Han Solo said, sometimes we might even amaze ourselves.

Let me tell you a little about myself...

Anyone who has been keeping up with Pope's blog may have read that Chris Burdeshaw will be co-authoring with him. Well, word on the street is true, Chris Burdeshaw has signed on to "Cut the chatter, Red 2." Now, not meaning to go third-person on you, let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Burdeshaw, I'm from Perry GA, and I'm studying Horticulture here at Auburn University. You'll quickly notice that Pope and myself are two very different people. I'll be writing on everything from sports to hunting to women to politics to music. Pope will undoubtedly take a different approach, though we may lurk into each other's territory every once in a while. That's the agenda of the "co-author" theory. Pope doesn't do sports...except soccer. We differ on music tastes, and on several political topics. We did, however, have quite an enlightening conversation over lunch last week over that other species we know as "women." Anyhow, so now you know where we're heading here. I hope to boost the ratings of this blog over time. Feel free to criticize my writings, or maybe throw a compliment. All comments are welcome. My first true post will be up shortly. Later

SXSW

Right now over one thousand bands are descending on Austin, TX's downtown for the music festival known as SXSW. For Philistines, this means South by Southwest.

One year from now, I will walk down the street to hear some fantastic music.

Six months from now, Austin City Limits will throw its festival. Rumored acts include heavyweights like Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan Stevens, The Hold Steady, The Arcade Fire, Ryan Adams, Buddy Guy, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Death Cab for Cutie, and Belle and Sebastien, not to mention lesser known acts like Midlake, the Good the Bad and the Queen, and others.

In one year, I am going to be even more of a music snob than I can be sometimes now. Some people might think all of this music euphoria is a waste of time. I call it...engaging culture.

That Racist South

Racism and the South. To anyone from the North or West, the two are inextricably and exclusively linked. The brutal history of the South from slavery to the ostensible end of segregation is continually rubbed in the face of the Southerner. Most people who blast the South for its racism probably don’t know about events like the Newark, Chicago, Detroit, or Watts riots. That, or they might not care.

As much as I might seem like a critic of my birthplace, I do love the South. And for anyone from the South, it’s hard not to rant defensively about the various hypocrisies of the North or the West. It’s easy for us to point at the racial problems of other regions. I hope that no one thinks that I’m doing that.

When people bash a region for this or for that instance of racism, we show how insensitive we are to the real issues. When Northerners point out the horrible deaths of Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner, or the cowardly assassination of Medgar Evers, or the Anniston bus burning, they aren’t honoring the men who died for their beliefs. They are using those gruesome events as springboards for anti-Southern propaganda.

I don’t bring up the race riots of Newark or Watts without hesitation. Black men and women died at the hands of racist cops in the North and the West. Recently, police officers in Queens, New York shot and killed a groom for what might be call ambiguous circumstances. Rodney King was beaten to near-death in L.A. and portions of the city erupted in riots.

These events are just as horrendous as those in the South, but most Northerners or Westerners don’t seem to consider them in anti-Southern tirades.

The point is that racism is not a regional issue. Racism is a national problem that we haven’t begun to address. We don’t take seriously the truth that Christ breaks down barriers. Churches that are actually integrated across the black-white divide (should we even think about it as a divide?) are a rarity indeed.

What’s needed is not finger-pointing here or there. It does no good to point fingers and say “Well, you’re racist too!” It’s such a non-statement. We must continually preach to ourselves that all human beings, no matter their skin tone, or their economic situation, are made in the image of God.

Yet I am quick to point out that we can’t have a hope in what we can do. Nothing will be perfect until Christ returns to claim his Bride. Some might say that I’m giving Christians a great reason to be lazy about this issue and so many others.

God’s religion, to quote from Horatius Bonar, does not end in forgiveness. It begins with it. And I think that this is a similar situation. Christ’s resurrection and future return does not obscure the need to reach out to others regardless of so many differences. Rather, they establish our need and equip us with a well-founded assurance that one day, things will be different. Christ invites us to participate in establishing his kingdom, however insignificant it will seem compared to the full coming of it. It is a Christian duty, but more importantly, it is an invitation to be part of what can only be described as an adventure.

Historical Revisionism, etc. (mostly rambling)

This is a topic I've wanted to discuss for some time, and I feel like now that I've accepted a graduate position at University of Texas at Austin, I've at least got some credibility to talk about the subject of historical revisionism.

I went to East Hill Christian School, and one of the school's objectives was to bring out the truth of Scripture in every class. Now, if you've ever talked to me about high school, you know that I am not that impressed with the teachers' fulfillment of this goal, although there certainly were individual teachers that met and exceeded the challenge. But these teachers were few and far between.

The Scripture presented in the class had the appearance of a reactionary, arch-conservative textbook. As a result, in my history class, "revisionism" was comparable with the f-word. Traditional, and arguably mythological stories were told about America, its allies, and its enemies. Any historian challenging the supposed Christian foundations of America, or perhaps the justification of the Revolutionary War (or any of America's combat engagements), or seriously looking at the failure of the American dream were, to put it mildy, hellbound.

The problem with anti-revisionism should be obvious to most people, and I feel like people with a serious Christian worldview should see its flaws in spades. The problem is, at least in the South as far as I've experienced it, Christians seem to cling to myths about our national heritage, at the expense of our Christian faith. A Christian who disagrees with historical revisionism disagrees with either basic theology or Abraham Kuyper's statement that everything belongs to Christ.

And it is mournfully to the shame of Christians that the perspectives on history held by some professors are far more biblical than those of most Christians (who, to be frank, really don't know much about history at all).

The first problem with this kind of historic traditionalism is its plain ignorance. It assumes that a particular historical period has been defined beyond question. Particular forms of physics have not been completely fleshed out. Some forms of science are often turned on their heads. To bring the example closer to home, other areas of liberal arts are constantly in flux. Philosophers are moving all around from empiricism to skepticism and everywhere in between. Many are embracing normativity. Theism is no longer barred from discussion. Literary critics, alternatively, are continuing to ask new and difficult questions concerning the texts they study. But far be it for historians to ask tough questions about how we interpret the past. The belief inherent in the view that history has been written is that, in some measure, we have arrived. That is one thought that should never be permitted to run through a Christian's head (concerning any belief) while he is alive. In the fields of academia and faith, the statement is, if anything, ignorant.

Critiques of historical revision probably shouldn't be limited to ignorance. The past is not merely assumed to be wholly true, it is glorified. This is at the same time dishonest and idolatrous. These critics of historical revision usually have some incredible bias to their ridiculous comments, and sinful men are held up as the reason for our existence (as in, they saved us from this evil nation). For example, it's typical to think of Ronald Reagan as one of the great men who felled communism. This is a wonderfully stupid statement, and the people who typically make it aren't actually educated on communism, how it came to power, important differences in alternate ideaologies (Stalinism, normalization, reform communism, etc). Other events which would put our nation, or our favorite figure, in a negative light are downplayed. We don't look at some of the alternate ideas about the American Revolution, because we like the idea of a brutal, oppressive British government (instead of the one that was actually taxing Americans much less than the citizens of England proper).

Historical periods become ideals in themselves. Most people are romantics, hell, I am. Although you'd figure that as a historian I would be pining to live in some other decade or century, I'm not. I haven't said "I just wish I lived in . . . " in years. This is a rejection of God's will, really. God has you living where you are, and when you are, for a wonderful reason. This also ties back into simple ignorance of the past. When people tell me that they wished they lived in a particular time period, I usually smile at them, tell them something splendidly horrific about that time period, and go on my way. Other periods of history would not make any more sense to you than your current period, and you need to be content where God has placed you.

The result of this ignorance, dishonesty, and idolatry, is that we begin to find hope in our Americanness, or in our nation, or in our region. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should hate anything about ourselves that relates to enjoying our nation for what it is, or that we should be indifferent to where we were born, but I am arguing that we no longer find hope in America. We never should have, and if we do, we should stop. Our hope is in the risen Christ, and not in anything about America, the South, or even Auburn University.

These are some common ideas I find running in the minds of those who would think that history is done, or that our current histories are 100% accurate. But these ideologies run contrary to so much of Scripture. Original histories are flawed, just as their writers were flawed. Those histories can mythologize the past as effectively as any romantic. They sometimes ignore pertinent historical issues. And all too often, we are clinging to historical or political perspectives over and against Scripture, when even the greatest of these perspectives should be made to submit to every word of Scripture. And only after we submit our perspectives to Scripture will we find that they are truly established.

I realize that I haven't actually talked about anything historical, at least in any detail. I will go into one aspect of Modern European history that has seen some revision lately. Scholarship on Nazi Germany has shifted from an interpretation of "special path" to "heightened experience." To explain. We traditionally think that the horrors of concentration camps and National Socialism could only happen in Germany alone, because of its perceived tradition of anti-semitism, militarism, or what not. The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an particular position where Nazism had to come about there and not anywhere else.

But is that really true? It isn't, to be honest. Marshal Petain of Vichy France actually embraced Nazi ideals and set up concentration camps in a handful of French provinces. The same thing happened in Poland, on a much larger scale.

In America, there were plenty of red and Catholic scares. The second KKK was alive and kicking. The Supreme Court actually legalized the sterilization of individuals under the same beliefs in eugenics that Nazis shared. Could that have happened here? With a few more aggravations, certainly.

It's scary to think that we are not very far from doing something horrendously evil, but even scarier that we could so eagerly support something like that. While there were plenty of resisters to Nazi policies, many Germans embraced the regime. The regime was attractive. If you doubt it, just watch this propaganda video from the 1942 Christmas in Germany. You see images of Germans making gifts for soldiers on the front, you watch as children visit the war wounded in hospitals. You see German families enjoy Christmas at home, while the director montages pictures of German soldiers at the front receiving the gifts. You can't help but be partially won over by the storyline of the propaganda...national unity, people caring for each other in times of need.



When you boil it down, you don't want to find hope in where you live. You want to find hope in Scripture, and in the Christ that to whom Scripture points. In the meantime, open your mind up to the possibilities that history hasn't been exhausted, and take it easy on the people trying to figure out what really went on at one point.

By the way, Mr. Burdeshaw is not just the "sports guy."

It's just that when I ask myself the question, "What could other guys talk about much more intelligently than I can?" the answer is always sports (or women. Of course sports. Anyone who knows me knows I don't know anything about popular sports in America. I like soccer. I like watching it. Do I know what an option is? No. Of course not.

Battle of the Bands: Rosie Thomas vs. Patty Griffin

Believe me, I'm aware of the foolishness of putting Rosie Thomas up against Patty Griffin. But as far as I'm concerned, this is an American blog, and Americans are all for upsets. If you don't like these David and Goliath situations, you're not American, and you're probably not a good Christian either. But Rosie isn't so innocent as David, humbly searching for the perfect stones in a brooke near the battlefield. Ms. Thomas brings the ever-reluctant indie superstar Sufjan Stevens to the fight (he appears on the whole album), in effect ditching her slingshot for a bazooka.

Rosie Thomas has had her album, These Friends of Mine, available in advance on eMusic. After hearing her great single ("Much Farther to Go") on Pitchfork, I hopped on over the eMusic to gather up the rest of the album, which will be released next Tuesday, March 13. Thomas' single is sitting at 23 listens, sitting at the fifth-ranked most played song of 2007 according to iTunes. Rosie plucks at her guitar, singing in a soft voice that is gentle yet self-assured. By the second verse, Sufjan has begun to harmonize (and in doing so provides a wonderful foil for the quiet confidence of Thomas), and by the chorus, he has unleashed his banjo. The result is an eminently enjoyable single that asks you to be content in the frustration, trouble, and heartbreak of daily life.

At the risk of sounding a little to Pitchforkish (that is to say, like an asshole), Rosie Thomas does have much farther to go, at least musically. The album is unbalanced, yet eerily everything sounds the same (with notable exceptions, like "Much Farther to Go"). I literally get drowsy listening to this album, which is not exactly something that I like in a folk album. The lyrics don't gel with the music, which seems to be this one-size-fits-all type of song. Thomas can't seem to think outside the box of heartbreak, which is absolutely necessary for a good folk album. Folk music, like the blues (and R&B), is at once depressing and uplifting. No one feels depressed after listening to "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted." Instead, they affirm their feelings of desperation and rejection while declaring that they will overcome that stands in their way.

Listen to Rosie's single, "Much Farther to Go."

Patty Griffin, as we might expect, is much more volatile, which makes for a great album. She opens her Children Running Through mournfully, hoping that her lost love will one day remember her. Lest we think that this album is a passive album of loss, Patty begins strumming with such ferocity on "I'm Getting Ready" that we get the idea that she is going to kick some man out of the picture before she finishes the title in the chorus, telling us "I'm getting ready to let you go!"

Patty's album is full of depth and variety. I'm no Patty scholar, but critics seem to be suggesting that this album is perhaps her most experimental. Well then, hats off to Ms. Griffin, who exudes confidence in each individual song on the album. She often sets down her guitar to play her piano, and she brings out rich feelings on "Burgundy Shoes" and "Someone Else's Tomorrow." On the latter, Patty invites us, even as younger listeners, to meditate on what it might be like to grow old. Memories fade, and people made of flesh and blood today will soon be ghastly shells of their formers shells.

The song ends without hope, leaving space for something more important that just human memory, or perhaps even the people who are responsible for the memories themselves. Memories provide us with a mere record of something that happened, and occasionally they will give us a hint of emotional excitement, or perhaps sorrow. Even a reunion with the characters of the memory will not suffice. Even that memory will fade. What might answer Patty's question? What might she be pointing us to? I think she is pointing, intentionally or not, to a final and lasting reunion with family members passed on and friends long gone, and to a world without end.



Patty comes away with the W after this Battle of the Bands. It's not that Rosie doesn't stand for something. Rosie seems to be pointing us in the right direction, but Patty is pointing to human experience with her every muscle flexing in the effort, and one can't help but admire both her energy and accuracy.

Great things come in twos. For example, who could imagine Blondie in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly without Tuco? Or perhaps the Green Hornet without Cato (Bruce Lee, people!)? Would Red 5 have been able to fire those proton torpedoes and start a chain reaction that would blow up the first Death Star without a little help from Red 2? You're a dolt if you think so.

That said, I am proud to introduce to the painfully small Cut the Chatter audience a second author for this blog. Hopefully the range of topics covered will double with this new writer. I have covered topics from music to manliness to worldviews, and I think it is a disservice to our readership to not cover more topics. I'm pretty sure the new author, who will incidentally have as much creative control as myself, will be able to cover sports much more easily than myself. This new blogger will be in Auburn at least one year after me, and so we'll be able to cover collegiate sports from two locations (Auburn and Austin), although I doubt I'll be lifting high the Big 12 (is that what it's called?) over the SEC.

Just to demostrate the knowledge of our new author, he informed me today that there is no such thing as a 64th seed in the upcoming NCAA MBB tournament. I mean, whatever. That's cool.

This new author, ladies, but mostly gentlemen, is Auburn's own Chris Burdeshaw.


Mr. Burdeshaw to the left, myself, to the right. We didn't know at the time of the photo that we'd be doing this wonderful thing together. Photo used without permission, but of course we're assuming she wouldn't mind, of Allison Wilder.

Please give Chris your best Cut the Chatter welcome. All, like, two of you.

My musical suggestion to you is that, if you haven't already, listen to London Calling by the Clash. It's ranked quite highly on Rolling Stones' list of top albums, not that you should listen to the album for that reason alone. It's truly a fantastic album. I'm just sad it didn't come out this year, because I'd love to give it a top album of the year status.

Beauty is in the eye of God

As much as I want to say, "I told you so," to the former sorority girls expelled from their sorority because of their appearances, it shows how far society has come. You can find the story on the U.S. edition of CNN.com. I think it's worth commenting on, because apparently this sorority wasn't content to just give bids to the pretty girls, but now they're willing to expel girls after they've been initiated.

Another article on CNN says that 20 year olds are more narcissistic than ever, which I believe. It's painful to watch fellow students disrespect people who have worked decades for their positions. It's sad to hear post-test discussion where people say "I can't believe he put that much on the test, who does he think he is?"

I think I lost my blogging momentum, but I don't think it takes much to see just how much we need to remember the image of God as a huge part of our foundation for how we relate to other people, and that there is something more to being a beautiful person than having nice skin. I think Dove's recent commercial is worth its weight in gold for the message its sending:

Heads up: 666

Brian originally talked about this.

De Jesus is in the news again, folks. Be sure to watch the video clip.

I don't really pray that God will let me live my life for a certain period of time. I figure he will just use me and take me home whenever he is ready. But I think I will pray to outlive De Jesus, just so I can see the looks on his followers faces.

I suppose it's easy to joke about because we think we see through him so easily, but I do feel for his followers.

Wow

I don't want Cut the Chatter to turn into a celeberity gossip blog, which are the Sodom and Gomorrah of the Internet community, but can I just say...

Damn, Britney. Damn.

It was cool when Natalie Portman did it in V for Vendetta, but that was for a movie. And anyways, Natalie Portman is a great actress. Britney Spears isn't a good singer or a good actress, but, whatever. I don't even know what I'm thinking. I'm shocked.