Rantarama

A Year In Music Part 1 (numbers 10-6)

I was asked, as is now traditional, in an email, for my albums of 2010. Given my obsessive nature, I thought for a long time before committing to anything. 2010 has been an excellent year for music, with fine music across many genres and a criminally few amazing gigs (thank you Wilco, Rufus Wainwright, Arcade Fire and Brendan Benson). Several records came to my attention too late or incomplete, so weren't savoured and digested as they should be. Therefore I give special mention to Mavis Staples' wonderful You Are Not Alone and Broken Records' Let Me Come Home. Other albums would have made the cut in other years, but given the competition, they missed out. Rufus Wainwright's beautiful and heartbreaking All Days Are Nights: Songs For Lulu, The Roots' How I Got Over, Brothers by The Black Keys, The Logic Of Chance by dan le sac VS Scroobius Pip, The Gaslight Anthem's American Slang, Midlake's The Courage Of Others and This Is Happening by LCD Soundsystem all fall into this category. It's been that kind of year. Finally I had to commit, to a final list, so here, for your delectation and consideration, is my Top 10 for '10.

 

 

10.  Ray Lamontagne & The Pariah Dogs - God Willin' & The Creek Won't Rise

 

 

Ray Lamontagne has always been an inspiration round these parts, and this record is another belter. Recorded with a who's who of alt. country session royalty, this is the sound of a man coming to terms with his incredible songwriting talent. There's nothing quite as immediate as Trouble or Hannah, but there's a sense of camaraderie and genuine joy that can't help but be infectious.

 

 

9. KiD CuDi - Man On The Moon II: The Legend Of Mr Rager

 

 

An incredible MC and an audiophile of the highest order, CuDi's second album is more of an aural assault than his 2009 debut. Swooning strings, beats other rappers would kill for and some of the mellowest rhymes you'll hear all combine to make this a record to immerse yourself in. That Mary J Blige and Cee-Lo Green provide some stunning guest spots yet still don't overshadow CuDi's mercurial talent should tell you all you need to know.

 

 

8. Magnetic Man - Magnetic Man

 

 

As a man now comfortably ensconced in my thirties, I am not out clubbing every weekend any more (or indeed any weekend). Magnetic Man's self-titled debut, however, has been a regular feature on both iPod and iTunes in casa Mo'Jesus. Ostensibly a dubstep supergroup, comprising DJs and dubstep mavens Benga, Skream and Artwork, it's a roiling, seething dancefloor album, by turns euphoric, angry, urgent and mellow. The ubiquitous John Legend delivers a star turn on Getting Nowhere, Ms Dynamite shows again what she does best toasting up a storm on Fire. In short, this is the record Massive Attack wish they'd made.

 

 

7. Cee-Lo Green - The Lady Killer

 

 

Knowing Cee-Lo's track record with the Goodie Mob and Gnarls Barkley, there were high hopes for this album, especially after the glorious (and ubiquitous) Fuck You (don't get me started on the "clean" version) and Paul Epworth's remix of the Band of Horses song No One's Gonna Love You, but initially I didn't fully get this album. However, after the fourth or fifth listen, it clicked. It's classic soul pop in all it's glory. Bodies is late period Isaac Hayes, all disembodied horns, militaristic drums and breathy backing vocals, and there are several tracks which you could imagine David Ruffin or Smokey Robinson tearing up. Even album opener Bright Lights, Bigger City, which is the most "pop" song on the album gives a nod to Michael Jackson with a bassline copped straight from Thriller. It's the definitive statement of who Cee-Lo is. Witty, funky, heartfelt and honest. It's what all good soul music should be.

 

 

6. John Legend & The Roots - Wake Up!

 

 

The bringing together of two titans of modern soul, this album has quality written all over it. A dozen covers of political soul (with a reggae song and a jazz standard thrown in for good measure), this is a powerhouse of a record. ?uestlove's arrangements are tasteful and respectful, Legend's voice has never sounded better, and The Roots show why they are held in such high regard. That the majority of the originals pale in comparison is testament to the beauty and fire of these supremely talented musicians. They incendiary cover of Bill Withers' anti-Vietnam classic I Can't Write Left-Handed is a worthy centrepiece, and "Captain" Kirk Douglas's guitar solo sounds like it's in danger of falling apart while simultaneously providing the grounding for a stunning righteous anger. The fact that these songs are as pertinent now as they were when they were first recorded is saddening, but while there are artists like these guys fighting the good fight, there's still hope for us all.

 

A Year In Music Part 2 (numbers 5-1)

5. Aloe Blacc - Good Things

 

 

 

More stunning soul with a political bent, Aloe Blacc has been a welcome discovery. From album opener I Need A Dollar (Song of the year - in any year that Cee-Lo Green didn't release Fuck You) through Life So Hard, to the beautifully affecting Mama Hold My Hand, this is an artist fully in control of an amazing talent. There's a melancholy which pervades the album (not least on the inspired cover of The Velvet Underground classic Femme Fatale), bringing to mind Bill Withers or James Carr, and a skill with a melody which Stevie Wonder would envy. Yet for all the state of the nation malaise, the album's other main concern is that other soul staple: matters of the heart. You Make Me Smile is as sweet as any classic soul ballad you'll hear, and Loving You Is Killing Me is an update of the ages old lament about leaving being harder than staying. It's a record which oozes class and style, and ensures the recent rebirth of soul will continue unabated.

 

 

4. Jamie Lidell - Compass

 

 

 

 

Giving hope to nerdy, white soul boys everywhere, Jamie Lidell is the very definition of a musical maverick. A man possessed of a stunning talent, a white soul voice to envy Steve Marriott or Van Morrison, who can beatbox like a demon and who has complete control of his vision, Lidell makes music like no-one else. This album was co-produced by Beck (who gets a co-writing credit on a couple of songs too), and it doesn't so much play as unfurl itself. Wonky funk, heartfelt ballads finished with electro flourishes and even desert psych ballads reveal themselves across this beautifully realised record. Lidell spent two years getting the sound of this album right, working with Beck, Feist, Grizzly Bear and Wilco. It's to his credit that the album still sounds like no-one but him.

 

 

3. John Grant - Queen of Denmark

 

 

 

 

 

I've been a fan of this guy's since he was singer in The Czars, one of those bands that understatedly do wondrous things and John Grant has one of the most beautiful voices I have ever heard. It's a genuinely funny album (in a gallows-black way) and has some of the best lyrics I've heard in a long, long time. Backed by Midlake, there's a 70s MOR vibe to the album, but it's lessened by lyrics like "I casually mention that I pissed in your coffee" in the title track. That Grant has managed to produce such a warm album about depression, suicide attempts and being shunned by a homophobic family shows the depth of his talent. In lesser hands this would be a difficult album to listen to, indeed a slog. However, you realise you're in the presence of a genuine talent when the lyric "I watch the Simpsons, to remember how you laugh" is imbued with a devastating pathos that any number of modern singers couldn't find no matter how deeply they searched. The standout tracks are both haunting, piano-led ballads. Where Dreams Go To Die sounds like a lost Carpenters song, all unrequited love, and the kind of heartbreak you think you'll never survive, while the aforementioned Queen Of Denmark sounds like Rufus Wainwright backed by Sonic Youth, and is a defiant "fuck you" to anyone willing to cast the first stone. A beautiful album.

 

 

There now follows what may seem like a cop out, but the truth is, I cannot for the life of me separate these two albums.

 

 

1=. Kanye West - My Beautiful, Dark, Twisted Fantasy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kanye is back. Back, back, back. And y'all better recognise. On paper, this collaboration heavy album could have gone horrendously wrong, but the one thing about Kanye is he's never been lacking in vision. He just knew what this album was going to sound like, and nobody was getting in the way of that vision. Interviews and profiles showed a man obsessively working to complete an album he knew would be his masterpiece, sleeping for an hour at a time, then working through the night, discarding things that didn't work (irrespective of who provided them - none of DJ Premier's beats made the cut), and reducing some of the world's biggest stars to bit players in the Kanye West show. Jay-Z is shown to be the pretender to the crown on two tracks, Elton John is used as essentially a session player, and countless others have to content themselves with being part of a chorus. This is a stunning, multi-faceted hydra of an album, combing some of the sickest beats I've ever heard with some of the best rhymes Yeezy's ever written. Lyrically, it's everything we've come to expect of West, by turns braggadicious and humble and as nerdy as hell (who else could throw a Napoleon Dynamite quote into a rhyme?), but it's also, as the name suggests, a dark album. There's still a hangover from his mother's death, as well as the implosion of his car crash of a relationship with Amber Rose (dealt with in brutally honest fashion on Devil In A New Dress). Yet the album never wallows. It's compelling from RZA/No ID -produced start to Gil Scott Heron-sampling finish. There's humour in spades too, not least in the gloriously foul-mouthed contribution from Chris Rock. Yet it's difficult to pigeonhole this album. Runaway is darkly beautiful, Yeezy's bitterness turned inward over a plaintive piano refrain, while the gloriously unhinged Monster is probably the best song on there, due, in no small part, to the terrifying Barbie/banshee verse by new lunatic hip-hop sensation Nicki Minaj. This, again, is an album to be savoured, with new depths and layers revealing themselves on subsequent listens. So, to reiterate, Kanye is back mu'fuckas.

 

 

1=. Arcade Fire - The Suburbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arcade Fire's genius is well established round these parts, and this album was awaited with barely contained excitement. Despite this hype, there was no disappointment. This is an angry, passionate, beautiful, fragile and downright astonishing album. One of the few bands I have ever seen live who manage to get the essence of what they do on record, they are what every great rock band should be. The Suburbs sounds like the record they were destined to make. It's a universal idea, the feeling of the cultural wasteland that we all feel growing up, and this album addresses all of the concerns this brings about: alienation, anger, hope, terror, frustration and the desire for something more. Opening with the title track we're already given a glimpse all of this, with ominous warnings of suburban war, yet even that would be something to look forward to. The companion video, directed by Spike Jonze, is a haunting, affecting slice of innocence corrupted, and the raw pain of our first experience of betrayal and lost friendship. Ready To Start continues the "them and us" theme, with Win Butler bemoaning that the "businessmen drink my blood/like the kids in art school said they would". An darkness hangs over this album, uneasy ballads - beautifully orchestrated - sit along side noise-laden punky stompers, with suites of 3-4 song a time which get progressively louder, then provide slight respite, before doing it all again. Butler and brother William set out to make an album made on synths which didn't sound like it had any synths on it. Sprawl II notwithstanding, which hints at a glittering, yet cold and dispassionate, future, that's exactly what they've done. It sounds like a rock n roll record, in all its glory. Butler also said he wanted the album to sound like Neil Young meets Depeche Mode. It doesn't. It sounds like no-one but Arcade Fire. And, for that, we should be forever thankful.

 

 

 

This went on longer, and took longer to write, than I expected. If you stuck it out, I thank you. May 2011 be the year when you get all you wish for. Peace, x

 

 

The rantings of a member of the liberal intelligentsia (apparently)

I was in two minds as to whether or not to post a blog about the recent state visit by Pope Benedict. Firstly, my thoughts and opinions on this have been pretty well known since it was announced, and secondly, other, much cleverer people than I have put forward their own extremely eloquent thoughts on it, not least everyone's favourite polymath and national treasure Stephen Fry: http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/09/16/dailymailhate/single-page/

However, two articles I've read recently have made me rethink this position. I have spoken previously, at length, about my personal beliefs and faith (Articles of Faith, further down this same blog), but  the tone of each of the articles in question seems to mark me out as some kind of liberal prankster naysayer with no respect for personal faith.

The first ( http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/09/pope-and-atheist-identity-... ) espouses the usual arguments, and talks about "attacking Catholicism". The argument seems to run that were a prominent Islamic or Jewish leader to be coming to the UK, people would not speak out for fear of accusations of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. This argument is lazy, firstly, and, more importantly, it is untrue. Were the leader of any faith to be granted a state visit at tax-payers' expense, my voice would be as loud and dissenting as it has been during this whole event. And to point this out would not be anti-Islam, or anti-semitic, any more than to point out the unacceptable costs to the tax payer of the Papal visit is anti-Catholic.

This same blog post goes on to call atheism "the new identity politics of the liberal intelligentsia", yet there has been very little in the way of dissent from the traditionally left-wing press. Indeed, The Guardian has printed little in the way of anti-Papal comment, while The Sunday Herald (one of Scotland's two national Sunday broadsheets and traditionally left wing in tone) a fortnight ago gave away a commemorative pullout celebrating the event. That doesn't sound like an atheist, liberal intelligentsia to me.

The second piece comes courtesy of no-one's favourite reactionary cat impersonator, George Galloway: http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2010/09/pope-bashers-are-throwb... and reads like the rantings of the drunk man on the bus everyone is trying to ignore. "Others", he argues "have been abused, in Boys' Brigades, Boy Scouts, football teams, clubs of all sorts." That excuses nothing, Mr Galloway, and none of these organisations have had a state visit funded by British taxpayers. None of these organisations have made dangerous and downright reckless proclamations that condoms cause HIV. None of these organisations are allowed a say in school policy, or the content of school science classes. Mr Galloway also claims that the "aggressive atheism" the Pontiff accused Britain of is accurate, because people had the temerity to state their distaste at having to pay for his visit. That's freedom of speech George. Something you claim to be passionate about.

My issue with the visit has always been about the financial costs involved. Any religious leader should be entitled to visit the UK at any time. His or her faithful should be allowed to make pilgramage to see them. I don't understand, why I, as an atheist, nor anyone who does not follow the their teachings should be made to pay for it. Especially, as in the case of the Papal visit, a pilgrim pack, costing £25, was compulsory for access to the masses. That's 65,000 people in Edinburgh and Glasgow at £25 each, 85,000 in London and 70,000 in Birmingham. That's well over £5 million. Where did this money go? To the already bloated coffers of the Vatican bank? To help the sick and needy throughout the world (in exchange for their immortal souls)? Because the British taxpayer sure as hell didn't get it back.

I have as much respect for anyone's personal faith, as I do for their personal politics; you're entitled to hold them, but if I disagree, I'm going to tell you.

It's a shame that the so-called Christians (who were so quick to cast me and those who share my opinion as bigots) couldn't follow the fundamental tenet of Christian faith which reminds them to "judge not, lest ye be judged".

Stephen, Is It *Really* Nothing?

Before we start, let's make a couple of things clear. I'm a massive fan of The Smiths. I grew up with the Smiths soundtracking a large part of my teenage years, convinced myself that no-one could articulate my alienation (yeah, cos it's really hard growing up within a supportive family, with siblings I love and friends who shared many of my interests, but, anyway, you get my point) the way Morrissey could. I even had (and l really liked) some of his solo stuff. So, I gave him a certain benefit of the doubt when it came to the accusations of racism that have been consistently levelled at him throughout his career. However, after reading the following quote in Friday's Guardian: "You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies", I am appalled. Genuinely appalled, and sickened. This kind of statement has followed Morrissey around for years, and it's time we stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt. He is a racist. He is a racist because he denigrated an entire nationality, and labelled them inferior to his own. This is not him being an agent provocateur, trying to get a rise from an uptight, hand-wringing media. This is him being a bigot, making a bigoted statement, with no evidence to back it up. But we smile ruefully, shake our heads, and say, "Ah, Morrissey, what are you like?"

Now compare this with the reaction to KanYe West's Twitter stream today, and the reaction it provoked. Now, I get that KanYe is a controversial figure (much like St Stephen Patrick), but seriously, isn't the hatred directed at him over the Taylor Swift incident over with now? Taylor Swift harmed no-one, and was the unfortunate recipient of KanYe's outburst at the VMAs. We all know what happened that night, and the internet memes followed at an impressive speed. However, KanYe West spoke at length throughout his career about the relationship he had with his mother. The VMA incident happened two years after his mother's death, but it's easy to see the connection. The man was bereft at the loss he had endured, and through a combination of alcohol and grief made an error of judgement. We've all done it. I did it at my aunt's house, with my cousins and their friends in attendance, roughly two years after my dad died. I was so embarrassed, but it was brushed off, and I was allowed to forget about it (by others, but not by myself). The difference is, KanYe did it on one of the most widely broadcast awards shows on the planet. And that, I believe, is the issue. He still isn't being allowed to forget a drunken embarrassment, despite his best efforts to put it behind him. He knows he fucked up. He knew it at the time, and he apologised to Taylor Swift at the time. His Twitter feed today looked, to me, to be a fine indication of who he is. It was heartfelt and, by turns, slightly arrogant and sweet and humble. Another genuine apology to the person he wronged. Another admission that he messed up, but is striving every day to be the best human being he can be. Yet, still he was vilified and mocked. Why? Because he's arrogant? So is Morrissey. And KanYe's released some of the best and most innovative music of the last decade. Which is more than the bigot in that Guardian article has done.

And if the hatred for KanYe isn't about Taylor Swift (who most of the people who are giving him shit over this couldn't give a tuppeny fuck about), where is it coming from? Is it because he's a rapper, and not a "proper musician"? I am utterly sickened by this maiden-aunt-at-a-strip-club attitude towards hip-hop which is prevalent amongst the ageing indie fratenity who make up our popular music press in this country. "Oh, but we like Sage Francis" they whine, "and we have all of Run DMC's albums on vinyl". One, Sage Francis would give his left bollock to be in KanYe West's shoes, and, two, Run DMC last released an album (not including the lame 2001 schmooze-fest "Crown Royal") 17 years ago. Run DMC are not hip-hop visionaries any more. The game, to use hip-hop parlance, has been switched up. And KanYe West is one of those who switched it up. KanYe's influence on modern hip-hop (and, by extension, modern pop) is there for all to see. But the trickle down into our music magazines and lifestyle sections in broadsheet newspapers doesn't reflect this. And sadly, I can't see that ever changing, while a once great frontman's denouncement of a whole race of people is lumped in to the same sentence as "I don't like that lad from the Arctic Monkeys" in a national newspaper of some repute.

So, haters, take a look at who you're railing against, and who you're excusing, and ask yourself why. Is this really about KanYe West?

So, people are a bit shit really, aren't they?

Received a phone call from FotY's mother asking us if we'd like to send Evan to her daughter's wedding in 3 weeks time. This is the same daughter who laughably tried to tell us that, despite my helping to raise Evan, I'd never take the place of the waste of carbon (my words) who provided the sperm (and didn't do much else after). Sorry, think we'll pass, not least because of the last minute invitation.

Then we find out that the aforementioned waste of carbon got engaged tohis wet dishrag of a girlfriend at approximately the same time he re-instigated contact with his son. Coincidence? Hmmm, I think not.

Thank Christ for Gail, Evan, all you lovely people on Facebook and Twitter who make my day brighter - and the delicious chocolate orange cookies baked for us by the lovely Maxine Blane!

I'd probably have thrown myself off a cliff otherwise.

 

 

Album mini-review: John Grant - "Queen Of Denmark"

Having been turned on to the Czars by an old friend, I was really excited to hear that John Grant had gone solo, and with Midlake as his backing band no less. I wasn't disappointed by Queen Of Denmark. Midlake are an obvious touchstone, but I also hear hints of The Carpenters, ELO, Rufus Wainwright, Air and even, in Grant's immaculate phrasing, Ella Fitzgerald. It's an eclectic record without ever sounding confused.

Grant's major talent lies in taking subjects which in lesser hands would sound like a 17-year old's poetry (contemplating suicide, creative frustration, and, most poignantly, his sexuality and his family's reaction to it) and turning out wry, devastatingly beautiful songs. JC Hates Faggots takes his experience of coming out and his parents' reaction, and concludes that people who hate can find something to hate no matter where they look ("Jesus/ He hates homos son/ We told you that when you were young/ Or pretty much anything you want him to/ Like coco puffs, red cars and Jews") while Queen Of Denmark has Grant deliver an interesting response to those who may judge him - "You tell me that my life is based upon a lie/ I casually mention that I pissed in your coffee." The album may sound like 70s MOR in places, but lyrically it's like nothing else I've heard in years.

Tracks 13-16 are pointless in my opinion. That's The Good News seems to be a Kraftwerk pastiche which fails spectacularly, Supernatural Defibrillator sounds like something James Murphy threw away. Fireflies is pretty, but inconsequential while What Time? is a lazy Pink Floyd-esque sound collage.

Stick with the first 12 tracks though, and you'll be rewarded with a gorgeous, heart-breaking record and some of the finest songwriting you'll hear all year.

Bloody scientists. Think they know everything. #spoofjenks

Y'know, someone had to come out and say it. Everyone else was too scared. But not Simon Jenkins. Oh no. He's standing up to those bloody uppity scientists, driving around in their posh cars, wearing silk lab coats, and looking at atoms or whatever through their solid gold microscopes. No more! he cries. No more of your telling people how things work, using only facts and evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

But it's really not the scientists' fault. They're coddled and protected from the realities of life by their massive wages, as they piss about in their luxury laboratories (with spa facilities and company massueses, and fridges stocked with caviar and Cristal), stapling a dog to a horse's back, or whatever it is passes for science these days. Simon blames the BBC. And, do you know what? He's right. I watched the news last night, and, after the fourth or fifth piece on how scientists have discovered a way to make chips into electricity, or how they've built a machine that will actually blow the world up before Christmas, I thought "where's the real news? There was football on today, and due to the BBC's insistence in droning on and on about science, I still don't know what the score was. Is this what I pay my license fee for? I think not". There were 11 mighty lions out in South Africa giving everything they have, while barely able to put food on their tables due to the pittance they receive each week for doing the thing they love, a wondrous thing that enriches the human experience and furthers us as a species, and I have to sit through ANOTHER piece of inconsequential science nonsense because of the BBC's blind devotion to these bloody charlatans. It's an outrage, and Simon Jenkins is right to call our attention to their slavishness.

Don't get me wrong, I'll occasionally watch a bit of science on the TV, I'm not a complete Luddite. I mean, did you see the wonderful Culture Show special where they looked at the links between the arts and science? The piece where they did a survey on the future of art? That's science at its best surely! More of that please BBC, and less flooding the schedules with the other boring stuff.

(This piece was written as part of #spoofjenks day. More information here: http://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/06/26/in-which-evil-boffins-seek-revenge )

An open letter…

… to whom it may concern. This is my final word on the subject that has been informing most of my online correspondence for the past week. I thank everyone who has contacted me regarding this issue (irrespective of their opinion), but would like now to put it to bed.

 

I know that some parties have been offended by some of the things I have posted on my Facebook page and on the companion blog to this one. As I have already said, offence has never been my intention in any of my posts, only to share things I feel passionate about, whatever they are. Some of these things have been about issues which may be seen by some as controversial, but that some hold this belief is not something I have control over, and not something I would ever allow to inform my posts. Everyone in my contacts (on both Facebook and Twitter) is privileged to live in a society where freedom of speech and expression is valued as one of our inalienable rights. That, inevitably, means that from time to time someone may be offended by the output of others. I accept that, and ask that anyone I have correspondence accepts that too. If they cannot, then they must do what they feel is right for them. I do not wish to lose contact with anyone I consider a friend. Nor, however, do I wish to censor myself. I hope that these two wishes can, and will, continue to exist side by side.

 

I cannot and will not tell anyone how to react to this post, but instead ask him or her to follow his or her own counsel.

Social Media & Public Perception

The conversation which started here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/markohtho?v=wall&story_fbid=108337205871988 rumbles on. I thought, and hoped, that my earlier blog post http://mojesusrants.posterous.com/articles-of-faith  would clear up my thoughts, feelings and opinions on the whole situation. It seems, however, there is still some confusion. I received the messages I have included below as private messages. I have not responded since the one I included. Instead I have, with Eugene’s express consent, posted them in the public domain. I welcome your comments and opinions, not as an exercise in ego-stroking, but in the interest of free and frank discussion and debate.

 

 

=============================================================

 

Eugene Burns    April 16 at 5:11pm

 

Dear Mark,

 

I felt it better to write to you privately, rather than post another public message for a few reasons I may or may not get into. The easiest one being I will not have to worry too much about sentence structure and as I am writing how I feel it may come out in a stream of consciousness.

 

First of all I read your most recent blog and it was very well written and i am glad you took the time to clear up your stance, I also know you probably feel there was no need to. I know we have talked about this before and I admit I knew my comments would Piss you off and draw your ire. My comments were perhaps misconstrued as being directly about the article linked, but I guess I was commenting on your output as a whole. Your stuff is often the first place I go when on line and judging by the amount of visits your recent post has got in a short time. Others feel the same.

 

I LOVED your recent piece on why you love the internet and what it has given you, I especially loved the part about being able to keep in contact with distant friends and family. This is where my conflict arises I miss My friend wee Mark, the tolerant, quick witted, self depreciating, impersonator. Who although often would be slyly cutting of other peoples, style, apparent lack of intellect or lifestyle choices. Would quickly and humbly admonish himself for probably being these other peoples idea of the same wrong choices. ( Does that sentence even make sense ??). I don't think this side of you comes across in your internet self.

 

So rather than keep us closer together I feel like the Internet is hurting our friendship.

 

=============================================================

Mark O'Hara Thomas    April 16 at 8:19pm

 

Eugene,

 

I'm unsure how best to respond to this, so I'm just going to say what's on my mind, for good or ill.

 

This is the hardest e-mail I have ever had to write. It hurts me that we have reached this point. I have never had anything but love and respect for you.

 

I think that if you had an issue with my posts, to do it publicly in the first instance was inappropriate. I know we have spoken, at length, about the difference of opinion we have on these particular issues before, but to publicly call me out was crass and unnecessary. You say that you knew your comments would piss me off, so why do it? Despite what you may think, my comments on this issue, and indeed my opinion of organised religion, is exactly that: an opinion. It was never and has never been my intention to offend or piss off anyone. I don't post anything on my page which I have not considered in a rational and measured way, and which does not reflect my own opinion. I cannot, and will not, hold myself responsible for anyone taking offence at the things I say.

 

I am glad that you took the time to read my blog. I wrote it at 3 o'clock this morning, as I was seething with anger that someone who I have known as long as some of my family was so determined to cast me as a bigot for expressing my personal opinion on an issue. I DID feel the need to write it. Had I not felt the need, I would not have written it. Your comments felt, and your admission that you wanted to draw my ire backs this up, like a dressing down. I made pains to point out that I am not anti-Catholic, but, for the sake of argument let's say I was. Would this be reason enough to publicly tell me off like a little kid giggling in the chapel? I don't think so. Just because I was raised Catholic does not mean that I have to be in thrall to the Church and it's teachings for the rest of my days, and not say anything bad about it. That sounds a lot like the strictures laid down by the Church of Scientology to me. And we have BOTH been critical of them in the past. Is this different because Catholicism is the faith we were raised in? Because if it is, it smacks of hypocrisy.

 

I'm truly, genuinely sad that you feel the things I post online are harming our friendship. My only intention in posting ANYTHING online, is to share with the people I know things I enjoy, feel passionate about, or want to bring to a wider audience, be they songs, videos, photos, news stories or political issues. I have no other agenda than this. I do not believe I have an "online persona", and know that there are others who are my real-life and online friends who would back me up on this.

 

I also don't believe I have changed in the way you believe I have. I like to think I am still tolerant, and my posts about the whole sorry child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church do not make me otherwise. I like to think I am still quick-witted, but that is truly for others to judge. I am perhaps less self-deprecating than I used to be, but I feel this is because I was self-deprecating to the point of paralysis, and that is not healthy. My resolve to be myself has strengthened greatly in recent years. I do not hold any beliefs I did not hold throughout my adult life; I am merely more comfortable and confident in my ability to articulately express these opinions. I am not sorry for holding the opinions I have, and don't believe I should be made to feel so. I also don't feel I should be patronised and told I should meet someone else's expectations of who they think I am. That, I believe, is what is hurting our friendship.

 

=============================================================

Eugene Burns    April 17 at 12:13am

 

I am going to try and reply but my computer is on the fritz and keeps freezing. so bare with me if this is cut short again. I was not attempting to draw your Ire or give you a dressing down. I was simply trying to express my point about the volume of content you post that targets Christianity / Catholics. Mark with regards to our own personal beliefs we are probably coming at it from very similar places. I guess as we are moving through life our lifestyles and values are changing. I think if you are making your opinion so readily available to the public can it not be called into question ??? . And with a blog, like a long running TV news show if you attack one group over and over again, whilst leaving other groups who have similarly bad human rights records alone, the content becomes one sided.

 

If you were Anti-Catholic there would be reason to take you up on it publicly, just as if you were Anti-Semite or Anti-Muslim. I am not being hypocritical. the fact that we were raised Catholic is not Irrelevant it does provide context to your comments. I was not trying to patronise you, and I do not have any great expectations of who you should be. You are your own man and choose to present yourself any way you see fit..

 

I should probably found a better way to articulate my distaste. I honestly just thought/think your blog does not portray the Mark I knew/know.

 

In friendship, Eugene

 

=============================================================

Eugene Burns April 16 at 11:17pm

Just to say my computer was freezing as i wrote my last Email so it was incomplete as i sent it, I have deliberately not read your reply yet so as to keep this letter more honest. I am glad however that you chose to reply.

 

My problem really is I guess. If I was to watch a talk show with a host that I began thinking was being less funny, more judgemental and sometimes offensive would I continue to watch even if the music content was excellent and he sometimes made me laugh. I would probably change the channel, but it is hard to change the channel when the host is your oldest friend. I know I could press the hide option, but I feel doing this without telling you how I felt, would be cowardly.

A little while back in one of your posts you called the Pope a cunt. I found this quite offensive, I know you might say you were talking about the individual person. But to a lot of Catholics the pope is more than just a guy. More so than myself I know my parents would be deeply offended and they count you as a good family friend. I know i cannot be offended on someone's behalf, but as I use facebook mainly as a photo sharing tool with the folks back home, if I had commented they could have seen it.

 

You say that you think deeply before each post so as not to offend but I do not think you did this time. I am not attempting to censor you, but I think you need to consider how you are perceived as their are a lot of people that browse but would never comment.

 

I wrote this in a private mail but i would have no complaint if you felt you wanted to paste it. It started in the public domain so perhaps it should stay there.

 

Eugene

 

=============================================================

 

 

These messages have not been edited in any way. 

Articles of faith.

I have been moved to write this, as a statement of who I am. I believe I have come in for some criticism that I feel to be unfair, and would like to make my point clearly and categorically.

 

First of all, I would like to state, for the record - and so that there can be no doubt, it is all in upper case - I AM IN NO WAY DENIGRATING, BELITTLING OR RIDICULING ANY ORDINARY PERSON OF FAITH.

 

Some of you will know a little about my background, others will not. Permit me to clarify. I was raised in a loving home by Catholic parents. I attended a Catholic primary and secondary school and went to Mass on Sundays, Holidays of Obligation, Christmas, Easter and New Year. As I reached my teens, my belief in a God who was tangible started to be stretched and tested. Nothing big, just the usual teenage doubts. I worked through them in my head, and the idea of God I had in my head was found to be wanting, but I didn’t make a big deal of it. In March of 1993, when I was 16, my dad died of a heart attack. He was 41. My mum was the same age, my sister, 13, my brother, 8. I don’t need to go into detail, but after the numbness stopped, I was angry. I was angry at a lot of people, but mostly I was angry at God. I couldn’t concede that the God I had been brought up to believe in had allowed this to happen. There is no way to properly describe the range of emotions I went through as I dealt with my grief. Grief as a son who had lost his father, as a brother who wanted to, but couldn’t, be a father figure to his brother and sister, as a son who wished he could, somehow, be the man of the house, and share some of the immense pressure my mum must be feeling. And all the while realising that I’d never get to do normal stuff with my dad: go for a pint, sing songs together, introduce him to my girlfriends, introduce him to the woman I would marry. If you’ve lost a parent, you’ll know what I’m talking about; if you haven’t, you can’t. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth. You just can’t. The hole something like that leaves is too real, too big. It informs everything, whether you’re aware of it or not. And meanwhile, my internal voice was saying, “Where’s God now? What’s God doing to help you and your family? You’re on your own”.

And my internal voice was right.

 

As my life has progressed my resolve has strengthened. I have looked at the things that happen in the world (good and ill), I have read scientific books, journals and articles, watched TV programmes and films and I have thought. Deeply. Anyone who knows me knows I am a thinker. It’s what I do. It’s how I work things out. And I keep coming up with the same thing: I have seen no evidence that God, as an entity, exists.

 

That is not to say that I don’t have faith. I do. I have, to quote Billy Bragg, “faith in my fellow man”. I believe in the inherent goodness of people. But that is a faith in something tangible, something I can measure, not something ineffable.  I appreciate, and accept, that there are people who have faith in God. I include some of my loved ones in that number. They are entitled to their faith, and I will defend their right to it with everything I have. But I do not agree with it. Nor do I have to. I reserve the right to disagree, to challenge and to question things I do not agree with. It was instilled in me, by my parents, when I was very young.

 

Which brings me to my next point. There have been some very high profile stories in the media regarding sex abuse cases involving members of the Catholic clergy. No-one with any compassion can fail to be heartbroken that anyone is sexually abused. However, there seems to be a prevailing attitude (from some quarters) that to question the Catholic Church about these assaults is in some way disrespectful. It is not. Now that these cases have been brought to light, the persons guilty of perpetrating them should be held to full account. If, as has also been reported, there have been decisions made which delayed this information coming to light, these decisions need also to be scrutinised in the minutest detail. The other high-profile sex abuse case, which is in the news currently, is that of Kerry Lewis, an Oregon man who has been awarded $1 million in damages, after he was sexually abused by his Scout Leader, Timur Dykes. The Boy Scouts of America also followed procedures where incidents such as these were hidden away to avoid greater scrutiny. Now that these assaults have been brought to light, no-one has had the temerity to suggest that it is disrespectful to the Boy Scouts of America to follow this case up. Yet this is EXACTLY the stance being taken by the Vatican. I have said that the abusers being Catholic priests is irrelevant. This is not strictly true. If anything, as men who have gone into the priesthood to do what they believe to be God’s work, they should be held to greater account. They are held to higher moral standards than laypeople, so shouldn’t they expect greater scrutiny?

 

Now, let’s look at the story which brought about my need to write this. The headline from the Times Online on Sunday, 11^th April, 2010 reads “Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI”. Let’s deal with the initial thing. Richard Dawkins IS NOT one of the people behind this campaign. Professor Dawkins has lent his support to a campaign by the writer Christopher Hitchens and two lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens. Mr Hitchens has asked Mr Robertson and Mr Stephens to “present a justification for legal action”. They are not going to try to make a citizen’s arrest, which would be a) laughable and b) impossible, given the security which will be surrounding him during his time in Britain. If there is a justification for legal action, the law will reveal it. That someone, irrespective of who he is, is suggesting there may be a way to get justice for those affected by these abuses can only be a good thing. There seems to be an assumption that, by my posting this article, I am in some way in complete agreement with everything Professor Dawkins and Mr Hitchens have said in the past and will say in the future. That is not true. I have read books and articles by both men, and while there are things I agree with, there are others I don’t. For instance, I do not believe that intellect and faith are mutually exclusive, as Professor Dawkins does. But living, as we do, in a democracy, I respect his right to that opinion.

 

There have been suggestions that I am anti-Catholic. I would like to address this in the most categorical way I can. I am not anti-Catholic. To suggest that is to suggest that I am anti- my loved ones: people who were at my wedding, people who fed and changed me when I was an infant, people who comforted me in bad times, and celebrated with me in good. I am not anti-Catholic, nor am I anti-theistic. I am anti- anyone in a position of power who abuses those it is his or her duty to protect. I am anti- anyone who colludes and schemes in order to conceal and obfuscate abhorrent practices. And I will speak out against anyone who has done any of these things, regardless of his or her faith.