Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, March 12, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)