Monthly Archives: December 2013

December 22, 2013

In the Spirit of Christmas

By Joe

20131221-234327.jpg

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Romans 14: 1-12

This may sound odd, mainly because I love Christmas, but most members of the church of Christ do not celebrate Christmas as a truly religious holiday. Since the bible does not give us a specific time to celebrate the birth of Christ, we celebrate it everyday of the year. My family has always celebrated Christmas though, and it’s always been a special time of year for us.

We’ve always seen it as a good thing to observe Christmas day. The mere marking of times and seasons, when men and women agree to stop work, spend time together, and celebrate the joys of giving, is a wise and wholesome custom. It helps one to feel the supremacy of the common life over the individual life. It reminds us of the joy that surrounds us.

But there is a better thing than the observance of Christmas day, and that is, keeping the spirit of Christmas.

Are you willing to forget what you have done for other people, and to remember what other people have done for you? Are you willing to ignore what the world owes you, and to think what you owe the world? Are you willing to put your rights in the background, and your duties in the middle distance, and your chances to do a little more than your duty in the foreground? Are you willing to see that your fellow-men are just as real as you are, and try to look behind their faces to their hearts, hungry for joy? Are you willing to realize that probably the reason for your existence is not what you are going to get out of life, but what you are going to give to life? Are you willing to close your book of complaints against the management of the universe, and look around you for a place where you can sow a few seeds of happiness? Are you willing to put aside your judgement of your fellow man, and realize that God does not wish us to judge one another? Are you willing to do these things even for a day? Then you can keep the spirit of Christmas.

Are you willing to consider the needs and the desires of of humankind young and old? Are you willing to stop asking how much your friends love you, and ask yourself whether you love them enough? Are you willing to bear in mind the things that other people have to bear on their hearts? Are you willing to do these things even for a day? Then you can keep the spirit of Christmas.

Are you willing to believe that love is the strongest thing in the world–stronger than hate, stronger than evil, stronger than death–and that the blessed life which began in Bethlehem over two thousand years ago is the image and brightness of the Eternal Love? Then you can keep the spirit of Christmas.

And if you keep the spirit of Christmas for a day, why not always? We should open our hearts and minds to all of humankind and be blessed that we are on this earth another day. We should celebrate the love that Jesus Christ brought us each and every day of our lives, not just on December 25. I had planned to expand my post from Friday and discuss more about those who pass judgement on the LGBT community, but I chose to focus on the good that we can do as people. There will always be those who pass judgement on us, but as the passage above states, they will be held accountable for their actions.

At Christmastime we should rejoice and love our fellow man, whether he or she loves us or not. We need to be the better people, for as the angels declared to the shepherds who were watching their flock outside of Bethlehem:

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:14

7 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Religion

December 21, 2013

Moment of Zen: Merry Christmas Edition

By Joe

20131220-204735.jpg

20131220-204749.jpg

20131220-204814.jpg

20131220-204826.jpg

2 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Moment of Zen

December 20, 2013

The Dynasty Should Be Over

By Joe

20131220-004009.jpg

I will admit that I have watched Duck Dynasty on occasion, I’ve even heard Jase Robertson speak in person. The show can be somewhat humorous, just to watch the stupidity of rednecks, but it’s a lie that purports to be real. It only takes a few shows to just see how fake this family is. I have friends who live in Louisiana, and just like in Alabama where this is not always the case, there is a vast amount of ignorance in the state. My friends are all academics, with fairly liberal views, but no matter where you go in America today, ignorance abounds. Phil Robertson is just the latest example of this ignorance, but I have a particular bone to pick with him. He is giving my religion a bad name.

You see, Phil is a minister with the churches of Christ and should know better than to misquote the Bible. By the way, I had already been peeved with the Robertson family for putting on a Christmas pageant at their church. No good member of the church of Christ is going to celebrate Christmas within the church because the birth of Christ is something that we believe should be celebrated year round; however, for sheer monetary gain, the Robertson family flaunted a Christmas Pageant at their church on their “Duck Dynasty: Robertson Family Christmas.” The episode itself was so far removed from what Christmas should be about that it sickened me. The church of Christ does not frown upon its members for celebrating Christmas, but we don’t celebrate the holiday as an official church activity. My own church had a Christmas party but it was hosted by one of our members who invited us all to her house for dinner, but was not sponsored by the church.

The thing is, in the church of Christ we do not add to or take away from the New Testament. Yet, Phil did just that in his comments to GQ Magazine. In his shocking interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Phil Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community. In the interview, he stated:

It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

The emphasized part of the above quote is a misquoted and mistranslated version of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The King James Version (which is one of the most accurate English translations) reads:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malokois), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The English Standard Version, which is probably the mistranslation that Phil was quoting from, reads:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Phil takes an incorrect view of the Bible with this passage. In the King James Version, I have put in parentheses the two original words that have caused the most controversy. There have been 44 different interpretations in English of the word malokois. Most common through history have been weaklings, effeminates, or homosexual. I believe all of these are incorrect interpretations of the word. Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant “effeminate call boys.” The New Revised Standard Version says “male prostitutes.” Some biblical scholars have argued that the term is used for the word catamite, which is a fairly consistent interpretation by most Biblical scholars. A catamite was a young hairless boy used for sexual pleasure by older men. This derives from the more Ancient Greek practice of pederasty (remember that Corinth is in the Greek Peloponnesus). The practice that Paul is condemning is and always has been that of pedophilia, not homosexuality.

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means — and the fact that we don’t know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites,” but never explain what that means. In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

The fact is, there is no clear evidence that homosexual orientation or that the love between two men or two women is a sin. The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasn’t even known as a term until the 19th century.

Phil Robertson claims that he studies his Bible and carries it with him always, yet he can’t even correctly quote the Bible. He continues to use a bad translation of the Bible in order to spew his vile comments to the world. The biggest problem with Phill Robertson is that he is a hypocrite. Robertson was once a substance abuser, but in the 1970s he turned his life over to Jesus, according to the Christian publication, The Southeast Outlook. He has since been a devout Christian and strives to be a scholar of the Bible. Like most people who come to Christianity later in life, Phil has become over zealous in his beliefs in order to atone for past sins. Instead of being a loving Christian man, who shows his generosity, he uses his fame and his Bible to browbeat his brand of Christianity onto those who disagree with him.

A representative from A&E released the following statement from Phil Roberston in response to the controversy:

I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

To be fair, I completely agree with the last three sentences of Phil’s statement; however, how much of it is true considering the statements he made in GQ and statements he’s made in past sermons and speeches. This isn’t the first time that Phil has spoken about against homosexuality, but this was the most public of his statements.

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said it best when he released the following statement:

Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans –- and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.

In the backlash to Phil’s statements, A&E suspended Phil Robertson “indefinitely” from the reality series due to his comments about the LGBT community. How much will A&E stand by their suspension, especially with the rest of the Robertson clan standing firmly behind their patriarch? There is just too much money at stake for both A&E and the Robertsons. “Duck Dynasty” is on hiatus until Jan. 15, and a network spokesman said Thursday that nine of next season’s 10 episodes have already been filmed. That means Robertson likely isn’t needed in front of the camera before next March, by which time this whole crisis may have blown over. And blow over it will, eventually, says veteran Hollywood crisis publicist Howard Bragman, who added that Robertson will likely return to the show as well, perhaps after making a heartfelt apology.

8 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Church of Christ, Discussion, Religion

December 19, 2013

Affordable Care Act

By Joe

20131218-220225.jpg

Let me just start this post with a simple statement: I AM PISSED OFF! Two things have made me incredibly mad in the past few days. The first thing was that on Monday, I helped a lady register with healthcare.gov (in Alabama, we have to use the government’s website because our governor would not allow the state’s insurance commission to activate the website they had been designing which would have made it easier to sign up for insurance). And the second is Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson’s ignorant and unchristian comments in GQ magazines about homosexuality. The former is the subject of today’s post. I will deal with Mr. Robertson when my blood stops boiling, and I can write rationally on the subject.

Last week, I signed up for health insurance through healthcare.gov. I have not had health insurance in a year because my insurance company nearly doubled my premiums last year, and I could no longer afford it. I work for a small private school, which offers no benefits and a meager salary, so I had no choice but to let my insurance lapse. With the tax credit that I am qualified for, my insurance premium was cut in half by signing up through healthcare.gov. I also have to tell you that I am constantly surrounded by Republicans who hate anything associated with President Obama. I have heard many nasty and untrue remarks about the Affordable Care Act such as:

“The blacks are all for Obamacare because it’s something free from Obama.”

“All Obamacare will do is raise our premiums.”

“The insurance companies are raising rates because they are forced to by the government.”

“I don’t like the government telling me what I have to do.”

The list of remarks go on and on. I have consistently said that it would save most of us money. When the government shutdown occurred, I did a massive amount of research on the affordable Care Act, so that I could explain it to my students and answer their questions about the government shutdown. When the website officially opened, I did try to go ahead and sign up; however, there were numerous glitches. Obama told Americans that it would be fixed by November 30, so I waited. All websites and software have problems when initially launched, that’s why updates are created. If you have an Apple or Microsoft product, you will constantly have updates to be downloaded and installed. If you run a blog, there will be issues from time to time. It’s the nature of technology; none of it is perfect.

When I did go to healthcare.gov to sign up, it was incredibly easy. A few clicks and 30 minutes later I had the same insurance (actually slightly better) than I had before, and with the same company at nearly half he price I had been paying. I could have taken a cheaper plan, but the deductible was so high that it was not worth having the insurance. Since I know a fair number of people who are nearly completely computer illiterate, I have helped two other people navigate the website. Mainly because they have no idea even how to use a mouse. I read each question and typed in the answers for them. For both of them, the registration process was easy.

What makes me angry though is that one of them is an older black lady who works at the school. A gentle and kind-hearted woman who has very little education because the segregated school systems of her youth in Alabama failed her. She works very hard to support herself and her daughter with no government assistance of any kind and an even more meager salary than I have. One of the provisions that many people have complained about with the Affordable Care Act is that the poor, those that make under about $17,000 a year will get free health insurance through Medicaid. They complain that everyone who has insurance will be paying for them to have insurance. This has been a particular point for Alabama Republicans who want to get rid of all entitlement programs that assist the poor, especially entitlement programs that assist the poverty stricken African-American population of Alabama.

The woman I was helping register was far below the $17,000 mark and should have qualified for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act. However, there was a problem. Alabama’s Governor Robert Bentley (who’s a doctor by the way, albeit a dermatologist) refused to expand Medicaid in Alabama. Therefore, if this poor woman wants insurance, she will be forced to pay nearly four times what I will be paying for a monthly premium. It angers me to no end that people will complain about who’s getting what for free, yet they have no idea what they are talking about. This woman works very hard for little pay to take care of a bunch of spoiled rotten little white kids (and thankfully their appreciative teachers) to be told sorry, we won’t help you because we are afraid you might get something that we don’t or that we might have to pay for you to have a little better quality to your life. In America, we far too often don’t care about the poor.

Her saving grace, though, is two-fold. One, because Alabama refused to expand Medicaid, she is exempt from having to meet the insurance requirement of the Affordable Care Act, meaning she won’t have to pay the penalty (or tax, as the U.S. Supreme Court declared it) for not having insurance. Two, we are fortunate in this part of Alabama to have a healthcare company that caters to the uninsured and under-insured, so she can still see these doctors for treatment. Truthfully, they have some of the best healthcare professionals in the area. I even use their clinics because of the superior health and dental care they provide. They have wonderful social workers who work with people to get them the medical attention that they are unable to provide, and they work tirelessly to gain grants for community health to keep the cost of healthcare to a minimum at their clinics, they are not perfect in many ways, they have some major problems with their administration; however, it does not affect the quality of healthcare provided.

By the way, while we are discussing the Affordable Care Act, I saw this on the blog Queer Landia about healthcare for America’s LGBT:

Out2Enroll is a coalition of organizations who want to help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people stay healthy by making sure that one of the major benefits of the Affordable Care Act — access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance coverage — reaches LGBT communities. Get Enrolled is a holiday parody, produced by our friends at Full Frontal Freedom, which aims to bring awareness to the final week of health marketplace enrollment. For more information, go to http://www.out2enroll.org.

So I encourage you, if you have not done so and don’t have health insurance, go sign up at healthcare.gov. It’s not as bad as everyone has reported. I have been through the process three times with myself and two others, and it is a very smooth process. I know that some of my readers are not Obama supporters; however, I do not believe that the Affordable Care Act is the end of the world. It is not what I would have done to fix America’s healthcare problems, but it’s what Congress passed. I would have preferred that the government take on the rising cost of healthcare in other ways, particularly by not allowing doctors to charge patients without insurance more than the insurance companies pay for those who have insurance.

That is all. That is my rant for today. Be prepared for another one tomorrow. I promise though that I will more than make up for my two days of rants with my Moment of Zen on Saturday.

5 Comments | posted in Discussion, Politics

December 18, 2013

Christmas Cookies

By Joe

20131217-230110.jpg

In the tradition of my mother, each year I make lots of cookies at Christmastime. In the past three days, I have made fifteen dozen cookies. Before Christmas I will most likely end up making 20-25 dozen cookies in all. When my mother made cookies, she always made tea cakes in Christmas themed shapes, covering them with icing and sprinkles. My mother and my sister still make these, so I make a different cookie. I make what I call the “Ultimate Christmas Cookie.” These cookies are pistachio/cherry cookies dipped in white chocolate. With the red cherries and green pistachios, they have a natural Christmas color to them. I first saw this recipe on a Food Network holiday cookie special, but have since made it enough times to make some adjustments of my own to them. People always seem to love them.

This year, as with last year, I also made a tropical variation in honor of a wonderful friend of mine who lives in Hawaii. This variation uses macadamia nuts and pineapple instead of the pistachios and cherries. Many people who have tried them, like these even better. If you can find dried peaches, you can also use pecans and peaches for a nice southern flavor, and I’ve been told that pecans and cranberries is another delicious variation, but I’ve never tried it.

In addition to the pistachio/cherry and macadamia nut/pineapple cookies, I also tried a new cookie this year, pecan caramel shortbread cookies. These cookies turned out to be my favorite cookie ever. So I am posting the recipe for both cookies.

Ultimate Christmas Cookies

Ingredients
1 (8-ounce) roll refrigerated sugar cookie dough
1/2 cup pistachios, chopped
1/2 cup dried cherries, chopped
1 (11-ounce) bag white chocolate chips

Directions
Open sugar cookie log and press into a rectangle on cutting board. Add pistachios and cherries, kneading/mixing into the dough, and refrigerate for at least 30 minutes but preferably overnight. If you keep them refrigerated overnight, the flavors meld together for a more delicious cookie.

Preheat the oven to 350°F.

Using a cookie scoop or spoon, scoop out cookies and make a one inch ball of dough. Slightly press the ball to flatten the cookies a little. Transfer cookies to a baking sheet.

Bake 10 to 15 minutes, until golden around the edges. Transfer to wire racks to cool completely.

While cookies are cooling, melt white chocolate chips in a bowl over simmering water. (Microwaving for 1 min. 30 sec. on medium power gets this process working quicker. Then place bowl over simmering water to finish the melting process.)

When cookies are cool, dip bottom half of cookies into melted white chocolate and place on waxed or parchment paper to cool.

The green of the pistachios and the red of the dried cherries makes a wonderful Christmas themed cookie. To add a little more festivity to them, I often sprinkle some red and green sprinkles on the white chocolate before it hardens.

Pecan Caramel Shortbread Cookies

Ingredients
1/2 cup butter, softened
1/4 cup sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 cup cake flour
1/2 cup finely Chopped Pecans
1/2 cup of caramel pieces (or toffee bits)
1 (11-ounce) bag semi-sweet chocolate chips

Directions
In a bowl, cream butter and sugar; stir in vanilla. Add flour; mix on low until well blended. Stir in pecans and caramel bits; mix well. Press the cookie dough together to form a log, wrap in plastic wrap or wax paper and chill for at least 30 minutes.

Slice the log of dough so that the cookies are roughly 1/2 inch thick; press the cookie slightly to make sure that the dough is compacted together and retains its shape and place on a greased baking sheet. Bake at 350° F for 15-18 minutes or until bottom edges are golden brown.

Cool on a wire rack.

While cookies are cooling, melt chocolate chips in a bowl over simmering water. (Microwaving for 1 min. 30 sec. on medium power gets this process working quicker. Then place bowl over simmering water to finish the melting process.)

When chocolate has melted, spread chocolate on the bottom of the cookies and place on waxed or parchment paper to cool.

By the way, a word of advice on each of these cookies: if you freeze the dried fruit and the caramel pieces overnight, they are much easier to chop, especially if using a food processor. They these ingredients aren’t frozen then they will clump up on the food processor blade. In the case of the caramel bits, if they are not frozen, they slide around the blades of the food processor and generally make a mess.

Related articles

6 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Recipe

December 17, 2013

Remembering Peter O’Toole

By Joe

20131216-232227.jpg

My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun (Sonnet 130)
by William Shakespeare

My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

I decided to use this poem today because as I was listening to NPR on my way home yesterday and heard an interview from when Melissa Block spoke to O’Toole in 2007. Recalling the interview, Block said that “the most memorable part of our conversation had to do with Shakespeare; in particular, with Shakespeare’s sonnets.” O’Toole said that he knows all 156 of them, and said:

They’re my life companion. They’re at the side of my bed. They travel with me. I pick them up, and I read them all the time. I find them endlessly informing, endlessly beautiful, endlessly – they say, they hit the spot so many times on so many things.

After some prodding, he recited one of his favorites, Sonnet 130, which is the poem above. I’ve always enjoyed this sonnet too; it’s almost the anti-sonnet, a parody. Yet, one may look at it in other ways as well. First of all, love is not what is on the outside,but what is on the inside. A second, for almost four centuries, questions have arisen about William Shakespeare’s sexuality. If you think of his description of the “lady” above she seems more masculine than feminine.

The only indication that Shakespeare may have been homosexual is found, not in his life, but in his writings. One of his most prominent works, his 154 Sonnets, is most often cited in such discussions. The majority of these sonnets deal with the author’s love for a young man, referred to in the works as his “beloved fair youth.”

Sonnet 154

The little Love-god lying once asleep,
Laid by his side his heart-inflaming brand,
Whilst many nymphs that vowed chaste life to keep
Came tripping by; but in her maiden hand
The fairest votary took up that fire
Which many legions of true hearts had warmed;
And so the General of hot desire
Was, sleeping, by a virgin hand disarmed.
This brand she quenched in a cool well by,
Which from Love’s fire took heat perpetual,
Growing a bath and healthful remedy,
For men diseased; but I, my mistress’ thrall,
Came there for cure and this by that I prove,
Love’s fire heats water, water cools not love.

The writer’s intense romantic feelings for this person have triggered many to believe that Shakespeare may have been gay. Even the dedication of another of his works, his poem “The Rape of Lucrece,” is strongly worded. “The love I dedicate to your Lordship is without end.”

It has not been uncommon for writers and musicians to substitute the sex of the object of their desire to hide their sexuality. So maybe Sonnet 130 is just that, the description of a plain woman instead of a tall, dark, and handsome young man that the sonnet nearly describes. It’s just a theory and probably a bad theory, yet, still let’s read this sonnet and remember two things:

Shakespeare was a wonderful poet, and should be read often.
Peter O’Toole was a wonderful actor who will be missed, yet we will always have two of my favorite movies to remeber him by: Lawrence of Arabia and A Lion in Winter.

5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Poetry

December 16, 2013

The Codpiece

By Joe

20131216-000443.jpg

One look at Leonard Whiting’s Romeo in Frank Zifferelli’s 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet and I fell in love with the codpiece and Leonard Whiting. I will also admit that Whiting’s codpiece was not the only thing I liked about him, what gay boy sitting in English class watching Romeo and Juliet can forget seeing Romeo’s beautiful naked butt. However, this post is not about the beauty of Leonard Whiting, it’s about the history of the codpiece. If you are not familiar with this piece of Renaissance fashion, a codpiece (from Middle English: cod, meaning “scrotum”) is a covering flap or pouch that attaches to the front of the crotch of men’s trousers and usually accentuates the genital area. It was held closed by string ties, buttons, or other methods. It was an important item of European clothing in the 15th and 16th centuries

20131216-000525.jpg

One may well ask, if the button fly preceded the zipper, and the codpiece preceded the button fly, what preceded the codpiece? The answer is, quite literally, nothing. Leather leggings, the antecedents of Renaissance hosiery, were merely tubes of animal skins held on by strips of leather and connected together rather perfunctorily at the top. In fact, the crotch was most often left almost completely open, for ease of access during those “privy” functions. One was protected from exposure of one’s “person” by tunics which reached the knees or beyond.

However, with the rise of the merchant class at the beginning of the Renaissance, came “Fashion Trends”. Clothing for the poor remained functional, of course, but for the wealthy, changing one’s fashion to follow, or build on, a social trend became a way of displaying one’s wealth, and for men, one’s masculinity. With the use of the newly popular button, fashions became more fitted and tight to the body, (no need to cut a garment loose so that it could fit over one’s head). Thus, the popular look became long, elegant, and youthful.

To achieve this look to an even greater degree, the waistline of the tunic was dropped to the hips to make the body look longer, and the hemline was shortened to make the legs look longer. By 1360 men’s hems rose to mid-thigh. This was a shocking event indeed, considering that the basic design of men’s hosiery had not changed. When a man sat, or mounted a horse, one might have quite a “regimental” view of his state of affairs. The clergy, (those who were not themselves following the fashion), as well as other guardians of public morals, were up in arms. In Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” the Parson criticizes these short garments for their revealing nature:

Alas! some of them show the very boss of the penis and the horrible pushed-out testicles that look like the malady of hernia in the wrapping of their hose, and the buttocks of such persons look like the hinder parts of a she-ape in the full of the moon. And moreover, the hateful proud members that they show by the fantastic fashion of making one leg of their hose white and the other red, make it seem that half of their privy members are flayed. And if it be that they divide their hose in other colors, as white and black, or white and blue, or black and red, and so forth, then it seems, by the variation of color, that the half of their privy members are corrupted by the fire of Saint Anthony, or by cancer, or by other such misfortune.

During the years 1420-40 tunic hemlines reached the top of the thigh and “the occasional glimpse of the male sexual organs that had caused such an outcry in the fourteenth century was now replaced by the permanent exposure of that zone.”

The next fashion trend was to go about in one’s hose and shirt, (the shirt being what we think of as a doublet with a chemise worn underneath), sans the tunic. Measures had to be taken! (Please pardon the pun.) In 1482 Edward IV introduced a law which forbade persons below the rank of Lord to expose their private parts by short doublets. People ignored it. Finally the public outcry became too fierce, and, since men would certainly not be inconvenienced by simply sewing the crotch seam shut, the codpiece was invented.

To begin with, it was simply a triangular piece of fabric tied at the three corners, or stitched at the bottom angle and tied at the top two angles, over the gap in the front of the hose. However, men quickly discovered, as they are wont to do, that what might have been revealed before as somewhat lacking in size and stature, could be easily artificially enhanced under the masque of this new fashion. Over the next century, the codpiece developed from a flat piece of fabric, to a pouch in which the “family jewels” rested in as protruding a manner as possible, to a padded pouch, to a very padded pouch, (some of them very oddly shaped), until finally the pouch idea was discarded altogether, along with any pretense to function, and large padded shapes of bizarre dimensions were tied onto either hose or shirt, the “items of value” simply residing behind these bombastic shapes.

20131216-000615.jpg

It has been assumed that the fashion of genital promotion was de rigeur, however, no thought appears to have been given to the possibility that the codpiece fashion developed because of necessity and not by whim. From 1495 onwards a pandemic of a new disease swept across Europe and was a great plague. The disease caused foul and large volumes of mixed pus and blood to be discharged from the genital organs and the swellings in the adjacent groin tissue. The mess would require bulky woolen wads and woven cloth bandages to be applied, distorting the whole of the genital area and the lower abdomen.

The new disease was syphilis, and in all probability was not a new disease; there are descriptions of illnesses involving the fundamental findings for the diagnosis of syphilis from ancient times, though it is most often assumed to have traveled back from the Americas with Columbus’s men.

Though syphilis may have added to the popularity of the codpiece, one need to only look to gay men’s fashion today to see how we still like to accentuate the penis. Whether it’s Andrew Christian or CN-2, underwear marketed mostly to gay men do their best to accentuate the crotch area.

20131216-000646.jpg

8 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in History

December 15, 2013

Proverbial Giving

By Joe

20131214-203817.jpg

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Proverbs 19:17

Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 14:31

I have to admit that when I was looking up some commentaries on giving and the Bible, too many of the sources I found focused on giving to the church. I give what I can to church, which is what I think of when the apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 8:12 “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.” Many churches though use this as a means of forcing a true tithe of 10 percent. However, even though we are in the season of giving, we should be giving and helping year round to those who need assistance.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands us to give to the needy:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

Giving is not all about what you give to your local congregation, but what you give to those who are in need. We are to love our fellow man and not judge them. If we look down on the poor, the how can we look up to God. Some people blame God for the misfortunes of the world, I blame those who do not follow the teachings of love and charity. Do you have to be a Christian to have love for your fellow man or to be charitable to the less fortunate? Of course you don’t. But I will say this, too many people who call themselves Christian often follow the proverb “God helps those who help themselves.” The phrase is often mistaken as scriptural, but it appears nowhere in the Bible.

Political commentator Bill O’Reilly employed the phrase, in responding to Jim McDermott, the Democratic U.S. Representative for Washington’s 7th congressional district, who argued, “This is Christmas time. We talk about Good Samaritans, the poor, the little baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff. And then we say to the unemployed we won’t give you a check to feed your family. That’s simply wrong.” O’Reilly argued for a more selective approach to unemployment benefits, and the importance of individual responsibility, concluding “while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive. The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not?” Political comedian Stephen Colbert parodied him in response, concluding in character, “if this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition; and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” Colbert may be a comedian who is often irreverent, but he makes a good point.

For the vast majority of us, misfortune finds us at one point or another. Various people have helped me during those unfortunate times, and I do my best to help those in need when I am able to help. Giving is not just for the red buckets of the Salvation Army during Christmastime bit for all year round. It is also not about gifts and money, because not all of us are able to do so, but it is about giving our love to those around us. Love is the greatest gift we can give.

Peace, love, and charity!

5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Religion

December 14, 2013

Moment of Zen: The Beckoning

By Joe

Sometimes, your warm bed just beckons you to stay. Today is one of those days. I’m just sorry that my bed doesn’t have the same beauty beckoning me as in the picture above.

5 Comments | posted in Moment of Zen

December 13, 2013

Willem II of The Netherlands

By Joe

20131212-233355.jpg

The other day I received an email from the editor of the Dutch magazine Gay News, the biggest gay publication in the Netherlands, which, since 1992, comes out every once a month, and is Amsterdam’s gay magazine. Gay News is entirely bilingual (in both english and dutch) and is distributed in The Netherlands & Belgium. Hans Hafkamp, the editor of Gay News, wrote that he has always enjoyed my blog and appreciated my dedication to history. He attached an article published in the December issue of Gay News about Willem II, King of the Netherlands (1840-1849).

In 2007 Queen Beatrice, on the occasion of her jubilee, gave three historians permission to open up the archives of the royal family for biographies of the first three kings. As Willem II was only king for nine years, his rule did not get as much attention as those who ruled for much longer periods of time before and after him. Jeroen van Zanten of the Department of History at the University of Amsterdam took on the task of writing the biography of Willem II. Though other historians preferred to research the longer ruling kings, Dr. van Zanten believed they were very wrong to overlook Willem II. Dr. van Zanten remarked in an interview with newspaper “de Volkskrant”: “He (Willem II) led a very adventurous life. In addition to which, he is extremely interesting for leaving autobiographical notes. A prince and king with self-reflection!” Van Zanten also discovered through a series of letters that Willem II was often pressured (i.e. blackmailed) because of his “bisexuality.”

William II had a string of relationships with both men and women. The homosexual relationships that William II had as crown prince and as king were reported by journalist Eillert Meeter who published a book about Willem I and Willem II in 1857. Meeter’s biography of the two kings was published first In Great Britain, but did not get published in The Netherlands until 1966. King Willem II surrounded himself with male servants whom he could not dismiss because of his ‘abominable motive’ for hiring them in the first place. Willem’s male liaisons were not just focused on his servants but also on a few political figures as well. He was apparently blackmailed at least four times, once by a former lover who was at the time of the blackmail in a German prison, two soldiers, and his aide-de-camp when he was still the Crown Prince. The last blackmail by the jailed Petrus Janssen led to the blackmailing of Willem II by liberals during the liberal Revolution of 1848, which in turn forced the already liberal minded Willem to sign the Dutch Constitution.

The extent of how much the blackmail over his homosexual affair influenced Willem is up to debate. The Revolutions of 1848 broke out all over Europe. In Paris, the Bourbon-Orléans monarchy fell. William became afraid of revolution in Amsterdam. One morning he woke up and said: “I changed from conservative to liberal in one night”. He gave orders to Johan Rudolf Thorbecke to create a new constitution which included that the Eerste Kamer (Senate) would be elected indirectly by the Provincial States and that the Tweede Kamer (House of Representatives) would be elected directly. The electoral system changed into census suffrage in electoral districts (in 1917 census suffrage was replaced by common suffrage for all men, and districts were replaced by party lists of different political parties), whereby royal power decreased sharply. That constitution is still in effect today.

5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in History