So, You Want To Join a Cult - Part XI

August 1979, I was on the cusp of a major change in my life. I was about to ratchet up my Way involvement, but what was going on in the wider Way World?

In an earlier installment I laid out why, in my view, people stayed in cults:

* What the cult is telling you, on some level, makes sense

* You feel like you belong to something greater than yourself

* Outside pressure serves only to confirm the "us against them" narrative the cult has been feeding you

* The perceived benefits outweigh any problems

* People don't like to admit that they're wrong about anything

The second item listed, "You feel like you belong to something greater than yourself", can be looked at in two ways. One view is that you feel that you're on a mission, that you're actually accomplishing something, the other aspect is a veneer of legitimacy. One way to look like you're legitimate is to build up an organization. 

In the early days of of The Way, Wierwille ran a shoestring operation. He taught his PFAL classes, ran Sunday services at his home and had a loose network of people who were interested in what he had to say. From 1953, when he started teaching PFAL classes, to 1957 when he left his church and incorporated as "The Way", (The Way hagiography later retconned the founding of The Way as October 1942, when Wierwille started a radio program) through the late fifties and most of the sixties, The Way continued as a purely local phenomenon. No one would have ever heard of Wierwille and The Way if things had continued on this path. In Part IV I discuss some of the steps in The Way's expansion. 

In the late sixties there was an explosion of new religious groups, as well as many young people who, dissatisfied with the status quo, gathered together in informal groups, teaching each other the gospel and attempting to live communally as they imagined the early Christians did. One of these groups, running an ad hoc Christian charitable organization and group home, attracted Wierwille's attention. He travelled to San Francisco and met with them. Eventually they formed a partnership: they provided the youth and energy, he provided the organized theology. It was at this point that things took off. The people from the San Francisco group home started spreading Wierwille's take on Christianity with an enthusiasm that had not been present when PFAL was just another self-improvement class, albeit Bible-based. Two organizations sprung up, The Way West and The Way East, which coordinated the running of PFAL classes and served as a loose connection to Wierwille. Drawing upon the pool of enthusiastic PFAL graduates, Wierwille established an outreach program, the World Over the World (WOW) Ambassadors and a leadership training program, The Way Corps, the formation of the latter could be considered the foundation of cultishness in The Way. 

The first Way Corps group came together in 1969, but was disbanded after some unspecified failure. A second group came to Ohio in 1970 and became the core of Wierwille's committed followers. Early in the seventies, Wierwille, backed by some of his Way Corps, staged a takeover of both The Way West and The Way East, folding their organizations into the framework of The Way Inc, now styled The Way International. Initially graduates of The Way Corps either worked in various capacities at "International Headquarters", or went out "in the field" to oversee areas that were seeing a lot of new PFAL grads. Occasionally Way Corps (or simply "Corps") graduates engaged in secular pursuits. The Bible fellowships, later known as "twigs" largely operated independently, with the "true believers" concentrated among Corps grads. Each year, the number of people entering Way Corps training grew, from a dozen in the first two groups, to around 600 in the sixth group. Property was purchased in Emporia Kansas and Rome City Indiana to facilitate the growing number of Corps trainees. 

The growing number of new people, and the increasing scope of the Way Corps training required a business structure. Money was pouring in from tithes, and class fees, and expenses for their properties, publications and the framework required for training hundreds of people increased as well. The number of staff members increased. Parallel to the business side, a hierarchy on the spiritual side sprung up.  Numerical growth of Way Corps grads meant that more local fellowships were being run by Way Corps rather than local people with leadership skills. In the early seventies, multiplication of PFAL grads and of local fellowships resulted in things being pretty independent on the local level. There might be a Corps grad as a state or regional coordinator, but regular folks were for the most part rising up to coordinate fellowships and branches (grouping of fellowships in an area) without any formal training. As Way Corps grads began to filter down to area and branch levels, and finally to twig (local) fellowship levels, the level of centralized control changed the nature of the local Bible fellowships. The nature of that control I will address in a later installment, but suffice it to say that the framework for control was steadily building and was largely in place by the late seventies.

The Way, in around ten years, had accomplished two things: they had built their little operation into a truly international, worldwide, organization and had extended their influence and control directly into people's lives through the Way Corps. The former gave it the patina of respectability, and the latter gave it a lever to influence the everyday life of its adherents. The Way had hit this dual pinnacle right around the perfect time for me. It's organization and hierarchy indicated to me that it wasn't a fly-by-night assemblage of do-gooders, but a structured group that had put down roots. I felt safe getting involved in it. By this time I had been drawn in by several factors. What I was being told made sense, at least to me;  the outside pressure served to confirm the "us against them" narrative; and I felt like I belonged to something greater than myself, both in a sense of accomplishment and belonging to an established organization. In later years I would come to believe that the perceived benefits outweigh any problems, but in the upcoming year I would become one of the people who don't like to admit that they're wrong about anything. And that pattern of ignoring red flags would continue for a long, long time. 

Start from the beginning

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2019/10/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-i.html

Part XII

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2021/02/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-xii.html

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part X

My parents, years after I left The Way, claimed that I had, in some vague way, changed after I had become involved. In some respects they were correct. I was no longer devoted to Catholicism, but not because I had rejected God and the Bible, but because I believed that Catholicism didn't represent God and the Bible as closely as The Way did. For years I had been searching for deeper meaning and for "proof" that Christianity was "The Truth". The signs were all there - my visitations to local churches, my curiosity about non-Christian religions, my questioning that wasn't satisfied with vague appeals to authority. The truth is, most religious people have only a surface understanding of the doctrinal details of  their religion and are ill-prepared to counter specific and enthusiastic challenges to their beliefs. Looking back from the vantage point of 40 years in the future, I realize that the "research" presented by The Way was, for the most part, pretty shoddy and its conclusions were often based on tenuous connections and misunderstandings of Greek and Hebrew grammar, as well as the works of theologians of the past. But at the time, the only people that I knew who were even attempting to make sense of Biblical contradictions were the people of The Way. 

As my third "ministry year" in The Way began in August 1979 (Way year went from August to August) several influences flowed together to cause me to become more involved, more committed, to The Way. My parents were becoming more hostile to my involvement in The Way, especially since I had stopped attending church. The community had become overtly hostile to any group that they considered a cult in the wake of the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana. Deprogrammers were more open about their practices and often had the cooperation of local police departments. Outside attacks generate, in general, one of two responses. One is to to disassociate oneself from the group that is attacked. Persecution has the effect of weeding out those who aren't committed. It also has the effect of strengthening the resolve of those who choose to stay. That's the effect that it had on me. The leadership of The Way encouraged that mindset. People who left "tripped out", they were weak. Those of us who stood strong were in the same league as the apostles who persevered in the face of opposition. Being the focus of persecution made me feel like I was actually accomplishing something for God. 

A second influence was the example of some of the "believers" around me. During Way year 1978-79 several of the people that I knew set up "Way Homes" that were the focus of outreach in their neighborhoods. Groups of Way folks were travelling to Ohio, Kansas or Indiana (Way headquarters and the locations of Way Corps training) to take "The Advanced Class". During the previous year I had "witnessed" to my childhood friend Joe. Joe took the PFAL class and at Rock of Ages in 1979 was sent to Fremont Nebraska as a WOW Ambassador. Others whom I knew entered Way Corps training. There was a lot of peer pressure to step up and "do something for God". What I decided to do was move into a Way Home. 

The Way Home was an interesting concept. You were part of an organized program, but weren't locked in for a set period of time, like the WOW Ambassador program or the Way Corps training. One person was designated by area leadership as the Way Home Coordinator. The household members decided among themselves how to handle their finances, how to divide up chores and when to schedule Twig Fellowships or witness in the neighborhood. Most Way Home members worked whatever jobs they chose, or attended school. The expectation was that the Way Home would be a hub of Way activity in the neighborhood and the members would focus much of their free time on bringing in new people and running PFAL classes, along with weekly fellowships. 

The Queens Village Way Home, where I went to live in late August 1979 had four of us living there. Bernie, an electrician in his forties who was in the same PFAL class as I was in March 1978 was the designated leader, Wanda & Beverly were newly minted PFAL grads and me. I was still attending Baruch College in the evenings and working at EF Hutton, the stock broker, as a clerk during the day. It was my first experience living somewhere other than under my parents' roof, but since I hadn't changed jobs and was still in school, there was some continuity with my previous life. 

But before long, there would be some major disruptions. 

Start from the beginning

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2019/10/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-i.html

Part XI

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2020/12/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-xi.html

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part IX

"Brainwashing" is a term that gets brought up a lot when it comes to cults. Although there is room for disagreement about whether those of us in The Way, or any other cults for that matter, were brainwashed or not, let me define the term as I understand it. 

Brainwashing is not a scientific term, and actually has no widely accepted meaning. But the way I understand it, it would involve the forcible conversion of an individual from one set of beliefs to another set that they would not have changed to without physical, chemical or mental coercion. Brainwashing could involve torture, it could involve sensory or sleep deprivation, it could involve threats to family members. None of this, not even a hint of it, was present during my time in The Way. On the contrary, conversion to The Way's point of view was slow and methodical and involved eyes-wide-open decisions at every step. Which does not negate the abuse inflicted upon Way members, nor it's cultishness. 

One of the counter arguments against brainwashing is the ease with which people were able to leave The Way at all stages. The person who introduced me to The Way was my own cousin, who ended her involvement several months after completing the PFAL class. Why did she leave when I didn't? I can't really say. In conversations with my parents after the fact she claimed that I was brainwashed, but could not account for her own resistance to the supposed mind control. Perhaps she wasn't as eager for answers as I was, perhaps she didn't have the need to stand out from the crowd as I did, maybe she was uncomfortable with speaking in tongues or just didn't like the people. The person who got her involved was soon out of the picture. The point is, nobody stopped her from leaving nor was she subject to any pressure to remain. Over the years I saw many people walk away for various reasons, and other remain for their own reasons. I'll be getting to the reasons why people stay, but not just yet. 

The Jonestown Massacre at The People's Temple in Guyana in November 1978 was a turning point. It was the point at which family members of people who were involved in alternative religious movements began using the epithet "cult". It was the point where the assumption was, not just that someone's kids had converted, but that they were involved in something dangerous. It was the point where people were considering forcibly removing their loved ones. People calling themselves "deprogrammers" sprung up, promising, for a fee, to extract cult members and deconvert them back to their old beliefs. In general these deprogrammers used tactics that looked suspiciously like the brainwashing that they were ostensibly saving cultists from. My own parents, according to what a sibling told me years later, consulted with a deprogrammer. Fortunately this man was honest enough to tell them that if it didn't work, I would likely be estranged from them for the rest of my life and they abandoned the plan. To my parents' credit, they made an effort to understand and accept me from that point on. They visited me in Sidney Nebraska when I was a WOW there in 1980, and regularly came out to Nebraska after I was married, even attending a few Way meetings. Even though the perceived familial opposition had softened, now there was the cultural opposition, and in many ways, actual persecution that accompanied the anti-cult scare that followed the events in Guyana. 

Start from the beginning

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2019/10/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-i.html

Part X

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2020/12/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-x.html

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part VIII

So far I have addressed  briefly how the perception that something "makes sense" influences people to get involved in cults and touched upon how participants are made to feel that they are involved in something greater than themselves. Now we're going to look at how outside pressure, perceived as persecution, serves to cement someone's decision to remain in a cult. 

Throughout most of 1978 few people had heard of the term cult, especially as it applied to Christian groups. Certainly there were fringe groups, notably the Unification Church, colloquially known as "The Moonies", and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKON), which most of us knew as "The Hare Krishnas", but it wasn't until the mass murder-suicide at The People's Temple outpost in Guyana in November 1978 that there was an awareness of "cults", that not only were they different, but that they were dangerous. A cottage industry of "cult experts" sprung up, with numerous books about cults, as well as those billing themselves as "deprogrammers", who, for a fee, would un-brainwash a loved one and "free" them from the cult. More on that later, but first my own experience with pushback from my own family. 

As I related in a previous post, I was raised Catholic. The neighborhood where I grew up was predominantly Catholic, and Catholicism was, even for the non-religious, part of the background noise of life. All through high school all of my friends were Catholic, and if I knew any Protestants, I can't remember any of them. (I did date a girl for a few years who had a Catholic father and a Jewish mother, but other than that...). Catholicism was assumed. So, when I began to move beyond casual attendance at Bible studies and toward replacing my Catholicism with membership in The Way, my parents began to get concerned. Not, I emphasize, because they thought I was in a cult, that term had yet to become popularized to describe fringe religious movements, but because I was involved in something not-Catholic. 

When you're excited about something new, whether it's a new love in your life, a fun hobby, that alternative band that no one has ever heard of, or really anything that's new and fresh and exciting in your life, you want to share it with others, you want to talk about it. You're excited about it. And I was without a doubt excited about what I was learning in the PFAL class. Understand that at this stage I wasn't considering leaving the Catholic Church, but was pretty psyched about seeing details of the Bible that I hadn't known about before. Most Catholics don't bother overmuch with the theological details and couldn't care less about the minutiae of the nature of Christ or what happens to you after you die, or how apostolic succession works. I certainly never thought about it, but once I was presented with these details I was won over. After the initial few sessions of PFAL that hammered home the premise that the Bible was the Word of God and inerrant, the second week of class started throwing out information that was new. I'd come home from class bubbling with enthusiasm about what I was learning. My mom, more often than not, would be in the living room watching television or reading a book and I'd be excited about telling her what I was learning "Did you know...?" I'd gush about some obscure bit of Biblical lore that had been presented that night. Mom's reaction was disappointing at best. Rather than sharing in my excitement, or at least exhibiting polite interest, her reaction was one of barely disguised discomfort at what I was saying. This may not seem like much, but I had always been able to talk to my mother, and was closer to her than to my dad, who seemed to have more in common with my younger, more sports-oriented brother. Tight lipped indifference from mom was as bad, in my mind, as overt condemnation. Of course, this parental disapproval was hardly persecution. But The Way played on this, pointing out verses where Jesus said that true followers would have to leave their old lives behind, leaving their parents and siblings for the gospel and portraying disapproval by family as proof that we were on a godly path. 

As I moved into my second "Way year" (Way years went from August to August, I took the PFAL class in Way Year 1977-78) in the Autumn of 1978 I started to become more active. A few months previously I stopped attending church, seeing enough of a disconnect between what I was being taught in The Way and the positions of the Catholic Church. This caused a confrontation with my father, who, when he deigned to express his opinion, did not leave any room for doubt about his position. Where my mother would express her disagreement with uncomfortable silences my father was more volcanic in his disagreement and let me know in no uncertain terms what he thought. He did not approve. Even though I became aware at the 1978 Rock of Ages that The Way was The Way International, and not just some local Bible study groups, it was still possible at that time to be involved only peripherally. The local Twig Fellowship that had met at Tom & Joe's apartment in our Rosedale neighborhood had dissolved. Tom had left to serve as a WOW and Joe had moved to a Way Home (several Way roommates dedicated to running fellowships and classes, similar to the WOW program with fewer rules) in the Queens Village neighborhood. While at the Rock of Ages I stayed in a hotel room with two guys, John Lalor and Joe Meehan, who had been WOW Ambassadors the previous year and were returning to their home neighborhood. Joe, John and I, as well as a handful of other Rosedale "believers" would occasionally drive up to Queens Village or to Bayside to attend Way fellowships, but mainly we would meet in a public park or mall (we all lived with our parents) and "witness".  

During this time I was still living a "normal" life. I was attending college, going out to see local bands on weekends, dating, and drinking too much at times. We managed to convince a few people to take the PFAL class including my girlfriend Lori, my childhood friend Joe, and a couple of musicians - Mike and Billy. I was living in some respects in two worlds. I still had my old friends, my old bad habits, was attending college, living at home. My friends thought I was weird, my parents disapproved...mildly, but I was, on the side, engaged in an enterprise that I viewed as important: speaking what I believed was "The Word of God" and bringing others into that knowledge. It was, in many ways, the perfect balance.

Of course it couldn't last. 

Four months into this phase of life 918 people died at a remote settlement near Georgetown, Guyana and things were never the same. 

Start from the beginning

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2019/10/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-i.html

Part IX

https://aesduir.blogspot.com/2020/11/so-you-want-to-join-cult-part-ix.html

Killings: Of Police/By Police

I've never had the kind of job where it was possible that, as part of my job, I would be killed during my shift. I have never served in the military and I have never been a police officer. I would imagine that it would be a priority for a police officer to be diligent and aware in order to come home (alive) at the end of the day, but I really can't imagine the stress that a person is under in those circumstances. And not just the police officer, but the officer's family as well. It's really no comfort to surviving family members to hear that it was a part of the job, or "he knew what he was getting into" after a loved one is killed in the line of duty. 

But it is part of the job that a police officer signs up for. 

I know that sounds harsh, and I don't mean to make light of police being killed, but when an unarmed person, who is complying with an officer's demands, and at worst is accused of a misdemeanor or traffic offense is killed, the reflexive response by law enforcement supporters is to tell us how tough a cop's job is, how they never know when someone might pull a gun on them, or how often police are killed in the line of duty. 

All of that is objectively true, but the subtext seems to be that a police officer is completely justified in proactively killing someone who might be a threat. Does this happen all the time, or even most of the time. Probably not. But the position of most police departments seems to be that the life of the officer is the most important thing in any contact between the police and the public, and if official policy is otherwise, the saying "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" carries the day. 

There is a fundamental difference, therefore, between a police officer being killed in the line of duty and a civilian being killed  by police. In the first instance, it is by definition being done by a criminal. If caught, the killer will be arrested (if lucky - cops really pull out all the stops for cop killers) and put on trial and likely convicted. Someone killed by the police is usually demonized - if they have ever been arrested, that's brought up - their actions prior to being killed are questioned - and rarely is a police officer tried for killing someone, and even more rarely, convicted. Innocent people have been killed because a cop claims that he "feared for his life" without having to produce any evidence, or even articulate any reasoning, why he thought his life was in danger. The "us vs. them" mindset that paints non-police as enemies is perpetuated by the courts. 

It's a tragic thing when a police officer is killed, as it is when a firefighter dies in a fire, or a soldier is killed in combat. In a perfect world, it wouldn't happen, but in each case of a police officer being killed, it was done by a "bad guy". But police are supposed to be the "good guys". They're not supposed to kill 12 year-olds with toy guns, or men reaching for their wallets according to police directive after informing the police that they were armed; they're not supposed to restrain suspects until they suffocate; they're not supposed to shoot women in their sleep; they're not supposed to shoot social workers who are on the ground with their hands raised. 

I don't want to see any dead cops. I do want to see cops refrain from killing people who aren't trying to kill them. 

Life Isn't Fair

 

Life Isn't Fair

Bad Things Happen Sometimes

But So Do Good Things

A Lot Is Beyond Our Control

Things Don't Happen "For A Reason"

Or According To A Deity's "Plan"

(Unless That Deity Is A Sadistic Jackass)

Do Your Best

With The Cards You Are Dealt

Bluff If You Have To

Straw Men and Intentional Misunderstanding: Blue Lives

In a perfect world everyone would speak and write using perfect grammar, all their statements will be perfectly consistent, and words would be used according to the accepted Merriam-Webster definitions. In that perfect world no one would ever have to ask "What did you mean by that?".

But we don't live in that best of all possible worlds.

People make imprecise statements. I noted recently how a friend, when coming across incendiary posts in social media, gives the other person a chance to explain himself. If the offending person takes the opportunity to clarify, it may be that the statement wasn't intended to be offensive, or the offended person didn't understand the context or nuance. Of course it could be that no clarification can explain it away and the initial statement really was offensive.

What seems to happen a lot is that people intentionally misunderstand, deploying the straw man fallacy to attack a position that the other person really doesn't hold, not allowing for lack of precision in the choice of words.

The recent protests against police abuses that arose following the murder by police of George Floyd in Minneapolis engendered a lot of slogans, some of which were misunderstood by those who disagreed with the manner of protesting. One of these is related to the slogan "Blue Lives Matter" and a meme that went around that had a picture of some blue cartoon characters (Blue, from Blues Clues was one) and the caption "These Are the Only Blue Lives That Matter To Me". Cops, as well as friends and family of police officers naturally were upset, but let's look at the phrase itself and where it came from.

In 2013, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin, the hashtag #blacklivesmatter began trending on Twitter. It soon became a rallying cry for many people who were fed up with young Black men continually being killed by white people, usually at the hands of the police. An organization with that name also started in 2013. Note that no one was saying that only Black lives matter, or that non-Black lives don't matter, but that in the eyes of the police, as well as many White people, it didn't seem like Black lives did matter. Those using that hashtag, or the phrase in general, were trying to point out that despite the lack of seeming value of Black lives in this country, Black lives mattered.

There was an almost immediate backlash. The phrase "All Lives Matter" started to be heard and seen. It seemed innocuous. Of course all lives mattered. How could anyone argue with that? But the problem with snapping back an answer to "Black Lives Matter" was that it didn't require an answer. Attempting to answer it was a rebuttal. If all lives really did matter, then we wouldn't need to say "Black Lives Matter", would we?

Another common rejoinder was "Blue Lives Matter", obviously a response intended to defend the police, who were a frequent target of Black Lives Matter activists. Similar to "All Lives Matter", not only was this supposed to be a counterpoint to "Black Lives Matters", but was meant to point out the opinion of many police and law enforcement supporters that they were in opposition to "Black Lives Matter" protesters. Again, it's obvious that the lives of police officers matter, but the term "Blue Lives Matter" is a not-so-veiled attempt at a rebuttal of "Black Lives Matter".

Of course, there are no "blue lives".

What?

As I have recently seen pointed out, "blue" is a profession; a cop can take his uniform off at the end of the day, a Black person can't take off his skin. A police officer can retire or leave the force and take up another profession and any animosity toward the police goes away. A Black person is always Black.

When I first lived in Nebraska I experienced a lot of persecution due to my religion. I remember thinking at the time that I could move to the next town, keep my religion quiet, no one would ever know, and the discrimination would end (as it did), but that a Black person did not have that option. It was a turning point for me.

So if you are offended by memes or posts or comments speaking against the slogan "Blue Lives Matter", it doesn't mean that they think the lives of individual police offers don't matter, or that they wish harm on police officers, but that the phrase is meaningless, since there are no "blue lives". In addition, the phrase is nothing more than an attempt to minimize "Black Lives Matter".

Take the time to find out what people really mean when they say what they say. If you disagree with their actual position, then go ahead and argue, but don't rail against a position that you only think they are holding, or have assumed that they hold because that's easier than taking the time to find out.

Black Lives Matter: Disrupting the Nuclear Family?

While I do get into arguments and discussion on social media, mostly I blog in order to organize my own thoughts and to try to convince myself that my own opinions make sense. I'll often see people write things that I don't think are correct, but rather than automatically disagreeing, I'll do a little checking to see if the facts at least are correct. The opinion that people have of those facts is another matter, but you have to, at least in a sane world, start with the basic facts before you can form an opinion.

Something that I have seen a lot in the last week is an accusation that Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-religion organization that is, in reality against Black people and seeks to disrupt the nuclear family. I first became aware of this position through the Facebook posts of someone I know through a mutual taste in music. I've traced her views back through several Black Christian preachers. I believe that they have arrived at their opinions by selective quoting, often out of context.

Many years ago I was part of a group that liked to think of themselves as a Biblical Research ministry. In retrospect they were nothing of the sort, but they did outline several things that one must understand when reading the Bible. One was that words must be understood in light of their meaning when they were written. This group used the King James Version of the Bible, which was originally published in 1611, with revisions made over the next hundred years. Many words no longer had the same meaning as they did 400 years ago. Other keys were to read things in their context, and of course, almost so obvious that it didn't need to be said" read what was written (not what you want to be written). All of this should be common sense when it comes to evaluating anything that we hear or read.

One of the "quotes" that has been repeated is the Black Lives Matter organization (BLM) is out to disrupt the nuclear family. What does that mean? Well, first of all, the complete quote, from the BLM website is:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

So what does that mean? Some Christians would have you believe that it means to "drastically alter or destroy" the nuclear family. Indeed, if you look up the definition of "disrupt" the first definition that pops up will say just that. But does the statement on their website say that they want to "disrupt the nuclear family"? No, it says that they "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement...". Although it's not entirely clear just from looking at that phrase in isolation what precisely a Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement is, we can look at the context and get a clearer idea. We can determine what they mean by noting the word "by" - this clues us in on the "how" of the disruption: "by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another...". This doesn't sound like a negative interpretation of disruption (more on the modern positive definition of disruption in a moment), but harking back to a time when extended families and community were more the norm, even in American society, rather than what is the norm today, nuclear families that have isolated themselves from the greater community. Isn't that what churches espouse? The final clause "...especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." This hardly sounds like what some people are claiming that they're saying.

So what about an alternative meaning of "disrupt", one that frames disruptions as a good thing? Here's a link to an article on the Merriam-Webster website that discusses the changing meaning of "disrupt" and "disruption":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-new-meaning-of-disrupt?fbclid=IwAR3zVqLmCFr_93Fx4EhPL0rpj2Ra8nZs88ImB56fOPCgIFDdnSBqSWa6R4Q

With this relevant quote:
"...his theory of 'disruptive innovation' were using disrupt and its variant parts of speech in a fairly narrow sense, describing a process in which new business entities successfully challenge established ones by initially focusing attention on those areas of service which the older companies had overlooked, and leveraging this to a long term advantage."

I suggest that, based on the context, the BLM website is using "disrupt" in this way, or at least defining the word in a non-standard way, not, as some would suggest, to destroy the nuclear family.

The other issue that has been used as a pretext to disavow Black Lives Matter is the recent unearthing of a video where one of the organization's founders says "We are trained Marxists". Christian preachers and their followers, claiming that Marxism is an "anti-Christian religion", have declared that it would be un-Christian to support Black Loves Matter, sometimes conflating the organization of that name with the wider movement. There are several things wrong with that conclusion. Yes, it is true that Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, has said, in response to a suggestion that the organization had no ideology, ""We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories."

Again we have to go back to context. The sentence right before the "trained Marxists" statement is "...we're trained organizers". So what, precisely is Marxist about the organization? You'd be hard put to find anything unambiguously Marxist about their public statements. If the BLM organization is attempting to do anything beyond keeping young Black men from being indiscriminately shot and killed by the police and affecting systemic change to advance the equality of Blacks and other minorities, (one preacher referred to BLM's advocacy for LBGTQ people as a reason to shun them) they are doing a poor job of articulating it. So a couple of the people who were active early on in this movement and copyrighted a name and started a non-profit and put up a website claim expertise in organizing that they learned as Marxists. At least one socialist organization looks at them as sell-outs who aren't championing any socialist ideals.

https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/

It's pretty evident that whatever Marxism was part of their ideology has faded away as the organization has become a movement, a movement composed of thousands of people who have no connection to an organization, but strong fealty to an idea, the idea, that despite all evidence to the contrary, Black lives matter.

Black Lives Matter is not a threat to Christians. Black Live Matter is not a threat to White people. Black Lives Matter is not a threat to the nuclear family. Black Lives Matter is a threat to racism, misogyny, bigotry, and anything that devalues one group of people.

Any organization, any movement, is going to have people with whom you disagree, who say unfortunate things, who make decisions at variance to their public stance. Should we anathematize the whole movement because we have found a few clay feet? Should we demonize all Christians because some Christian organizations have done evil?

If your only public statements regarding the Black Lives Matter movement are to conflate the organization with the movement and to find ways to tar both, I'd take a few moments to examine your motives.

Your First Post Regarding Black Lives Matter Protests

There have been a few things that have been bothering me lately relating to the protests against police killings. If you utilize social media you can't avoid seeing a lot of opinions (or at least memes and shares disguised as opinions) about what's going on. Not everyone has chosen to comment one way or the other about what is arguably the biggest issue of the day. That I understand. Some choose to use Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms exclusively for fun stuff - pictures of their kids and pets and info about their favorite sports team (well not lately when it comes to sports teams!). I won't assume that you don't have an opinion, or that you're not active in some fashion if you don't use the platform in that way. Maybe you don't know the best way to articulate your opinion clearly, or maybe you just have sharp boundaries for what you discuss with others. But here's what does bother me, and where I do assume some things.

If you haven't used your social media access to speak out against police killings of unarmed black men who were not involved in any violent offense, or against the over-the-top response of some police departments to peaceful protests, but have decided to make your first comment in support of police, or mocking "liberal" responses to the violence, or even condemning the looting, then I will assume that unjustified police killings are not something that bothers you.

Let me be clear that I don't agree with some of my friends that all cops are bastards, that all cops are bad apples, or that we shouldn't have police departments. My late father was a NYPD officer for 21 years and my brother was a NYPD sergeant and homicide detective who retired after 27 years on the job. While I never observed either of them on duty, in their civilian roles as fathers and husbands, they were and are both good men. I'm sure that anyone who has a friend or family member who is a police officer would say the same thing.

The problem isn't that police officers aren't good parents or spouses, or contributing members of their communities and churches, it's that the system  encourages and excuses bad behavior in many cases. It's not even open to discussion that every day in America police cross the line and physically abuse and often kill people who are pulled over at traffic stops, who are running away, who are handcuffed and restrained face-down, often for minor offenses when neither the officer nor the public are in any danger.

Posting photos of cops changing tires, dancing at barbecues, taking knees, getting involved in community events and otherwise smiling and being good guys doesn't negate the reality that when push comes to shove, many law enforcement officers feel justified in employing maximum force for minor offenses. It's pretty easy to smile and be Officer Friendly when you're interacting with a friendly member of the public, but the problem arises when there is the least bit of resentment for being pulled over for "fitting the description" when that description is simply "black male". How do most cops react when someone "gives them attitude"? Do they just deal with it as every retail worker has to do every day of the year, or do they escalate the situation and retaliate?

Posting videos of your favorite conservative black person agreeing with you doesn't negate the issue either. Just as white people are not monolithic and have a wide and varied range of opinions, so do black people. A black conservative making the case against Black Lives Matter or any other issue doesn't "destroy" the BLM position, it's just another opinion.

I'm going to be charitable and not assume that by ignoring police killing in your social media life while at the same time decrying opposition to police tactics and posting red herrings and straw men about "liberal" opinions you're a racist (although you might be). What I am going to assume is that you haven't taken the time to set aside your preconceived notions long enough to seriously consider that there is a problem with policing in this country that needs to be corrected.

So, do that.

Bad Apples

Frankly, I'm tired of the "one bad apple" rationalizations that people come up with regarding cops that kill unarmed, and sometimes already restrained, people. In the most recent murder of a man who was falsely accused of forgery, it's not just the cop who had his knee on George Floyd's neck. He was also being restrained by two other officers while a fourth stood by. If it's "one bad apple", didn't any of the supposed "good apples" think to say "Hey bro, back off, he's cuffed and face down on the ground, he's not going anywhere, ease off"? Apparently not.

And let's take a minute to look at this whole "face down, handcuffed behind the back" default arrest position. It's probably been going on forever, but I first noticed it during the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. Once the police decided to break up the protesters' encampments and arrest the participants, peaceful, nonresistant protesters were uniformly forced face down on the ground with their hands zip-tied behind their backs. Another issue is the eagerness with which police officers draw their weapons in situations that are not violent.  How many times have we seen militarized police departments pointing their rifles at protesters who are doing nothing more violent than yelling? I remember working for the New York City Police Department pistol license division one summer and being told that you never point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to kill them.

It seems like the entire rationale behind an officer's actions is "the safety of the officer". I'm all for "the safety of the officer". My younger brother and father were both career police officers, and thankful that they always made it home in one piece. But in so many cases a cop who shot someone merely feared that he was in danger, reacting in a way, that resulted in an innocent person being killed. The mission of individual police officers isn't "To Protect and Serve"...not to protect and serve the public anyway, but to protect themselves at the expense of anyone who they fear is dangerous. The hell with any protection for people who get between them and their fear.

And let's further dispense with the "one bad apple" viewpoint. Not only do cops cover for one another, but the whole system allows these abuses. The killer cop in Minneapolis had 17 complaints against him for excessive force, including at least one for shooting an unarmed civilian. Police unions aggressively defend their members despite egregiously violent actions. Dismissed officers are hired by other police departments.

And lest we think that this isn't racism, Tamir Rice, at 12 years old, was shot and killed without warning while playing with a toy gun, Philanro Castile was shot in front of his girlfriend, even after informing the officer that killed him that he had a permit to carry a weapon and where that weapon was. Yet hundreds of gun carrying protesters rampage through state capitols and on streets without a peep from the police.

The axiom about bad apples, is not "There's only a few bad apples, so everything is fine since most of the apples are good" - the saying is that "One bad apple  spoils the whole bunch" (similar to the biblical saying that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"). By tolerating the presence of these so-called bad apples, the good apples, if they were ever there, turn bad.

Essential Employees - Your Boss Doesn't REALLY Give a Shit if You Get Sick (as long as you show up for work)

Let's take a little break from the rioting and looting and police brutality and take a look at the other crisis that some people think is over: Covid-19. In particular, the issue of "essential" employees and the question of whether their employees give a shit about them.

Retail establishments that have been deemed essential and therefore remained open, have taken a variety of approaches to safety and hygiene. Some have required masks, and sometime also gloves, for customers to enter, others have only required employees to wear masks, others just some employees.  In some instances though, the measures are merely PR, and do nothing to actually protect employees or customers.

Yesterday I made a comment about a local store that supposedly requires its employees to wear masks (but not third party vendors or customers), but whose employees do not wear the masks properly (noses exposed, taking them off to have conversations etc) thus negating any real safety or public health benefit. I was vociferously taken to task for this comment (not the first time I have publicized this) which was interpreted as criticizing and judging the employees of this store. However, my criticism was and is targeted at the ownership and management of this company.

Most of my criticism is merely an offshoot of my observation over the years that this company, despite any protestations to the contrary, really doesn't care about their employees, other than as a means to generate profits. I can go on and on with examples, but in this specific instance, their actions indicate that the company doesn't really care about the health and safety of their employees.

Starting with employees' mask wearing, this requirement sounds like a good idea, but for the wearing of a mask to be effective to any degree, it needs to be done properly. Taking it off regularly, or wearing it without covering both the nose and mouth is about as effective as a bow tie. I very much understand that wearing a mask for a full shift is uncomfortable, but if it's important enough to require, then it's important enough for management to ensure that the employees are complying. Since management isn't following up, it's obvious that they don't think it's important and the mask requirement is nothing more than a public relations stunt that is burdening the employees without actually accomplishing anything. Ergo, they don't really care.

This company has been notorious for failing to address people's behavior when that behavior poses no legal liability. Vendors and consultants make remarks that would get an employee fired for sexual harassment or racism are tolerated because there is no legal liability for their actions. Despite all employees being requited to wear masks, third party vendors are not. This makes no sense. Some of these merchandisers and salesmen are in the store as much as some employees, but somehow they pose no public safety risk. Does that make sense?

Let's not neglect customers. Like most retail establishments, this company reliably sides with customers in any dispute with employees. Customers who complain about mask wearing, who complain about no mask wearing, who rant about shortages and purchase limits. This would be the time for ownership (they say that they are employee owned, but that is an illusion) to step up and defend their employees against aggressively complaining customers. But they won't. They won't require customers to mask up because they don't want to offend anyone, and they take no action to protect their employees from customers who think that being a customer requires employees to be subservient.

These employees are working under extreme stress, risking their health, and laboring day after day, week after week like it was the day before a major holiday; except those busy times slow down, there is no seeming end to this.

But B&R Stores (yeah, that's who I'm specifically talking about) gets to act like they care about the well-being of their employees, but they seemingly don't care enough to make sure that they are protected.


[Full disclosure - I was fired from B&R Stores around 5 years ago]

A Little Nuance When It Comes to God Sparing You From Covid-19

Yesterday I posted a remark on Facebook about how someone claiming that "God got this" in regard to the virus might find 60,000 people who disagreed but couldn't because they were dead.

That was a little harsh, and definitely without nuance.

A local legislator who is an atheist (although he dislikes the term itself) made this statement a few years ago:

"If someone's religion helps them get through the night, who am I, who am I to judge them?" This same man is very impatient when it comes to his fellow lawmakers attempting to insert their religious views into our state's laws.

In general, I agree.

Even though I don't subscribe to any particular religion, or subject myself to the whims of any particular god, I have no issue with people who do adhere to a religion and/or a god. I have no problem with others praying, whether it be the thanks/praise variety or intercession/supplication. Although with the latter, I suspect that a person who honestly logged all of their prayer requests and compared them to the specific, concrete results, they would find that the results were no greater than what one would expect from applying oneself to a problem, or even by random chance. However, I don't know this...but neither do the believers really know that divine intervention is happening. This is my opinion and I don't worry too much about how other people view it.

What I do object to, other than government trying to impose one set of religious beliefs on us all, is public proclamations of how, as a result of prayer, or some other adherence to a religious act, is going to cause God to protect someone (or has protected someone) from some catastrophe, most recently, Covid-19.  Now this might not seem too controversial, or rise to the level of irritation or annoyance, but the implication in assuming that you have some special protection is that all those who didn't make it, specifically these days to those who died from Covid-19, somehow didn't rate God's intervention, or didn't pray, or weren't true Christians [or you can substitute any other religion in here - it's just that the Christians seem like the most vocal.

Of course I understand that everyone dies, and that there are many, many people who have their lives cut short by war, disease, famine or accidents even. Why God allows this is one of the ongoing  problems that theologians have wrestled with for centuries, perhaps millennia. I'll let the theologians continue to grapple with it. Since I don't believe that there is a deity who intervenes in such a way to protect people who pray or obey his rules from harm, it's not a philosophical problem for me.

But to claim that you can ignore health safety guidelines and directives because "God got this" or "God is in control" either ignores the fact that despite God "having it" and being in control, around 60,000 in the United States alone have died from this disease just since the beginning of this year, or that you, by dint of your special relationship with the almighty, are somehow better than all those who God evidently didn't "have it" for. Do you really think that none of those 60,000 prayed? Or there families? Pretty arrogant, I'd say.

In my back and forth with a couple of ignore-the-guidelines people, one claimed that "God must have wanted to call them Home" and another questioned whether many of the 60,000 dead really believed that "God got it".

So, pray if you want to, convince yourself it will be effective in protecting you if you want to, quote Bible verses about how God takes care of you if you want to, but consider how you come across when 60,000 Americans, most of whom did pray, died, or when you assume that all those deaths are somehow part of your god's plan, but you're special enough to be spared.

Am I An Introvert?

I've seen a number of memes on social media assuming that the current virus situation with all the quarantining and social distancing is what introverts have been training for their whole lives and that somehow introverts are happy as clams and extroverts are going crazy. I think of myself as an introvert, or at least that I'm more "intro" on the "vert" scale, but I wouldn't think of speaking for other introverts, but here's where I am:

On a recent Aes Duir post I talked about boredom and how I just don't get bored. That's mainly because I have a pretty active inner dialogue. I'm almost always thinking of something. When I was a child I had no problem on long car trips - and this was before there were any forms of portable electronic entertainment, I just observed the passing scenery, and sometimes even composed stories in my head. When my oldest children were in their teens, I was appalled that they plugged into a Walkman and cut themselves off from everyone else when we were on long car trips.

I enjoy reading. I almost always have a book or two going. I can sit for hours engrossed in a novel. I stay up to date on current events by reading several newspapers and follow several other news media on Twitter. I organize my thoughts by composing blog posts like this one. During times when I don't have access to a keyboard, I think through topics in my head.

None of that means that I want to isolate myself from all human in-person contact. I like crowds! Whenever I visit my family in the New York area I try to make time to walk around Manhattan and immerse myself in the sea of humanity. I love the energy of all those people in one place. This may seem odd until you realize that I'm not interacting with them! More stereotypical for an introvert is when I find a nice quiet spot like the beach and just gaze out at the waves.

Even at home anyone who knows me knows that I love The Zoo Bar, which can get pretty crowded, especially at Zoofest when a significant percentage of the city is crammed into the 100 block of North 14th Street. And even though I am happy to engage in conversation (between sets! No talking when the band is playing!) with just about anyone, I am equally happy to just sit quietly and enjoy the music and take pictures.

Some years ago I was at a talk by a metaphysical teacher that I admired when he claimed that he was an introvert. Most of the attendees were surprised. This was a man who made his living by public speaking, teaching and being in front of people. But, he explained, at the end of the day he just wanted to curl up with a good book and relax. I identified with that very strongly. For many years my main job put me in contact with hundreds of people every day, and had to lead meetings and interact very closely with all manner of people; I also had a side job (still do) where I have to speak in public and get a bunch of people to do what I'm telling them to do. When needed I can stand up and lead, but am just as satisfied to be the follower or the second-in-command.

One area where my introversion comes in to play in my work life is working with a team. Not that I can't get along with others, it's just that I'd rather plug away on my own and then present my ideas to the group for a thumbs up or thumbs down, or even suggestions - I really dislike spending an hour in a meeting with a lot of talking and no progress. I'd much rather be given my slice of the job to work on in solitude.

So, yeah...introverts like solitude, we have a pretty rich life of the mind, we like quiet, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

Boredom

"Boredom: The state of feeling disinterested in ones surroundings, having nothing to do, or feeling that life is dull"
~ ~ one definition of boredom

"...in a universe full of wonders [humans] have managed to invent boredom"
~ ~ DEATH in Terry Pratchett's "Hogfather"

I've heard it throughout my life: "I'm bored" or "That's boring". It's usually phrased as a complaint, and by implication, a demand that the complainer be entertained in some fashion. I never really understood boredom.

Oh, I know what the word means, and I can conjure up in my imagination what a bored person might feel like. I just don't ever feel it.

When I was a child we would occasionally take car trips out of the city. Sitting in car for several hours with my siblings could have been a supremely boring situation. Keep in mind that this was the sixties: no iPhones to entertain us, the Walkman hadn't been invented yet, and even if my parents shared musical tastes with us, there was only the AM car radio. Despite this possibly boring scenario I was quite happy to look out the window and observe the scenery. And I wasn't at all bored by it. To this day I watch the scenery when taking trips, even though I also have an iPod with my whole music collection plugged into the car's sound system! A game that I frequently play is turning the green highway signs with town names into the names of people. One of my favorites is the sign in Iowa that indicates the towns of Colfax and Mingo are at the next exit, I imagine that Colfax Mingo was jazz musician who died tragically of a heroin overdose.

When at home, I'd often take out the Encyclopedia and pick a random subject to read up on. Or just go out and take a walk around the neighborhood.

Now not succumbing to boredom doesn't mean that I don't sometimes get restless and wish I was doing something else. This doesn't come so much from dissatisfaction with what is going on now, but from the long list of things that I want to accomplish, work on, or participate in that I haven't been able to fit in. My mind is constantly churning out ideas for blog posts, or photo shoots. There are subjects that I want to read up on and learn more about; I have a collection of drums that I want to spend some time playing; I have a small business that, although small, requires attention, including marketing; there's new music that I want to catch up on, as well as more bands playing locally that I have the time or finances to go see. Plus I have that thing that was not around in my youth - the internet, if I ever feel the need to be entertained.

Sometimes I feel that life is too short to fit in everything that I want to do...I'll never be bored.

Talking Over, Gaslighting & Aggressive Posturing

This blog post could be all about Secretary of State Pompeo or President Trump, but it's not. Because the behavior that Pompeo recently exhibited in his interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR is all too common.

It's mostly found when one person is in a position of perceived power relative to another, but it's not exclusive to that dynamic.

One of the most common and most obvious tactic that is used is talking over the other person. Absent a personal attack or insult, it's just good manners to let the other person make their point, finish their thought, consider what they said, and only then is it time to answer, rebut or elaborate. By talking over someone who is still talking you have communicated that what the other person has to say is beneath notice and doesn't deserve to be heard. Rather than listening and considering, the interrupter impatiently jumps in, sure that what he has to say is so much more important that what the other person is saying. This doesn't always involve yelling. I have encountered people in my professional life who believe that they have the answer to my question before I have fully articulated it. Oftentimes they do have the answer, but sometimes being able to fully articulate the question is an important part of being able to understand the answer when it arrives.

The flip side to talking over, and a tactic that often flies below the radar, is when one person barely takes a breath in their rambling soliloquy, covering multiple subjects without allowing the other person to response, disagree, or participate other than as a passive listener. This is just as much a power play as talking over someone, except in this case your disdain for the other person is such that you don't allow them to say anything. When on the receiving end of  these marathons, any thoughts or contributions you may have for the "discussion" become irrelevant since what you had an opinion on may be four or five subjects and 45 minutes past before you can wedge your way into the verbal hurricane.

Gaslighting is a popular tool in the verbal bully's toolbox. We see a lot of gaslighting on the national level, but it's pretty common in interpersonal power plays. When someone is gaslighting you, they act so convinced about what they're saying, so sure about what you know to be the opposite of what really happened, that you begin to doubt your own sanity. Years ago I was the target of some pretty sustained gaslighting. Sometimes I would be told that something that had been said seconds ago had not been said, sometimes I would be told that something I said seconds ago had not been said. Conversations that I had participated in would be "remembered" completely differently the next day. Eventually I began to see through it, but the weirdest gaslighting attempt involved a stop light. There was a traffic light a little way down from the corner from where we lived. I was referring to it for some reason and I was told "there is no stop light at the corner". Flabbergasted, I tried to explain that  it wasn't actually at the corner, but about one house north of the intersection and that it was a school crossing light. Nope, I was told, there is no traffic light there. I was so messed up that I actually walked down the street to verify with my own eyes that there was a traffic light!

Although these power plays often are conducted in a soft, reasonable-sounding voice, there is also the potential for violence, or at least threatening behavior. One of the more common examples of threatening body language is the "lean in". We all have a "bubble" an area around us that we like to keep free of other people. Everyone has differing tolerances for people getting in their bubble, but a favorite power play move is to step into another's bubble and lean in, face to face. There is no interpretation where this is not an aggressive move.

Finally, when talking over, not shutting up, gaslighting and aggressive posturing have all run their course, there's belittling. It doesn't have to be overt, like calling someone stupid. It could involve snickering at someone's point of view, telling them that no one cares about what they are talking about or pointing out an area of perceived weakness. Pompeo tried and failed in this maneuver by pulling out an unlabeled map of Europe, not realizing that Kelly had a Masters Degree in European studies and had forgotten more about European politics than he'll ever know; he doubled down by implying that she misidentified Bangladesh as Ukraine.

Don't let these behaviors happen to you. When someone is talking over you, the tendency is to stop talking - don't. Finish what you were saying, don't be bullied into shutting up. When someone won't shut up, try some non-aggressive move, like raising your hand when it's obvious that they aren't going to take a breath. Don't put up with gaslighting, politely correct the gaslighter. It's natural for people to remember a conversation slightly differently, but recognize the distinction between a difference of opinion and outright fabrication. While being aware that threatening or aggressive posturing might turn into actual violence, don't put up with that either, and certainly don't accept being belittled.

The world is full of people who will try to get you to back down.

Don't.

Photography

Photo Credit Jay Douglass

Doing something creative is good for the soul. At least it is for me. Creative outlets in my life have included writing (poetry, short stories, political commentary) and photography. My output of poetry and prose has declined the last few years, crowded out by political commentary, but my photographic endeavors have expanded. I started out with a point-and-shoot about 12 years ago and have upgraded a few times - but it's really the eye of the photographer that makes a good photo. Good equipment and editing software helps, but you can have the world's most expensive camera and still take crappy pictures.

I started taking photos at The Zoo Bar sometime in 2008 at a Chris Duarte Group show. I had been a CDG regular for several years and had come across a Fan Club website that encouraged reviews and pictures from the various concerts. I sent in a review and was told by the site administrator that someone else had submitted some photos of the same show. I was impressed with the quality of the image, which inspired me to start taking my camera to shows and submitting pictures to the Fan Club. My initial attempts were pretty horrible. Initially I wasn't aware of the "no flash" guidelines, and have some old shots of musicians glaring at me as I blinded them. My first camera had a few settings like "night", "cloudy" etc, so once I was cured of using a flash, the only setting that would result in any kind of image was the "night" setting, which defaulted to a wide aperture and slow shutter speed. This often resulted in a blur caused by movement. This could look really cool, or really awful! Eventually I upgraded to a camera where I could tailor the settings to the ambient lighting and the quality of my photos began to improve.

The biggest thing that has helped me improve my technical skills has been shooting in the inconsistent lighting of The Zoo Bar. For years, one of the issues for photography there has been the lights. Often one of the spotlights would be burned out, causing one part of the stage to be in deep shadow while other parts were well lit. A new lighting system has recently been installed, with movable spotlights, lighting effects and variable colors. Unfortunately for me and other photographers, there are still dark spots on stage and red lighting gets used a lot. This may look cool to everyone else, but red lighting makes for really bad photos! Without getting into technical and editing fixes, suffice it to say that continually trying different settings and listening to advice from other, more experienced photographers has helped greatly. Specific feedback from people who knew what they were talking about has been the single greatest contributor to improvement.

While I don't limit my photography to The Zoo Bar, the photos that I have taken of the shows there and at the annual Zoofest in July have gotten the most attention. In addition to affording me an opportunity to get better, I have met a lot of great people over the years as a result of my Zoo photography, Zoo Bar patrons, as well as musicians from all over the country, many of whom I have stayed in contact with after meeting them on break or out back for an "alley shot". Since I usually keep to myself at shows, I get a kick out of someone asking "Are you Tom Joyce?" when they see me with my camera!

What I try to accomplish, whether at the bar, on a Lincoln street or out in the corn fields is not to just snap a generic picture that says "Look, I was at the Dave Alvin show", or "This is a sunrise", but to find something about the image that says "This is pretty cool". A friend of mine referred to it as "editorial photography". A lot of my band photos are close ups of a guitarist's face during a solo, or a black and white image partly in shadow. Shots from behind the stage are something that is easy to do at The Zoo, and of course there's the famous "alley shots".

Photography has been fun for me over the years. Thanks to all who have encouraged me and have given me feedback and helpful tips. I look forward to another year of broken down houses, alley shots, grain elevators, and fighting funky lighting!