Authors in Focus: Mark Mathabane

I am going to add a new segment to these writings, and will call it "Authors in Focus", and go a little deeper into the works and styles of particular authors. First one up is not as famous as some of the other authors that I regularly read: Mark Mathabane.

Mark Mathabane is an author who was best known for his work, "Kaffir Boy", a 1980's book which was an autobiographical piece that focused on the author's upbringing as a black youth during the days of apartheid in South Africa. The book came out in the middle of a decade when the officially racist policies practiced in that nation, as well as in illegally occupied Namibia (then called South West Africa), became more or less the focal point for activists around the world, in a decade when activism seemed almost a dead thing otherwise. The anti-apartheid movement became a cause célèbre, and names like Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela were immortalized. There were concerts and movies, albums and much music, protests and organized boycotts, even economic divestments, all in favor of bringing down the apartheid state.

Yet, despite all of this well-intentioned activism, it was also greatly misunderstood. Many people on the outside viewed it simply as good and bad, black and white. In reality, South Africa was, and always has been, far more complex. Even then system that came to be known by the name of apartheid itself had a more complex history than met the eye. In truth, there were layers to the system, and it's history. For anyone who wanted, or still perhaps wants, to understand it more, it was important, if not crucial. To understand these layers, and the complexities and specifics that really allowed apartheid to survive for as long as it did. After all, there is an interesting question as to how a relatively small group of whites managed to dominate everything in a large country in which they were a small minority, on a continent where they were even a smaller minority overall.

It took a lot of reading to understand the situation better, and a lot of reading on the subject of South Africa I have done. It all started back in the 1980's, when apartheid still was an active issue, and when this book, "Kaffir Boy", and it's sequel, "Kaffir Boy in America", were the first books that I really read on the subject, and served, on many levels, as my introduction to South Africa and apartheid. The term "kaffir" is of Arabic origins, meaning "infidel", and is the equivalent in South Africa of the American derogatory word "nigger". Mathabane's title of his book, "Kaffir Boy", is meant to call into mind Richard Wright's "BlackBoy".

In truth, I read the second book first, because that was the one my mom owned at the time. I eventually got my hands on a copy of "Kaffir Boy" itself, yet both books fascinated me at the time. A few years ago, I decided to reread the books, and it was truly amazing how different books can be when you read them decades apart. There were some parts that I remembered, but even these seemed entirely different, almost. I would remember certain parts, yet seemingly out of context.  Still, these works were very informative, and fascinating. At a time when I was a struggling student in junior high school and high school, learning about certain things completely unrelated to school (like apartheid in South Africa) were the only signs of a greater intellectual ability and overall world curiosity that I was to show, and at the time, I probably lacked the creativity and bravery to tie these into my academic life. I kept such personal studies almost completely separate from school (with one exception that I can remember), although it could have been put to good use, and likely, I would have benefitted strongly. Alas, you live and you learn, right?

Mathabane's childhood was in a black township called "Alexandra", on the outskirts of Johannesburg, and entirely surrounded by white suburbs. It was a town that was severely overcrowded, and if memory serves correctly, a one square mile ghetto with around 100,000 people living in it. Many of the homes were hastily built shacks, which the police would often ear down as illegal (a common practice throughout South Africa in the days of apartheid), and which the people living in them would often just as quickly rebuild.  It was a world of dire poverty, with menial jobs and meager salaries, of substance abuse, violence (from both blacks inside of the townships, and the white establishment outside of it), poor education and even poorer prospects. When reading this book, it becomes clearer just how difficult, if not virtually impossible, life had become for the black majority inside of the country, and just how hopeless young blacks in the country felt. For that matter, it provides insight into just why it was very much a youth movement in the country, with such an enormous amount of youth disaffection throughout.

But you also catch a glimpse of a different world, and begin to understand how whites in the country were so cut off from the blacks. In a country where the white minority government controlled almost everything, including the media, there was hardly any real news of blacks at all, and thus, even less understanding (and thus, sympathy) towards the plight of blacks. Many whites remained completely oblivious of the protest movements and the funerals (which became de facto protests once gathering of large groups of Africans became outlawed), even when they only lived a few miles away. Keep in mind, the world of white and black remained strictly separate on many levels, and did not go beyond the relation of master and servant on any real level. Blacks were given only an education that was adequate enough to prepare them for labor at the service of whites, while whites were given an obviously superior level of education, and were groomed for lives of luxury and indulgences. There was a point when South African whites surpassed even wealthy southern California for the highest standard of living on Earth, while blacks as a whole remained relegated to the background, mired in poverty and only glimpsed this better life enjoyed by the whites while working for them, cleaning their homes or sculpting their garden or cleaning their streets or mining their gold and precious resources. Blacks might assist white police officers. But there was nothing resembling equality or a sharing of the wealth.

That much was understood by most people. However, there were layers to apartheid that were far more complex, because what I just explained in that last paragraph, though true, was also only half of the story, if that. It does not explain everything, and it certainly does not explain how a small minority of whites that was shrinking in terms of percentage of the population could control a growing black majority, on a black continent. Having read quite a bit on South Africa over the course of the decades (the subject has continued to fascinate me even to the present, almost two decades since the official dismantling of apartheid), I think I can save the room for more specifics for some later entries.

While "Kaffir Boy" focused on his upbringing in South Africa and gave the reader a glimpse of the loud and violent, as well as often the more subtle and mental, oppression of the racist system, and trying to persevere through it all, the follow up book, "Kaffir Boy in America", is about the author's escape, if you will, into the United States, on a tennis scholarship, sponsored by former tennis superstar Stan Smith, an American who met Mark Mathabane during a tournament in South Africa.

Mathabane leaves South Africa, and goes into some of the racist aspects of the society that he is hoping to leave behind him, such as the unpaved roads of the black townships suddenly yielding to the paved roads of the white communities, and then being seated next to a privileged white South African, who pretends to be sympathetic and interested, and almost slips by referring to some of the blacks that he knows (who work for him as servants, naturally) as "boys".

Mathabane has realized his dream and come to America, where he knows about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that there is no legal segregation. Yet, it pains him to find that racism is quite evident here, as well, and he also finds that the United States, far from being an idyllic utopia, had its' share of problems, as well. He learns about the Jim Crow segregationist system that is similar to that of South Africa, and that had existed in the recent past, but has since been outlawed. It comes as a shock to him that many Americans are not as well educated or enlightened as he had imagined, yet he remains happy for the opportunity to be here throughout and remains hopeful.

On a personal level, Mathabane soon has to admit that he will not be a tennis superstar, as many people had come to believe, and he struggled to find a new identity, and justification, for his life in this land, so far away from the one he knew in South Africa. But he manages to find his niche in writing, and eventually even manages to successfully get his family to visit the United States, and to get younger siblings to come to school here, and to obtain greater opportunities, nonetheless, than would have been available to them in their native country, where they would officially be relegated to second class citizenship, at best (more on this specifically, in some later entry).

Again, I read both of these books when I was still only a teen, and then reread them more recently, as a full fledged adult (I also wrote "Miriam's Song" more recently), and enjoyed it each time, although the author does seem a bit on the preachy side in "Kaffir Boy in America". Still, they are good reads, and I would like to obtain copies of his other books, sooner or later, in order to read these, as well. He has a strong writing style, and has the power to make his world come alive through words, and was my first real introduction to understanding the realities of South Africa on a deeper level. 

"I know, I know!" Do you know anyone like this?

This past weekend, which was a rough one admittedly, there was a guy at my job that was to come in for training.

Although I did not really train him in any direct manner, as the weekend supervisor, it was my duty to meet the guy, and to provide him not only with a welcome to the site, and to my shift, but also to give him some brief rundowns and reviews of the site, particularly as it is on the weekends.

Not a big deal, right?

The thing is, the supervisor on before me, who I relived from duty, warned me about him, saying that he was "a bit weird". Since he is hardly the type of guy to talk smack about anyone, it kind of raised my eyebrows a bit. I wanted to meet this "weird" guy, who I would soon enough be working with regularly.

Well, I met him, and indeed, "weird" is the best word to describe him, I think. He just strikes you as odd in almost every way, once you meet him. He seems to be the type of guy that will both impress you and unimpress you in the same sentence, if you know what I mean. He was an "expert" on everything, it seemed. Maybe a jack of all trades, and a master of none, if you will. Not just with the job, but with everything. It seemed that he expected you to listen to what he had to say, and not question him, no matter what it was that he was talking about.

Allow me to explain.

When I first started on the job, I was receiving training as a supervisor along with this other guy, who was going to be more of a floater, on a part-time basis. I, in the meantime, was going to be working full-time, and would be a weekend supervisor on Sundays, specifically.

In any case, this guy I was training with was a real braggart. I mean, to the extreme. Some of the stories about his bragging were legendary, and you might be hard pressed to believe them if you heard them. Yeah, that out there. He was loud and boisterous, to say the least. And one of these ludicrous traits, if you will, was to pass off any information received during his training by mentioning that this was all redundant to him, that he was well aware of all of this stuff already, and that you were preaching to the choir, in essence. This he did even with crucial things, and in particular, with the fire panel.

Now, we all know that fires and fire alarms are among the most serious things that a building might find itself under at any given moment, right? So, you might think that someone who will be accountable for answering might be attentive, because if ever put to the test, you had better show results. Apparently, not everyone agrees, because me fellow trainee interrupted the guy that was training us on this, the most important of all of our training, and claiming that he knew "exactly" what to do with this system, because his previous job site had the exact same system, and he was completely comfortable and familiar with it. The guy training us looking at him, shrugged, and moved on to the next thing. I requested more training on it later, but held my tongue at the time.

Fast forward a few months, or maybe even just a few weeks. This guy I trained with and I were on shift, and an alarm goes off. We manage, but he at one point looked at me, shrugged himself then, and said "I don't remember them training us on this thing", and just left it at that. I thought to myself, "What an idiot!"

Well, by now, you probably understand what was weird about this guy on the weekends. No matter what you might say or do, this guy, let's call him Andrew, knew it already. He was the type of guy that wanted to impress you, and moreover, wanted to impress upon you that he was at least as qualified not just to do his job, but to do yours, as well. He literally would cut people off as they were providing some of the basics about the site, and claim he was more than familiar enough with these things, based on some of his past job experiences. In short, he seemed more focused on impressing than on learning and, much like the guy I trained with so many years ago, he would surely point the finger of blame on the one(s) he received training from if he encountered a situation where he was unsure of what to do. Obviously, it was not much fun to train him, and I just hope that I am wrong about my gut feelings here. 

Maintaining Walls of Separation To Break Down Walls of Separation

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship."

I am inclined to agree. Presently, in much of the world, there has been a tendency towards quite the opposite, with a loud, aggressive, and militantly righteous religion is being imposed upon people. We see the rise of Islamic Republics in the Islamic world. Iran was the first, but certainly not the last, and not even the most extreme. Afghanistan was the most extreme example, with the Taliban's reign of terror and tragedy. Now, it looks like Egypt is ready to take the plunge and hand itself over to the religious extremists.

But we do not have to go so far away from home o see inappropriate levels of mixing government and religion, which has traditionally been kept separate throughout American history. We are seeing challenges from prominent, and potentially dangerous, political and religious voices alike right here at home.

The most notable example as of late has been Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who has been giving Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney a serious challenge for supremacy in the Republican Presidential race. He claims that he wanted to vomit after hearing a speech by John F. Kennedy essentially praising the strict wall of separation between church and state, and vowing his own efforts to maintain and respect the divide.

By contrast, Santorum has been maintaining that there has never really been a separation between church and state in America, and is doing everything that he can to blur the lines between the two.

Santorum is very vocal about other things, as well. He has shown himself to be quite the homophobe. He has mentioned that Satan seems to be playing a prominent role in the United States that he sees. He has proven to be staunchly pro-life, or anti-choice, and is willing to proceed with attempts to curtail a woman's right to an abortion. He even seems to oppose contraceptive to avoid pregnancies. Naturally, he is not so vocal about government programs to assist such children once they are brought into the world – unless they are raised to believe what he believes in. Unless they belong to his social network, to his church. This is the guy that is giving Mitt Romney the most serious challenge for the Republican nomination?

It is a sign of direction that this country has been going for many, many years, frankly. I will admit to not being surprised.

More extreme times yield more extreme results. So is it really surprising that hard-line religion is making such a strong comeback? It is a throwback to an earlier era, and as such, none of the ideas that are being presented within this framework are new or even fresh.

It is generally understood that religion not only comes into conflict with government, but also with science and progress. Those who are prominent authorities in any given religion fight hard against scientific evidence that increasingly pushes religion into the territory of mythology in the process of revolutionizing the world, and perhaps we are simply witnessing a counterrevolution, so to speak. Clearly, many religions feel threatened by science, to the point of refuting what is right in front of their eyes. That is a major problem with religion, of course: that what is advocated is "faith", and that this can come at the expense of facts.

Yet, I believe that it is a bit more complicated than that, even. Too much belief in any institution or system or set of beliefs or " faith", if you will, can be a dangerous thing – and I am talking about things outside of religion. It is a recipe for disaster. Here, I am specifically referring to excessive beating of the drums for a nation (such as the United States, presently), or for an ideology (capitalism and the "free market" system). When we get too mired in one set of beliefs, in one way of doing things, then we begin to come dangerously close to matching the traditional religious viewpoint of being infallible, the way Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible – eve when history has proven otherwise. Even when some popes have contradicted one another. Again, what is right before your eyes does not matter.

In the United States, people have gotten overly self-righteous about a set of beliefs. Among these are that the United States is the greatest country in the world, as many American exceptionalists suggest. Also among these, is that capitalism and the free-market advocates and those who favor increased deregulation (usually, these are one and the same) are entirely correct on every level, and that government "intervention" is a bad thing, because government is the problem, that government is almost automatically evil and to be approached with a high measure of skepticism, as Reagan stated and every conservative since has repeated like a puppet.

There is another separation between different styles of institutions that is being breached, and perhaps it is time to maintain this strict separation, to reinforce it. I am talking about the separation between corporation and state, because that is getting very dangerous.

There are laws in the books about the conflict of interest when a government official has too close ties with some corporations, and there are other laws in the books regulating the power of corporation. But in the United States, as indeed in much of the industrialized world, deregulation has been the flavor of the moment, and everyone's favorite word. It has become such a popular term, that it is almost like a political football of sorts.

People are only now truly waking up to the dangers of allowing corporate culture too much power and influence. It may just be every bit as dangerous as too much influence by religions.

Institutions in general are dangerous. Give a group of people power, and it will not be long before they are accused, often quite legitimately, of being abusive and overstepping their authorities and of not knowing, or recognizing, or acknowledging, their boundaries.

If we are ever going to be able to truly overcome the divisions that stand between us as groups of people – divisions between race, between sex, between sexual orientation, between nationalities, between religious beliefs, between rich and poor, between really any manner of differences that exist between groups of people, really, than we need to stop thinking in terms of groups that we belong to. It may be comfortable to belong to a certain group, and then to believe what many in that group believe.

Yet, if we yield to this instinct, we are also yielding our individual identities, and our ability to think for ourselves. We are also cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world, and risking our own world view being too small and narrow, and too highly impacted by that group, or perhaps even groups, that we belong to.

I am not saying we should not recognize our differences, or that we should not take pride in what nation or religion or even sex we belong to. Of course we can, and perhaps even should. But like all things, we should not go too far with it, and should keep a good head on our shoulders. In other words, we cannot get so wrapped up in these things that we no longer see anything outside of them. That includes our nationality, our sex, our sexual orientation, our race, our religion, and our beliefs.

We should not abandon our individual identities and the ability to think independently so easily as we have. Especially given that these are not "normal" times. Some things are just too important to allow them to fall away into the background. It is more critical than ever to maintain a strong and sound mind, to exercise it, and to examine this world with a critical eye. It helps to do this if we do not have our view obstructed with beliefs or institutions that obstruct our view when we are too close to them.

A Note of Thanks

Yes, I am aware that it is early March, and not late November. Yes, I am also aware that I have written in that past that I will try and steer clear of writing about specifically personal stuff in my life.

That said, something happened to me over the weekend that kind of can throw that off a little bit, and it has honestly been hard not to think about it since it happened. I was in a car accident, which was deemed, perhaps correctly, my fault.

As I was turning into my job's parking garage, I noticed the shape of a car approaching fast. It was 1:30 at night, and simply put, I did not see the headlights. Either they seemed dim (if not off), or maybe I am just getting old. One or the other, I guess.

In any case, whoever's fault it was, it does not change the fact that it happened, that I knew once I finally saw her that it was going to end badly. It is a moment that none of us wants to have, and once you go through something like that (as I have on more than one occasion now), it is hard to get it out of your mind. That last moment, when you know something bad is about to happen, that collision is inevitable, and yet you are still praying against hope that it can somehow, somehow be avoided. Then the moment of impact, that sickening first thud. Being thrust forward with a violent jerk (so violent, that some of the stuff in the back flew to the front seats! That instant regret (amazingly, I did not really feel shock when it happened, only disappointment, and fear of what I was going to do now).Only later, did I kind of go through the motions, like a deer caught in the headlights. On some level, I guess I am still there, still thinking about all of those unanswered questions yet. Still worrying. Still cursing my own stupidity. Still wondering why I stopped at the Pathmark by work when I did, or why I did not stop and get the coffee that I had wanted to get elsewhere. Why, in other words, ws I precisely at that spot at precisely at that time, where an accident was waiting, a date with destiny, so to speak? Why, why why?

But I have done some thinking, and as much as I say it to myself, but often lose sight of it in my more normal life,  it is also a time to be thankful, as well. Thankful, because although bad things (like the accident) inevitably happen every now and then, it could nonetheless have been far worse. I still have my health. I still have people close to me in my life, who have helped me out through this already, as well. I still have my two jobs, and thus, a steady income. Although it is difficult to juggle so much stuff, there are still options for me, possible solutions, and I have faith that I will find something that works. I am thankful for my resourcefulness, as well, come to think of it. I am thankful to be writing this piece right now, instead of in some hospital bed, had the accident been more serious. I am thankful that the other driver, and her passenger, were not evidently seriously hurt themselves. I am thankful that my son was not in the car with me at the time. I am thankful that my car, although probably too far gone to be salvageable, nonetheless lasted for over 320,000 miles, many of them driven by me over the last three or so years.

We get wrapped up in life all too often, and lose sight of some of these more simple blessings that seem more often than not to be taken for granted. When something happens that rocks us out of our comfortable existence (like what happened this weekend), it could be a real eye opener, as well. So, although I am not happy about the accident, I guess I am thankful to have the wherewithal not to simply give up, and to have what I would like to believe is a healthy perspective following such inevitable nasty surprises that life will throw in our direction every now and then.

Book Review: Cell 8

Cell 8 was a very good read.
Recommended to me by my mom, who had read it before, it is more than a simple thriller, or some work of fiction. It also delves into many important topics, and explores the different attitudes between Sweden, and perhaps the European Union nations overall, versus the United States on jails, punishment, and particularly capital punishment. That is to say, of course, the death penalty. But it also asks important and piercing, critical questions about the overall attitudes and different approaches towards crime and punishment in the United States and Sweden.
We all know that prisons are growing in the United States, that there are more and more prisons, and that means, of course, more and more prisoners. Also, of course, the death sentence, which used to be illegal in the United States, and which still is illegal in European Union countries, such as Sweden, was reinstated some decades ago, and remains a soar and divisive topic for many. Like much else, people hold strong opinions about these things, and the different approaches are argued equally vehemently on both sides of the debate.
It was noted, and judged harshly by many on this side of the Atlantic, that in another Scandinavian country, Norway, the police took a long time to respond to a massive shooting on an island some distance from Oslo, which took place on the same day as a bombing in the capital, in what was a two-part attack by a native Norwegian hoping to make a political statement. Indeed, the response time raised eyebrows, but in defense of Norway, it is a quiet country, and not at all used to that kind of thing. In fact, many Norwegians seemed to suggest that that kind of incident you expect in the United States, but not in quiet Norway. Which, perhaps, is more than a veiled criticism of the United States, and the high rate of crime and inexplicable, violent episodes and shootings.
What also received a lot of publicity and raised eyebrows was that the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, could only receive the maximum sentence of a few decades, as opposed to a life sentence, much less the death penalty, like the United States likely would have pursued (at least in some states, anyway).
Although they do not really talk about this particular shooting incident, they do engage in a kind of ongoing debate throughout the book about the merits, or the lack thereof, on both sides – the Swedish and the American models of legal punishment. They address the overcrowded prisons and the sense of security that Americans get out of their system, as well as the huge costs of maintaining such a massive, and growing, prison system. They also in particular talk about the death penalty and Europe's opposition to it, in theory as well as in fact.
But Cell 8 is not just about the questions, moral or legal, surrounding the death penalty. Far from it. It also takes an honest look at intellectually dishonest politics, about "legalese" speak, if you will. Although Sweden and the United States may speak different languages, the BS underneath much of the language of the law, which we have all seen before, becomes magnificently in evidence and is used to very strong effect as you read this book.
For that matter, another interesting point that is addressed is the apparent need of an abusive state to subjugate people at times to the will of the state; to humiliate them. The prisoner in question is at some point made to feel dehumanized once he is under the control of certain authorities, and the systematic message of making sure it is understood to one and all that they state can, and will, do whatever the hell it wants to one of it's own, is indeed troubling. That these are men and women who go to and from work everyday and otherwise lead normal lives, but who's very job description seems to entail a disturbing psychosis, is itself troubling.
After all, it is, in theory, the state that is supposed to contain people who's violent tendencies do harm to others, but what happens when it is the state itself, an allegedly civilized nation, that exhibits violent tendencies?
There are many layers to this book, including how regular people, powerless to really throw a monkey wrench into the machinery or effect change on a massive scale, can cope with the reality of these horrors. The authors make a compelling argument about the radically different ideas and notions of crime and punishment between the United States and Sweden in particular, and perhaps more of the European Union in general. It also exposes the weakness, the chink in the armor if you will, of the theory that the death penalty serves as a strong deterrent, versus the actual facts and statistics that seem to illustrate a different story, and that perhaps Americans are believing in a fallacy, in a myth, when they make this claim to justify their continued support of capital punishment. Though this is a work of fiction, the authors certainly do not shy away from seriously debating a topic that is all too real. .
With these debates clearly underlying the story throughout, the authors go on about a fictional character on death row in Ohio, who managed to escape, ultimately, and then is discovered in Sweden after being taken in for a violent incident. The story itself is intriguing, as are the details about how this fictional escape took place. The fictional diplomatic crisis that the potential extradition of this American back to the States, where he would surely face the death penalty again to a revenge minded voting base back home, echoes some real political realities in the present day, and serves as the backdrop for further rich debate and arguments that the authors engage in.
Cell 8 itself is written by the Swedish writing duo of Anders Roslund and Borge Hellstrom. The duo also wrote “Three Seconds”, and have been compared to Stieg Larsson, the author of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. Cell 8 is an exciting read, and keeps you wanting to read more and more, on many levels, and find out whether the fictional government of Sweden in the book will actually yield the American and bow down to political pressures, thus in effect sentencing this man to death, or whether it will safeguard the American, who's major crimes, after all, took place on foreign shores. It also makes you wonder about the resolve in reality on both sides of the Atlantic regarding this all-important topic. Recommended reading!

The Jesus Tomb

Earlier this week, the web was abuzz about a reported discovery of a tomb discovered in Jerusalem that was said to date from the first century. This discovery used very high end technology, including robots, in an effort to make verification more scientifically sound. A book was written about it, called "The Jesus Discovery", written by James Tabor, a scholar in scripture, and Simcha Jacobovici, a filmmaker. The book delves into the archaeological findings and, the authors suggest, posits that the tomb that was fairly recently unearthed points to the real possibility that another tomb discovered some time ago might be that of Jesus himself. A documentary focusing on the archaeological findings is being made and set to air in a few months on the Discovery Channel, and it has received significant publicity and endorsements.

Evidently, according to the authors, this discovery of a tomb in 2010 could be traced to perhaps the earliest Christian art and artifacts yet discovered. There is an inscription that could be translated to mean "Divine Jehovah, raise up, raise up'. According to the authors of the book, much of the other imagery discovered along with the bones also seem to suggest early Christian belief that just might even predate the earliest Christian writings, including the New Testament of the Bible.

Those who advocate the Christian ties also argue that it sheds new light on an earlier discovery of another tomb dating back to the early 1980's which, according to some, now might have a legitimate claim to being the tomb of Jesus.

“A compelling argument can be made that the garden tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.” according to the authors.

The authors continue: “The discovery provides the earliest archaeological evidence of faith in Jesus' resurrection from the dead, the first witness to a saying of Jesus that predates even the writing of our New Testament gospels, and the earliest example of Christian art, all found in a sealed tomb dated to the 1st century.”

Although the book is already a top-seller, it is not without it's detractors, who take a more skeptical view of the implied meanings of this discovery that the authors take. Many scholars argue that the authors fail to make a compelling case that these are, actually, the tombs that the authors claim that they are, or that they automatically imply that the other tomb is that of Jesus.

Some of the critics are quite harsh, and leave no doubt that they are not at all impressed with the findings. Andrew Vaughn of the American Schools of Oriental Research says that there is a “zero percent chance that their theory is correct”. Eric Meyers, a Duke University Biblical scholar, added this to a “long list of presentations that misuse not only the Bible but also archaeology.” Jodi Magness, a professor at the University of North Carolina, says, “It pains me to see archaeology hijacked in the service of non-scientific interests, whether they are religious, financial, or other.” She goes on to question the credentials, or the lack thereof according to her, of the authors. “Professional archaeologists do not search for objects such as Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail.” She suggests that these types of exploits are usually led by amateurs, and that archaeology is not driven by beliefs or theories, but rather “is a scientific process”.

The debate rages on. Some links below are included for further reading on the subject:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-29/news/31111070_1_second-tomb-jesus-family-tomb-garden-tomb

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10534008-doubts-about-the-jesus-discovery

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/jesus-discovery-jerusalem_n_1305355.html

The Next Big News Headline Playing Soon in a Movie Theater Near You!

Sometimes, I scratch my head at my fellow Americans (mostly men), with their obsession towards violence and movies and stories that glamorize and glorify getting your way through coercion or greed or excess violence. Not knowing any limitations, and taking things into your own hands.

Yes, such movies are intriguing, and yes, I also enjoy many of them, including the Godfather series, Goodfellas, and quite a few others. So, I know on some level, I am contradicting myself, or perhaps even being hypocritical.

That said, the movies are getting more excessive with violence or raunchiness, and often lack class. Say what you want about the Godfather series, but they still managed to retain a measure of class, at least on a certain level.

Movies that currently play seem to gravitate towards a higher level of extremity, which too often means the lack class or intelligence, or both. Like almost everything else, the more extreme it is, the more likely it is to do well, and particularly, I am ashamed to say, with males around my age or younger. I am not the biggest fan or horror movies, but enjoy a good scary movie every now and then. But the horror movies they have these days are not so much scary, as filled with gore. People getting maimed, body parts cut up, horrific things happening. The focus is not on being frightening, but being gross or horrifying, and it just does not hold the same level of dignity that older movies (let's say, the original Halloween movie, for example) used to do.

Much the same with action movies. Not that they all had class, and many of them have always focused around some heroic and always impossible cool and calm, collected man, a stud, who fought off bad guys and always, without fail, got the girl. But the older movies showed men who actually were capable and could think beyond themselves. These days, the action heroes do not think or value life, and they more often than not kill people en masse, and without placing much value on individual lives. That says nothing about video games, where some kids (again, mostly males) will play endless hours of their favorite games, and often, this has everything to do with killing and destroying other people, the "bad guys".

I grew up on movies such as the Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies. These were enjoyable, and they also remained within the boundaries of good taste, I think. Some other series of movies began to go well past that, such as Rocky (in the later movies, with excessive Americentrism) and especially with Rambo. Yet, those look frankly tame, compared to what we have out there now. There are no limits these days. Indiana Jones was an intriguing character, because he was a learned man, a professor who happened to go on adventures. The modern day equivalent was the Mummy series, which was much more raunchy and, frankly, trashy. They tried to pass it off as classy on some level, but it just was not like the Indiana Jones movies that it tried so hard to rip off. They just were not nearly as good, just more extreme, in almost every way. But more extreme does not a good movie make. Yet, even this is pretty tame, compared to the mindless movies that focus on what we are supposed to believe are cool guys, model guys that young men should perhaps aspire to. I am not a big fan of Jason Statham, for example, and he seems the mindless muscle guy type that comes to mind first. The Fast & the Furious movies, full of fast cars and chicks, also falls into this category. Their probably are many more that I am not thinking of at the moment, but these types of movies go well beyond good taste, and delve into something that is more sinister in our society: this seeming need to be envied. Envy, of course, is what our society is all about. It often finds expression in the desire for money, and that is why we have an economy that revolved around shallow consumerism and corruption. It is also why we have men who want to take steroids to bulk up, or women who take endless pills or who harm their bodies to slim down. It caters to the worst of human instincts, and it reflects poorly on our nation, yet it increasingly is running rampant on almost every level, like a tsunami that is flooding what borders of moderation we might once have had.

We do not know any limits these days.

Then we wonder why we get the headlines that we get on the nightly news. We wonder why some kid goes nuts and shoots up a whole bunch of other kids in some school somewhere, as just happened a few days ago in Ohio. Or we wonder why so many people get tricked so easily with a government that is obviously lying, and feeding the people what they want to hear, giving them good reason to feel good about their war lust. We fight "wars'" from afar, sending missiles and some jets, and the focus is on our superior technology. Then, we wonder why the rest of the world seems to hate us? That's what happens when you mistake real life with some video game.

Funny enough, I remember the days when music was censored on the grounds that it geared kids up for violence. But often times, music actually illustrates that it is one of the relatively few outlets for creativity and thoughtfulness. It is an art, after all, and so it attracts people who think differently than most. I find a lot of inspiration and insight with musical lyrics, from popular artists and lesser known artists alike. Generally speaking, much of it tends to be more of a release and a break from the confines of our everyday life. At it's best, music, and art in general, allows you to escape the mundane world of routine, and to enter a different, and hopefully slightly more elevated, mindset. As such, it can often seem like a threat to those in power, who often seem themselves to be just fine with movies and video games that have excessively violent themes, but then get offended by bad words in music and books-  including works by classic authors, such as Mark Twain.

Artists try and get us to think more critically about who we are, individually and as a society, and they question whether we are right, or whether we have lost sight of things. They tend to be our moral compass, far more than any elected, or unelected, political leaders. They sound the alarm bell when we seem to be going dangerously off course. Mostly, they try to get us to think. In an age when thinking is quite unpopular, is it any wonder that it tends to be artists that are often blamed for our problems, and get in the most trouble? Look at how Marilyn Manson was blamed for the Columbine shootings, and compare that with how intelligently he answered the critics who blindly criticized what they could never understand.

That's a double standard. I am not saying that it is time for censorship of movies or video games. Truth be told, I do not have any answers on the subject. But I recognize that there is a problem, and that people, other than acting shocked and indignant when the effects of this excess are thrown in their face (such as acting mad or sad when there is such a senseless mass shooting), usually do not tend to do much, or think much about it, once the headlines disappear for this or that particular shooting or incident. It makes me wonder what it will take to shake people out of their slumber. Again, I do not have an answer for that. What I do know is that it seems time for a more serious discussion, and bringing it up, talking about it, hardly seems wrong. I think the time to really think about these things is well past, already, long overdue. Until we get over our paranoia of actually talking openly and with intelligence and respect for other opinions than our own, the problems that we have are likely only to grow worse and worse, and grow more extreme, a reflection of the people who created these problems in the first place. That would be us, collectively.