I’ve got a problem with “Christians”

No photo description available.I don’t have a problem identifying myself as a Christian. I was born into the Church and though I’m not as active as I used to be, I foresee a time in the future when I will exit through it as well. I was brought up to understand the impact that a loving and forgiving God had in my life.  Throughout it, especially in times that were both the most challenging and the most rewarding, I have called upon Him in thanks, desperation, need and celebration. Most people who know me have heard nary a word of this coming out of my mouth because I was also brought up in a tradition that doesn’t see a need to throw it out in people’s faces when they’re not looking for it. Faith and belief are personal issues and I do thank God that I had a family around me when I was young that imbued a sense of personal responsibility and character along with humility, forgiveness and repentance.  And my immigrant grandmother who made sure I went to church every Sunday.
This is why I have such a problem with “Christians” today. Throughout history, they have failed humanity, themselves and their God in the name of Christ, or Jesus, or The Savior, or whatever moniker the latest sect chooses to identify Him.  For the most part, they feel justified in doing so.  And right now, they’re really pissing me off.  Especially the American ones.
I grew up as an Eastern Orthodox Christian where faith is a choice; correct actions are a choice and we were born with free will to decide how to behave. We also learned that as humans we are fallen creatures and our failings are the essence of our humanity: we sometimes make bad choices and finding grace in one’s life is the recovery from them. This concept was supposed to bind us together, this knowledge that we all fail, we all have weaknesses, but we would have this common faith in God and in ourselves to lift each other up.  It is the essence of what it is to be human.  But the Christianity that I see and hear in the national conversation is not the one I recognize; this one takes the position that we are kings of the universe and have an inherent right to force our beliefs on others, that “choices” are directed by God or Satan.  That our failings have been thrust on us from afar, that we are constantly under attack and must be ever vigilant to fend off the evil that can corrupt us.  This interpretation is what the the holy fathers of my faith would call an abomination, a heresy and my good friends outside of Christianity should take heart that these are not the central tenets of the true Christian faith.
The exercise of faith is a choice. You may be born into a faith and it may be bestowed on you by your family, but how you behave in that faith is your choosing, and following it means choosing to do so.  No one, particularly Jesus or Satan, are forcing you to make the choice.  You are responsible for your own actions against others and when those actions take you away from the path God has laid out in the teachings of the Old and primarily New Testament, you must find a corrective course to take.  Primary above all is the directive to love one another above oneself.  If you’re looking for the real meaning of Christianity, this is it.  A sin against mankind is in reality a sin against God.
This is where the concept of obedience enters.  While I’m not going to get into a theological debate about what obedience means, let’s just say that its a virtue and an excellent placeholder for other forms of preferred behavior like respect, honor and fealty.  This is as instructional in the governing of our behavior as the ancient myths of Olympus were to the Greeks: in every society on Earth since the dawn of time, something like “religion” has been created to codify behavior between ourselves, and the desired effect is obedience.  You only have to ask yourself “why” to come to an understanding that we as a species know that we are prone to failure to another and as a community, we’ve formulated ways to keep ourselves moving forward in time.  In Christianity, our job as the faithful is to use our limited time on Earth to get back to God when we “cast off this mortal coil”; for each of us individually to follow the path that His Son has laid out in those few years of teachings that had been revealed to us as our new covenant, or agreement, with God.   Therein lay the irony, because this covenant, The New Testament of the Bible, was  written down and interpreted by flawed humans hundreds of years later. (And wait…it was not translated into English until the 16th century!). This gets to the heart of my argument and it is the one that anti-Christian writers consistently use to challenge the core tenets of our faith: if the Bible is the “word of God”, and humans are so inconsistent and petty, how can we trust anything they’ve “written”?  How can you base a faith that has been at the heart of some of the world’s worst atrocities, that has been spouted by some of humankind’s worst offenders and used as a justification for bad behavior against ourselves?
My faith is theologically complex but simple in execution and understanding: Jesus was both God and man, he was born to a mortal woman and lived through our mortal life and our limitations, failings and temptations to show us the way back into his Father’s house.  In this way, Christ is us.  We do dumb, stupid things; we choose to succumb to evil; it is in our power to make the morally and ethically right decisions and we choose not to.  There is no “the Devil made me do it” about it.  But the Christianity I read about on the web and listen to on TV justifies every failing by twisting the virtue of forgiveness and repentance, turning the love of God and the force of evil into something anthropomorphic, each tiny being perched on opposite shoulders in a tug-of-war for our souls: angel vs. devil.  And by doing so, by creating this tangible division, it becomes all the easier to assign those roles to the others in our lives, those around us, those who affect in ways real and unreal.  The real essence of these twin forces, right and wrong, is to bring to front of mind the wrongness of our chosen acts so that we can make the correct choices, to not repeat the wrong ones. It is not about layering guilt on someone, casting them into the abyss, condemning them to eternal fire as a way of punishment.  Nor is it about promoting unrealistic assumptions of one’s goodness, creating demi-gods of unimpeachable integrity and saintliness, people who’s feet do not touch the ground but hover slightly above it so as not to dirty themselves.  Jesus himself wore rags and his feet were caked in dirt.  The lesson is about the acknowledgement that that both forces are within us, the power of good and the destruction of evil; the instruction is in helping all of us, who choose to believe, to lead a better life for ourselves and others by not repeating our failures, and understanding that we may.  In doing so, by placing the good of others above ourselves, we have followed in the steps of Jesus the man as he became the Christ, the mortal incarnation of the God of Abraham.  By failing again, we acknowledge that there is still wisdom to attain in how we lead our lives and that perfection can only be attained at the end of it with His help.  Jesus’ act of sacrifice, of giving himself over for us, is why we are Christians, an acknowledgement that are weak and our acceptance of this is our humility.  When we are humble, we seek to help others, not ourselves.
Or we should be.  What I see daily is a faith being hijacked, transformed, diluted, bastardized, and mutated into a gospel of individualism, power, greed and dare I say it, pure evil.  If a faith is based on the acknowledgement that we are formed with 2 natures, one of the earth that is destined to age and rot and come to an end; and one of “heaven” that is pure and immortal; then its inherent within that teaching that many of us will make the choice to fulfill our earthly destiny at the expense of our heavenly one. This is the inflection point of our faith: once we’ve chosen the wrong path, how do we find our way back to the correct one.
When you compare Christianity with every other religion on Earth, the paths are startlingly similar. Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, the teachings of many aboriginal and locally nativist faiths as well, all follow similar tenets. Love others, treat each other as you would have them treat you, be of service. These are not solely Christian or Abrahamic concepts, they are universal. Those without a chosen faith, whether atheist or agnostic, will find themselves on a similar path if they choose to be so, as these truths are self-evident in what Immanuel Kant called “moral imperatives”.
But there is a strain of Christianity that is uniquely American that is perverting these ancient beliefs. It comes out of the Scottish kirks of the 15th and 16th centuries that were caked with the harshness and unforgiving nature of Calvinism as a reaction to Anglican overrule from English kings; it was molded by the secular clashes in Northern Ireland in the 16th and 17th centuries that culminated in the antipathy of Protestants and Catholics. It was brought to America by the Scots of the Ulster Plantation of Northern Ireland, known as the Scots Irish, the largest ethnic migration of the Colonial era and forged in the harsh mountains of Appalachia and Allegheny. It was mixed with the Protestant Baptism of English settlers in the south and fueled by the guilt of human bondage in a slave-driven economy. It is founded on a patriarchy that is a perverted reading of the Old Testament and shaped by the irrational emphasis on the Apocalypse of John and the Second Coming. It believes in individualistic self-determination as if it were one of the Ten Commandments and interprets Jesus as if he were a hard-bitten, vengeful entrepreneur wearing buckskin and beaver pelts carrying a Winchester rifle through the Cumberland Pass.
Its early field interpreters were Charles Taze Russell, Aimee Semple McPherson, Billy Sunday, Fulton J. Sheen, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham, each latching onto a part that allowed their own personalities to shine, to be the individual interpreters of the message of Jesus; its apostates were Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, each caught up in scandals; and its perverted extremes were the demi-gods David Koresh and Jim Jones.  Its present day incarnations run from Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen to James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Charlie Kirk and, God help us, Pete Hegseth. Thousands of self-appointed interpreters of the Word of God preaching in city storefronts and rural gatherings, huge mega-churches and TV ministries.  Each one of them preys upon the disjointedness of the modern condition of alienation and uses Christianity as a vengeful weapon against their own perceived injustices.  This is not Christianity. From the perspective of eons ago, this would be considered “heresy”. And it would have been condemned.
East–West Schism - Wikipedia
What happened is that the Protestant Reformation broke the hegemony of a centralized authority, the Holy Roman Church.  The Roman Church itself was born of the Great Schism of 1066, where the Bishop of Rome, the self-proclaimed “il Papa”, got into a dustup with the heads of the other 4 Christian autonomies (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) and ex-communicated them.  Thus Roman Catholicism was born in the West, and it cast its eye away from its Eastern peers, derisively known as “orthodox”.  Aligned with imperial power (starting back with Charlemagne), the Roman Church had a love affair with itself as an imperial power center, ruling all of Europe and Western Russia. Its as if the Church was staring at its sole image in a mirror for 1000 years.  At the Reformation in the 15th C,  the mirror fell and broke into a thousand pieces.  Now there were a thousand variations of that reflection, depending on who picked it up.  Instead of the unified and communal (and yes, corrupted) practice of faith, testament, interpretation and redemption, each individual got to make those decisions individually and chart their course as they saw fit.  They inherited their own personal God/Jesus/Messiah/Christ, and they shaped Him into their own image, not the other way around.
As the new wave of immigration from Europe poured into the new world of the Americas in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, these individual interpretations of Jesus/Christ/God (including the Catholics from Spain) formed alliances, rivalries, mergers, and antipathies, many morphing further from what actually was outlined in early Christian texts.
This particular map below is but a simple org chart of what followed:

On Protestant Denominations | Gene Veith

But wait…there’s more!
Each of these faiths made their way into the settlements, then the wilderness of the new world at a time when literacy was still nascent and inconsistent.  In Europe, the monks of the Holy Roman Empire were the learned ones who spent centuries decoding ancient Arabic texts into Latin, then to other Proto-Indian languages and cultures.  They took the early texts of the Christian faith (codified by 7 Ecumenical councils in the 5th and 6th Centuries) and created a unified view of God. The Church during that time held great power as a result.  After the breakup, as Protestant and Anglican sects formed and re-formed in the new world, the individual clergyman, typically the only literate person on a grueling cross-country caravan, continued to hold the keys to power and persuasion.  The only respite many of these hardy folk had, in the face of starvation, weather, tribal raids and disease, was the Word from the Good Book spouted by this lone interpreter.  Because he was “inspired”, “touched by God”, “imbued with righteousness” and “prophetic”, his leadership, and his interpretation of “scripture” was inviolate.  He was to be obeyed.  When you’re out on the prairie, constantly beset by survival challenges, you can see where that can lead.
This is the American heritage of Christianity: filtered through individual interpretations, each one its own revelation.  This is why there is so much spouting of passages from the Bible as justifications for bad behavior.  When I take a passage out of its original context – a passage that in and of itself is a proscription for whatever behavior I am experiencing – I can then, in essence, write my own Bible: the Book of Extracts.  When you look back at the examples I listed above of “prophets” and “seers”, it becomes evident why Christianity in America is not about Christ or Jesus, but about the interpretations of them by the inventors of neo-Christianity.
Here’s another chart to give you an idea of the impact of the “individual” :
All religious faiths on Earth are human creations.  Each one emanates from mankind’s eternal quest to understand the unknowable, to probe the mysteries of the human condition and natural conditions.  Throughout history, each of the beliefs went through a codification, in which behaviors, attitudes and comportments were agreed upon and set into laws by other humans of a similar mindset.  Each “founder” claims a secret connection to another world; a private whisper from a divinity. Many of their adherents and advocates claim a “divine” inspiration, something that can never be proven, assessed or measured.   During the days of the Holy Roman Empire, that spark was never individual, it was communal and passed on through a series of learned proscriptions that brought you to a specific place in your life where you were “worthy” to receive it, watched over and coached by your learned elders.  But the Reformation obliterated that hierarchy.  Now, if you are walking along a road alone and come upon the “the spirit of Jesus” and He hands you some golden tablets and tells you to start your own church, the only thing holding you back was your ability to convince others of your “truth”.  The next thing you know, you’re in a circle with others of the same mindset praying over a misogynistic, psychotic, convicted felon and serial liar and proclaiming him a Message from God.
And that, my friends, is American Christianity.

Gutenberg’s Disruptor

Here’s a thought for the day: in 1439 (or thereabouts) Gutenberg introduced the printing press. It made everyman a reader for the first time in history. Prior to that, in the western world especially, the act of reading and writing was not necessary to living one’s life, most cultures on earth lived by oral tradition and these special esoteric arts were kept secret and passed down mostly along the religious orders where power was concentrated. The monks and priests were the keepers of all knowledge and utilized it, with the reigning monarchs, to hold onto power in a top-down hierarchy to keep the masses in order. This is not a dissimilar scenario in Vedic and Eastern cultures, religion and power were equally co-concentrated.

Gutenberg’s disruption spawned two movements that realigned the face of culture forever: one was the Renaissance and the other was the Reformation.

With the Renaissance, western epistemology was now cracked wide open and not only made available but subject to revision by everyone. The horizons of every individual were broadened beyond their eyelids and own individual labor. The world became large for the first time in human history: there was now a visible past that spurred speculation of the future and the rush of thinking, invention, philosophy and commerce changed the world. It was the blossoming of humankind.

But the Reformation had the most immediate and consequential effect. It broke the hegemony of the Church and busted up the power hierarchy by pulling their God out of the hands of a few and placing him in the hands of the many. You no longer had to gather at a communal focal point to receive its message and blessings through the hands of the chosen select, a place where they could continue to exercise power as well. Consequently, the influence of those that held that power was diminished and when a disruption is this severe it spurs a defense. And so the wars of the Reformation lasted close to 100 years and with it realigned power, land, titles, holdings and creeds. It fragmented society into broad camps, into larger tribes now held together not by their relationship to a monarch or title, but by a common bond of thought in how one relates to the supernatural. “I think this way and you think that way and that’s where our fences are built”. Where the promise of the Renaissance would bring us together, the factionalism of the Reformation kept us apart.

In the 1980s (or thereabout), we created the Internet, the 2nd great disruptor after Gutenberg. Now, everyman is an encyclopedia, a single container of the world’s knowledge, a holder of individual epistemology that can be arranged and re-arranged as fits that person’s needs. There is now no longer a need for communal affirmation and with that, no space for communal regulation: “I, alone, make the decision what reality is and what it is to become. I, alone, interpret history and I alone create the future. I am bonded to you only by your affirmation of my reality. And that can change at any time.”

The individualism that was curried by the Renaissance but also created the factionalism of the Reformation has now been hyper-realized. The Renaissance created the friction of the “marketplace of ideas”, where human progress was spurred by a Darwinian competition of competing ideas with a common good. It recaptured the ancient Greek notions of beauty for the sake of itself, allowing art to flow. The Reformation huddled us into ideological camps, constricted creativity as it pressed it into service to whichever ideology it served. Both of these movements took place simultaneously and over hundreds of years.

And so the internet carries the same twin competing forces but in virtual time with no obligation to chronology. Its ability to unite us and its ability to fractionalize us are being carried out simultaneously, but this time globally and at a speed that our primitive brains are unable to comprehend. It has favored our individualism and as a result has created our boundaries, as the only collective trait we share is a mutual cognitive dissonance, the feeling that our perception does not meet reality.

So if you’ve read this far, here’s my plea: shut down your computer and go out and start a conversation with someone. Don’t talk about your job or your friends. Talk about art, music, or a crazy idea you had. Talk about a place in the world you’ve never been to and ask that person to speculate on it. Re-enact the promise of the Renaissance.

Why They Served, Fought and Died

We have come upon Memorial Day 2020 in the age of corona. Its the traditional first day of summer, and across the country, people are in an argument as to whether or not they should be allowed to go to the shore and get their nails done. We, as a country, have long forgotten the exact reason we celebrate this holiday, other than to parade old men holding flags down our main streets as a form of honor and reverence; followed by the mass consumption of burnt meat. And on the Tuesday following we return to subjecting these heroes to the indignities of old age, to live in their own memories alone and away from us. What did they leave behind for us to hold onto? What was flying above them as they hit the beaches of Normandy, Anzio and Iwo Jima? It wasn’t a flag I can assure you. It was an idea that all of us bear a responsibility to each other to participate in the idea of a democracy to achieve the idea of freedom. And ideas, being non-corporeal and mutable, have the most difficult time taking hold if they aren’t universally acknowledged and practiced.

Soldiers participate with the highest risk and each individual service carries with it the most potent form of this idea: a human being risking harm for an ideal. There’s no second guessing the nature of the participation: if you’re in a uniform, it carries mortal risk. When we vote, we participate as well, and perhaps the voting polls would swell if there was something more physically tangible at risk if we neglected to do so. But there isn’t which is why so many of us rationalize our neglect of this exercise.

The one form of participatory democracy that gets routinely ignored is jury duty. It is derided by many as “already rigged”, “boring”, “a waste of my time” and in terms of avoidance ranks lower than voting only because you are legally mandated to answer the summons of duty. But if your local community did not send out a summons, no one would serve and the jury box would be routinely empty. While I did not choose to serve in the armed forces, and while I strive to make sure my vote is counted, the biggest civics lesson of my adult life was learned sitting in the jury box. I served on 2 separate juries, one criminal, one civil; one in Brooklyn and one in Los Angeles. And in each case, the lesson administered by the judges, was the same, simple and supremely valuable: be sure to listen and be careful how you speak.

When charging the jury with the case, each judge (a woman in Brooklyn, a man in Los Angeles) gave the us the same instructions. After the first time I realized I’d heard parts of it in countless plays, TV shows and movies over the years, truncated to fit the time constraints of drama. After the second time, I realized how critical it was not just in the deliberation room but to every interaction we have with each other.

In a manner of words, as I paraphrase, each judge instructed us similarly: “there is a reason we don’t allow jurors to take notes: the individual perception you have of the proceedings in court is what makes the strongest collective agreement to the outcome of justice. Each of you heard the same words but perceived it differently according to your own backgrounds and biases. So in acknowledging our differences, it becomes critical that you intently listen to your fellow jurors and consider with gravity what each has to say. The words you form to express your perceptions made here have meaning and consequences in the deliberation room. Therefore, do not leave this jury box with your mind made up, for if you speak that decision too early in the deliberation, and new evidence is put before you in the form of someone else’s recollection of the same events, you will, because of pride, be reluctant to change your mind, fearing that you will have lost credibilty. And then justice will not have been served. Truth is not secondary here, but truth is dependent on justice being first, and justice is best served when people of different perceptions come together in full agreement.”

I don’t think I’ve come across wiser words ever spoken to me. When I put those words together in the everyday practice of life, I can think of no more beneficial way to interact with other people; no better form of communication skill, no more constant form of persuasion, no better way to honor the sacrifice of those we raise a flag to once a year. Everything from our personal relationships to our business affairs to our participation in various govenmental forms depends on carrying out the wisdom of these words.

But many of us never get the chance to know this wisdom first hand: not just the hearing of the words, but the opportunity (and duty) to put them immediately into practice. It takes patience, empathy, humility and a lot of self-control, qualities that have slowly evaporated in the public life we share with each other. If we don’t know this wisdom then we can’t claim full participation in this idea we all share. Every loud protestation of our “rights” in the public arena will ring hollow inside our heads, causing a cognitive dissonance that keeps us agitated. And when that agitation finds its normalcy in you, we become ripe for the plucking from any grifter that promises to take that agitation away.

Memorial Day. Full of more honor and lessons that lie deeper than just waving a flag.

Enjoy your hot dogs. Wear a mask in public. And don’t scream about your rights being taken away if you’re not protecting someone else’s.

Apple admits they’re stealing from you

I’ve been involved with technology since the early 80s and in all this time I’ve never owned an Apple product except for an iPod, which I admit I really liked. While I appreciate and admire the elegance and usability built into their products, I have deep-seated philosophical differences with Apple and its founder Steve Jobs. Apple touts the integration between platform, software and hardware as its chief design difference; the elegant and artful way it approaches the user experience from the machine’s curves to the smooth fonts; and indeed, it has led the world in innovations that no one can deny has changed our lives for the better, in so much that technology is a mainstay of our lives.
But as a former technologist, IT professional, software solutions salesman and all around technophile, this current revelation gets to the heart of my distrust and antipathy towards the company and its products.
There was a reason Job was fired from Apple by Skelley and the Apple board, and those of us in the industry at the time have read through the lines of Isaacson’s excellent biography and the subsequent movie from it. In truth, Jobs suffered from the same personality disorder that our current Oval Office occupant suffers from: megalomania and narcissistic disorder and these qualities were built into every product he built: just ask Steve Wozniak. Attendant upon this was the culture of paranoia and class-ism that fueled Silicon Valley then and continues today. There’s certainly a hagiography and mythos of the driven tech visionary that sees beyond the horizon of mere mortals and God knows SV was built on just that. But this is no longer the 80s and it is evident that we are now in full assessment mode of what’s behind power and how it can be abused. And where better to start than that square of glass and metal in your pocket.
Jobs was essentially an elitist masquerading as everyman and underneath his supposed “everyman” design spec was nothing more than complete control ceded over to him by all those that fell in line with his products. The products offered to set your creative engines free but what it did instead was built a class structure of creative elites that willingly followed him like a pied piper to whatever end he chose, using the tools that he designed to reflect the control he needed to have. You can fault Bill Gates and Microsoft for a variety of dicey business moves, have antipathy towards the weaknesses of his OS and consider Microsoft some sort of evil empire, but I believe Gates had the right business/technology idea from the beginning, which in a weird way, reflected a sense of humility: don’t control the whole experience, create the platform and allow the agnosticism of the hardware to drive the market adoption. He didn’t care who built the machine and together, he and the hardware manufactures would create a shared experience that allowed market diversification and cost control. That is the essence of the egalitarian “machine for everyone” that could connect the world, not the high-priced “brand” that allowed only the moneyed cognoscenti to revel in its simplicity and elegance of design. There’s many reasons business adopted the PC model and not the Mac and one of them was more transparency. It made the PC more rife to intrusion than the closed shop of Apple, but it also gave the user the freedom to control their own experience as opposed to the other way around. In the end, I’d much rather deal with someone’s ineptitude than be complicit in their subjugation of me.
This current revelation of forced battery life is the last thread of Jobs’ legacy that needs to undo the fabric. He lied to you and you bought into it, because it tickled a thing that you needed to have tickled, in just the same way SCROTUS lied to his “constituency” in order to get elected. When someone’s stroking our bellies, we don’t really notice the hand in our pockets and the sucking out of our souls. Remember the “1984” commercial introducing the Macintosh? That’s Jobs’ face up on the screen.
Fuck these guys and the Apple cart they rode in on

Surviving Stand-up Comedy

When I performed standup comedy decades ago, working for drinks and coffee and taking a mic anywhere that would put up with me for 20 minutes, comedy was different. At minimum, it was rough-around-the-edges but at full-bore it was an all-out attack on the audience, who for the most part, showed up just for that. Don Rickles popularized attack comedy and made a name for himself when, allegedly, Frank Sinatra walked into his act in a Vegas lounge and Rickles remarked, “Frank Sinatra, make yourself at home, punch somebody”. Watching him on the old Sullivan show, he became my distant mentor.

In all, comedy was club-specific and viral: The Comedy Cellar, Dangerfield’s, The Comic Strip and The Comedy Store spawned thousands of laugh-venues across the country, from Bananas in Hackensack to The Tickle Room in Omaha to someone’s kitchen in their mom’s house. The material, in those first years when freedom of speech was an open court challenge to be the raunchiest and foulest, was no-limit verbal assault. There were some who went in an opposite direction, and many people today will be surprised to know that in his early years, Bill Cosby was the cleanest, funniest and most thoughtful storyteller in America, the inheritor of the the jazz-story riffs of Lord Buckley in the 1950s. Ellen DeGeneres came out of that tradition as well (a female Bob Newhart) and Carlin, Pryor and Cheech and Chong, while totally scatalogical, were also fully immersed in deep socio-political analysis as the roots of their art. But the overall theme was that comedy was prejudiced against everyone and by being so, it represented a street-level democracy, a “realness”.

Of course, the reality of it was white-male dominated and the targets were mostly women – “take my wife…please”- and gays, both of whom were coming into their own as a political force as news of the ERA, birth control and gay pride were in the headlines daily to challenge their 2nd class status. And most comics, in their effort to be the relevant savants of the public consciousness, used that news as the grist to ferment their deepest-felt eccentricities and insecurities. So the “realness” was self-realized and one-sided, but since we were playing to “our own”, we created an echo chamber. The social order was being upended for the first time in 2 generations and comics, the Grand Fools of the working class, were there to comment on its follies, but in doing so, inadvertently exposed our own “in-the-bubble” prejudices.

There seemed to be an almost universal ban on taking on Jews (unless you were one), maybe because we inherited our craft from the scores of Catskill comics who were the ‘godfathers’ of modern comedy; and black people were equally off-limits because of the vaunted respect for Pryor, Cosby, Dick Gregory, Redd Foxx and Pigmeat Markham, but mostly due to the commonly held notion that comedy heals and most everyone out there with a few years under their belt was in tune with the social inequalities that were present every day. But in the envelope of our privelege, we still managed to pop off at least one or two thinly veiled comments and oblique stereotypes. In our minds, we thought we were being “with it”. We weren’t, unless we were Andrew “Dice” Clay, who for some bizarre warp in in the fabric of time, became an international star by being a dick.

The bad news about this democritization of humor is that suddenly, everyone’s a comedian, and that’s when it started to go off the rails. That’s when a lot of the assholes showed up and without respecting any type of tradition, their sets filled with a set of preconceived expectations and a sense of entitlement of their opinions. That’s when the creeping sense of “me” started to take over and with it, I heard vile racism, sexism and homophobia being spewed as “a sense of humor” regularly. There were still funny men (and now, more women) coming to the mic stand, but the vast majority were just plain awful, unfunny and perhaps, sociopathic. I remember playing a coffee-house outside of Houston and one white comic was so over-the-top racist that I had to walk out. Standing in the parking lot chain-smoking Merits, I ran through my entire act in my head, squeegeeing out as many racial references in my set as possible. I bombed that night because I had knocked the rhythm out of the set (all you need to do sometimes is change one word) and I was faced with the daunting challenge of reconstructing what I thought was funny. It is not fun to suddenly realize that what you thought was funny is indeed not funny.

The second change that happened to comedy was HBO. As the first premium cable channel it needed content to fill a 24 hour hungry maw (much like Netflix and Amazon today) and hit on the magic formula of standup comedy as an inexpensive funnel-system-to-stardom with “Live at the Comic Strip” and other comedy specials. Comedians and TV have been walking hand-in-hand since the early days of the tube, but suddenly, you really didn’t have to pay any dues to get booked on TV. No multiple appearances on Carson’s “Tonight Show” or other late-night TV; no years of touring the shit-hole Ramada Inns, dive bars and vacuous suburban clubs honing your act. You could now “fit the profile” of what the bookers felt was in the zeitgeist and you could be off to a new career in no time. The change it brought to comedy was real: it became homogenized. You had breakouts like Roseanne, Seinfeld, Paul Reiser and a few others that bucked the trend, but the acts were now constructed to fit the national spectrum of humor and I knew a lot of guys who hired themselves out as “comedy coaches” to help newbies create the perfect set: 8 minutes of well-constructed, easy-to-consume material. It was a dark time.

Thank god people like Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle and Lisa Lampanelli brought back the edge, setting the stage for the immense variety of feminist, gay, transgender and POanyC comics that abound now. They’re not all funny, some of them are more agenda driven than others, but there’s a variety like never before.

So that’s why its fulfilling to see a guy like Dave Attell still out there in the trenches, who worked through the decades of change at the club level and while adapting, kept the old-school vibe. The best thing that this article says about him is that the jokes are so good, not needing verbal nuance, that they read as funny on paper as they do coming out of his mouth. That’s comedy.

Caruso, the Ayatollah and Me: February 11, 1979

The Great Caruso, one of the “seven wonders of the modern world”: Houston, 1979

In 1979 I was the very young dining room manager of Houston’s premier entertainment-focused restaurant, The Great Caruso, a 235 seat palace of ostentation that featured live entertainment (including the waitstaff) with a house band and an array of local musical talent.  It was fashioned with architectural oddities and treasures from around the world (a massive, 2 story white marble circular staircase graced the center of the room) and a FOH staff of 30 including 18 busboys all from Iran, all under my inexperienced management.  The Great Caruso was a white tablecloth venue of the old school with an excellent menu (we still cooked a few dishes at the table in those days), a top notch wine list for that time (heavy on the French as CA had not come into its own yet) with a full time wine steward (one of the waiters replaced me when I was promoted).  We hosted political royalty and celebrities on a daily basis and anyone who walked in here knew they were in for a special evening.  The wait staff was primarily women and a mix of straight and gay men (all of whom taught me how to dance at the gay discos after the shifts), the busboys were Persian and there was me in the middle.  It was one of the most exhilarating times of my life as all of us were bonded by an esprit de corps that hospitality workers can really appreciate.

The busboys all attended an engineering college nearby and the restaurant was like their second home.  We would all get together and play Texas Hold-em on Sunday nights after the shift (they were incredibly aggressive bettors) where they would teach me words in Persian and I reciprocated with American idioms. I was ok with a few of them doing a few “slides” of a specific hallucinogen from their home country upstairs near the lockers after shifts. If they were caught doing it at school they would be expelled and returned home, a great shame to their families.  So they came to work to get high.

So many of them were named “Ali” that they were assigned numbers which they took great pride in – Ali 1 through 6. It started as a joke but they completely owned it.  One time, when Ali 2 had graduated and went back to Iran, we had a council on whether or not a new Ali could claim his number or go to #7.  In this case, Ali 2 was held in great esteem so it was determined that Ali 7 would be created.  A few days later, a few of them approached me before a shift with something in their hands wrapped in tissue paper: a beautiful scrimshaw etching of an ancient Persian polo match, framed in a handmade frame of Persian design, proof of their cultural contribution to the world.  “Mr. Robin” had gained their respect.  Being so young and inexperienced in the real world, I was touched beyond belief and it remains one of the lasting treasures that I have near my desk in my office.

Hand-etched on scrimshaw with handmade frame: the origins of Polo in ancient Persia

Over a period of a few weeks, I began to see a pattern emerge…many of them weren’t coming to work on Sunday nights.  I always took great care to manage the work schedule around their studies and tests, religious observances and trips back home, but I was now getting hammered by the GM, the maitre d’, the owners and the waitstaff.  Even though Sundays were the lightest nights of the week, our level of service was rigorous and the lack of busboys was causing seams to show.  When they came in for service, I approached them in the locker room and made a general announcement that we needed them to show up for their assigned shifts and made a vague threat that their jobs were at risk.  They all nodded in agreement but it was obvious something was going on and the following Sunday, I had 2-3 no-shows.  Ali 5 did show up and after the shift I asked him what was going on.

He explained to me that all the others were at the mosque praying.  I wasn’t aware that Sunday evenings were now part of their prayer cycle but he said this was something special.  “We are praying for our deliverance”, he said, “for the return of our beloved Ayatollah Khomeni”.  He went on to explain who this man was, about his exile in Paris and how all Persians hated the current Shaw of Iran, who was a tyrant and blasphemer in their eyes.  The Ayatollah, an honorific bestowed upon the upper echelon of holy men, was a prophet and would lead the current Iran to its proper place as it was in ancient times, when it was once called Persia.

Over the next few weeks I was torn between my affection for them, my curiosity for their prophet and my duties as a manager. I was reading small articles in Time magazine about this man and the excitement he caused by all these young students.  I remember having some difficult interactions with the busboys and the wait staff over the constant absenteeism.  At one point, Bassam, who was definitely the coolest of them all (probably because he exhibited the most Western behaviors) stood up at a staff meeting and demanded a higher cut of the tips.  The other busboys all agreed, and I realized this was a planned insurrection.  I could see the headwaiter slowly shaking his head and knew that I would soon be over my head.  In the next few weeks it turned into a shit show with the GM and owners pressing me to “solve the problem” which I clearly did not have the experience to do.  I think at one point I had the whole staff, front and back, pissed off at me. 

The drum beats of revolution were now pounding heavily in far-off Iran, it was a constant staple on the evening news and Chronicle headlines.  A noticeable change came over the entire bus staff, they were solid on their demands for more money and they were staging a kind of “blue-flu”: chronic absenteeism, reluctance to do any extra work, surly on personal interactions.  Not all of them, but most.  Mike, one of the older waiters who was an Iranian/American, pulled me over one night and said, “Robin, this ain’t going away.  They’re fired up over this Ayatollah guy and you’re either going to have to fire them all or find some other money for them”.  It was a Hobson’s choice, no choice at all.

Deliverance came for me when the GM called me up to his office at the end of a Thursday evening shift and told me that this wasn’t working out and my last day as a manager would be Sunday night, after I locked up.  I could either come back as a waiter or find another job.  They wouldn’t be hiring anyone to take my place for a while and he was going to assume my duties.  On Sunday evening, after I locked up, I went out to my car and the entire wait staff was waiting for me in the parking lot.  They said, “get in your car, we’re heading to a bar to celebrate your last night” and when I turned, it looked pretty weird.  Jeff Sherrill, the MC who ran the show at the restaurant from an overhead  booth and one of my better friends there, filled my entire car with popcorn, the entire interior.  I opened the door and it fell out into the parking lot and the staff pulled out a couple cases of beer and we celebrated.

Within a month, the Shaw of Iran fled the country to the US as Ayatollah Khoumeni returned from exile and started the Islamic Revolution. It was February 11, 1979.  By November that year, the US Embassy was attacked and American hostages were held until 1980 after Reagan took his oath of office.  The anti-Islam sentiment had come to America and took root and I heard that one by one each of the busboys was fired from the Great Caruso.  All except for Bassam, who had “converted” to Westernism and denied his Iranian heritage.  The next few months I was glued to the TV, magazines and newspapers, looking intensely at the pictures of the crowd of young “students” staging marches, holding and parading the hostages and chanting “Death to Carter” and “Death to America”.  I think at one point I saw Ali 5.

Tehran, Iran: 1979

The Reason Why Your Whiskey Can and Should Come from Pot Stills, Column Stills, Chamber Stills, Alquitars, Pots with Dephlegmators, Coffee Stills, Pots with Retorts, and Hybrids. Or, how arguing pot vs. column will never broach the complexity of the distilling arts.

A super-intense rundown between the pluses and minuses of column, Coffey and pot distillation.

bishopshomegrown's avatarThe Alchemist Cabinet

640px-Coffey_Still.JPG

Back in October Max Watman posted an article to the Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-reason-why-your-whiskey-should-come-from-a-pot-still) titled “The Reason Why Your Whiskey Should Come from a Pot Still”. As a Pot Still, devotee and specialist I certainly appreciated his take on the subject, however there were some technical mistakes in the perception of “Column Still” distillation. Max Watman’s mistakes were based on the fact that he simply took the word of Irish distilling giant John Powers from his testimony that was recorded in the infamous “The Final Report of the Royal Commission on Whiskey and Other Potable Spirits” in the late 1800’s and Power’s subsequent “damnation” of the continuous column to mean that Powers was damning all types of column stills (he most certainly was! However, he likely didn’t fully understand their capabilities) and subsequently Max Watman simply didn’t make the distinction that “All Coffey Stills are columns but not all columns are…

View original post 4,432 more words

Stage Mishaps: Part II

While rummaging through old memories of life in amateur and semi-pro theatre, I stumbled upon a collection of half-forgotten moments when the actions on stage didn’t follow the script:

During a performance of “Of Mice and Men” and playing the role of George: in the first scene, Lenny and I are camped by the river sharing a can of cold beans.  First, I had to learn how to open a can with a pocketknife, which was tricky enough to do in real life, let alone in front of an audience.  But one night, one of us knocked over the beans as we laid out our blankets and Lenny had to lie in it until the lights went down.  The picture of passive, simple-minded Lenny glowering at me in the wings is still priceless.

Later on in that same run: the final scene is one of the most shocking moments in modern drama, when George, out of a skewed sense of mercy, shoots Lenny in the back of the head.  Lenny’s on his knees looking out over the audience toward the land of milk and honey and rabbits and I stand behind him, pointing the gun at the back of his head.  The lights cut out and the shot is immediately heard, followed by a slump of a body.  I was using a starter’s pistol as the prop.  But one performance, the pistol either wasn’t loaded with caps or it misfired. The lights cut out only to be followed by a “click” of the gun.  The stage manager realized what was happening and quickly yelled “Bang!” from the wings.  The horrified Lenny slumped, probably wishing he could stay there and not get up for the curtain call.  I, of course, wished I could blow my own brains out.  There’s nothing like actor’s humiliation as a leveling force.

chaplinOne performance during a dramatic interpretation of Franz Kafka’s “The Trial” I was in the role of eccentric artist Titorelli that the character Joseph K visits to get insight on his dilemma and ordeal of false accusation.  We were in a black box theatre composed of metal Unistrut and wooden planks and had constructed a small cubicle raised 10 feet off the ground to simulate Titorelli’s tiny atelier.  I was playing him as sort of a crazed Dali, very physical and a bit clownish.  I had conceived of a bit that had me flying backwards onto a high stool next to an easel as I answered one of his questions, plopping perfectly on its seat.  The stool was right at the edge of the platform and one night I misjudged the leap and felt the stool leaning backwards.  I screamed and grabbed onto one of the Unistruts, saving me from tumbling down to the floor.  I’m still not sure if the audience realized what was going on, as the actor playing K didn’t have time to react and just stood there.  Or did he?  We finished the scene undeterred, working the fall into our dialogue, but I decided to cut that bit out of the rest of the performances.  The director agreed.

In a scene from “Winter Chicken” at a dinner theatre in Slidell, LA, I played the young romantic interest to the daughter of the protagonist, and again, being a physical actor, had conceived of a pratfall over the sofa on an entrance.  I think I was “Kramer” before there was a Kramer.  The director loved the bit and it was as well rehearsed as any scene in amateur dinner theatre (meaning not very much).   One performance, I tripped before the fall and instead of the controlled tumble that always got a laugh, I produced a body slam off the sofa onto the stage.  I saw 2 people get up from their tables to check if I was alright.  The director decided to cut the fall out, I disagreed.

During the same run, my romantic interest and I had a scene where we’re making out on the sofa (in dinner theatre, there’s always a sofa) right when her father walks in and glowers at us for a laugh.  We had conceived of some stage bits while we’re kissing, a bit of physical wrangling to break up a long stage kiss.  Since I’m lip-to-lip with her, I’m too close to see that her breast had popped out of her blouse right when her father walks in so I had no idea why this scene was eliciting screams of laughter when most of the nights it was just a little titter.  I pulled away just in time to see her push the errant flesh back into her blouse and was too shocked to say my next line.  Maybe I was waiting for the stage manager to yell “Bang!” from the wings.

Stage Mishaps: Part 1

I was reminded of this event after reading an article in the NYT by Dick Cavett about the humor of what can go wrong on stage in live theatre, “Oh No, Live Drama and Unwritten Humor”.

RedRyder 1976In college, I played the title character in the play “When You Comin’ Back, Red Ryder”. Red was a young, ineffectual loser trapped in a dead end job in a money-losing diner in the desert on Rt. 66 after the interstate opened. One of the subplots concerned a tourist couple on their way to Baton Rouge and the woman, Clarise, was a concert violinist carrying a very expensive violin with her. My goal is to get out of the diner and hitch a ride with them. In a key dramatic moment at the end, the husband, in anger, raises the violin above his head to smash it. I run up behind him, grab his arm while yelling “No!”, cradle the instrument in my hands then gently hand it back to Clarise; immediately after, I grab my jacket and head out the door with them to Baton Rouge. After a life of being a loser, its my one heroic moment and saving grace.
During one performance, I rush up behind him, yelled “No!” and grabbed his arm. But I had unwittingly torqued it, causing a chain reaction down to the neck of the violin where it snapped in two. It’s supposed to be a stunningly dramatic moment in and of itself, the climax of the play, so we all stood there a bit stunned. Not knowing how to save the moment, I simply took the violin as usual, gently cradled it and while handing it back to Clarise, announce “well, I guess I ain’t going to Baton Rouge now”. The actress playing Clarise, in a brilliant moment of improvisation, reaches out to my face and gently, lovingly strokes my cheek and says, “grab your jacket and let’s get out of here”. I’m not sure what author Mark Medoff would have said if he had witnessed that performance as we had re-written then entire ending of the play. Afterwards, we and the cast considered ourselves heroes and our director heartily congratulated us afterwards, further adding that if we thought that’s how the rest of the performances were going to go we were dead wrong and ordered a steel plate be installed inside the violin to make sure it never happened again.

Master this…

LaborerBecause it has now reached epidemic stages, I feel its important to re-iterate a truth: if someone became interested in whiskey in the 2000s and started a distillery as a result, they are NOT a master distiller. It doesn’t matter what type of success or failure they have, who their distributor is or how many markets they’re in, they are not a master…of anything.
To infer, or just as wrongly, let other infer on their behalf, that they’ve mastered this craft after only a few years in, is a slap in the face and a profound insult to those that actually have achieved mastery.
The test is simple: stand in the same room with Jimmy Russell, Jim McEwan, David Stewart, Maureen Robinson, Shinji Fukuyo or Richard Patterson and refer to oneself as a “master” in their presence. It would be cringe-inducing to watch and what’s more, these very same personages wouldn’t refer to themselves as such. These, and others like them, have spent the better part of their lives in the pursuit of their craft in an industry that has seen severe downturns during their tenure. We tend to anoint them now with rock-star like plaudits, but even if the whiskey industry hadn’t taken a moon-shot in the last 15 years, they would still be regarded as masters.  They put in the time and they’ve lived through the pain.

True mastery is conferred on you by your peers and the industry you’re in, not self-annointed, or worse, bestowed upon you by a publicist or a blogger or a hack writer from Thrillist.

  • Mastery is the result of thousands of hours laboring in every part of an industry, coming from under the tutelage of others greater than you
  • Mastery is the great humility of learning over time what your mistakes are and understanding the thousands of permutations in the production of an end result
  • Mastery is understanding how to not just teach, but to guide those who come to you for direction and knowledge, a conveyance of not just facts and information, but true wisdom as a result of a deep understanding
  • Mastery is having the scars of failure and succeeding as a result of them
  • Mastery is an outward recognition that you stand above others in a pursuit of acknowledged excellence and have achieved it through your labors
  • Mastery is conferred upon a few.  It is not a Participation Award.
There are those in this industry who after a rocket-glide to success in a few short years attach the “master” label to themselves.  At the beginning of this wave, it was easy to dismiss it as youthful exuberance, but no more. It is undeserved and by stealing this honorific they rob themselves of the richness of their own process and experience.  What they may be is talented, skillful and resourceful, all achievements in and of themselves. They may be lucky or someone who knew the right people at the right time; someone gifted with the time and money to pursue a task or discipline at one’s leisure without the burden of monthly bills. All of these are fine, there’s nothing wrong with them, everyone has different paths to success. 
But the hyper-titling we are experiencing is not the result of any of these.  It’s a combination of a number of things that are troubling in our larger culture:
  • The hyper-need for instant self-gratification, driven through the prism of social media
  • The confusion of facts with knowledge and knowledge with wisdom as a result of the hyper-reality of the internet
  • A service economy vs. a production economy where there are few examples of long-term effort
  • The commodification of titles (Manager, Director, VP, CEO, etc.) as a result of “entrepreneurial glorification”, a syndrome where anyone who starts something new on their own is considered a prodigy, a genius or brilliant simply by the act of starting, not on what they’ve achieved
  • Outside investment money with no historical investment in the industry, seeing a distillery or a brand as just another commodity and titles as a marketing edge over the competition

This sense of entitlement is enabled by the wholesale showering of diluted “awards” from the huge number of competitions that have sprung up as a cottage industry, many of them coming from the organizations that purport to help grow and guide these young craftsmen into industry leaders.

One cannot demand transparency if one is not going to live it. If the craft movement is going to grow up to fulfill the destiny that is waiting for it, the capacity to re-arrange how hard spirits are made, marketed and consumed for a generation, it needs to start by looking inward at its practitioners and demanding a truthful accountability of their capabilities: not just to create, but to lead and guide, to pass their wisdom onto a new generation.  Right now, I’m not seeing that happening enough to make me hopeful that it can.