As always, thanks for visiting “Raging Against the Dying Light,” all dozen of you. ( : I have a lot of loose threads in this one, my main articles for November and December are in formation and so now’s the time to spew out what I refer to as a “Geek Diatribe” to touch on all the incomplete facets of interest I write about on this site. This time it’s all light too, no politics or religion!

First off, the 2009 Baseball season is over. I find it a very depressing of an end at that…I’m not a vehement Yankee hater, I have extreme love for the history of the team and readily admit the talents and watchability of most of the current Yank roster, but I always have a bit of anger over the unrestrained budget the team has to work with and the idea that they can “buy’ the championship…and the fact that A-Rod alone earns a higher salary than several combined teams. So, there’s always the hope that they will be shutdown and it will be proven that money can’t suppress the drive to overcome that thrives in the underdog teams; the Phillies would have been a much more satisfying win. But the whole thing got me thinking about the structure of the current season; it’s November, and Baseball is just now wrapping up. It’s cold, grey over much of the country and well on the way to winter. Now, I never thought I’d specify that the season should be shorter since Baseball is really the only sport for me, but the season should be shorter! It’s a spring and summer game, and the now extended season length drags it into competing too heavily with football broadcasts and ticket sales, and the game just doesn’t seem appropriate this time of year for whatever reasons. I say, start it in early spring as is done now, start the post-season in September and have the World Series the first week of October. Anyway, as many people thrive for the play-off season when things heat up, as fun as that can be I prefer two other key baseball phases—the opening game through the first two weeks of the season and the events of and games leading up to July’s all-star game and home-run derby. A lot of this ties in with many of the teams still having a shot, but just as much at factor is the time of the year and the way it perfectly fits with the game. I imagine football fanatics feel the same way about fall and February.

Item two on the geek docket is the best music of the 2000s. I’ve pretty much got the 50 picked out for albums and almost for songs, I just have to properly rank them which requires listening to them and making the call on order. It’s a compulsive geek trait for any type of list like this, but you can’t just arbitrarily throw them together. There’s a distinctive reason why item A is at 17 and item B is at 16…or at least there should be. As I was working on my list I noticed that “Paste” magazine already has their “50 albums of the 2000s” on their site. I really like “Paste” and they’ve turned me on to a lot of good music over the years, but their list was off (in my mind) on several accounts—for one thing, it’s early November, there’s still 2 months of music yet to be released. Related to that, their “Best of ‘09” list isn’t up yet—it seems fairly backward to sum up a decade before the last year of the decade. As to the selections, there’s the obvious nerd-centric private idols that the publication adores and will rank highly and mention continuously even if no one else does as highly—everyone does this, my lists are guilty of it as well. “Paste” is very noticeable for adoring a core 5 bands that can never do wrong, as is Rolling Stone and AMG and it’s interesting because these core 5 never overlap in the same regard between these publications. That’s a very signifying factor that when it comes to art and pop criticism, there is no great science. There may be general critical consensus that something new and groundbreaking is “excellent” but it often differs from group to group and certain styles and personalities latch on to certain sounds. I won’t ruin the article for you, but the #1 album of the decade for “Paste” sums up their stance and personality as a publication, and that’s not a bad thing. I’m pretty sure my “1 choice does the same thing for me, as will RS and AMG’s. Another observation on “Pastes” selections is that they was heavily eschewed towards music made by bands established in the ‘00s, with a few ‘90s bands new work thrown in but very little attention paid to career artists releasing very notable work in the decade. No mention of critically acclaimed and massively entertaining work by Dylan, Young, Springsteen, U2, etc. Jazz, Hip Hop and Blues were almost completely overlooked as well, and although Indie is a major focus for “Paste,” they’re an eclectic publication so I expected more variety. The 2000s, looking at them as a whole, may very well have produced the bulk of music that will stay with me the longest. I was a junior in High school at the beginning of the decade and as it draws to a close I’m a first year grad student working on a Masters. In between there was college, work, marriage. I’ve moved several times and grown a lot, and the music I’ve heard that’s stuck with me from each phase of this decade is formative and memorable. Granted, most of my all time favorite albums were made long before this time, but there’s something to be said for what was new and vibrant amidst the average, waiting just to be found.

On to the next one; I always cap up the year’s best in graphic art and prose– comics and graphic novels—with a top ten list at the end of each year as well. This year has been phenomenal with trend breaking literate work in Graphic Novels- – “Asterios Polyp” by David Mazuchelli, The illustrated book of Genesis by R. Crumb, pretty much the entire Vertigo monthly catalogue, creator owned and controlled titles by Jeff Smith and Terry Moore (“RASL” and “Echo,” respectively) and notable work from indie publishing houses IDW (“Locke and Keye“), Boom Studios (“The Unknown: The Devil Made Flesh“), etc. As far as mainstream work, generally meaning the “big two” (Marvel and DC), it’s become clear that despite cornering 65 percent of the market and being host to millions of loyal fans who refuse to read books published by anyone else, Marvel is far inferior to almost every other publishing company, especially DC. It just hasn’t been Marvel’s year. They sell out to Disney for a big paycheck. They opt for raising the majority of their titles to a higher price point– an entire dollar more, making most of their mainstream titles 3.99, a price DC reserves for special events and “important” stories. Unlike Marvel, when DC charges 3.99 they provide ten additional pages of story as well as better paper and ink quality. Marvel heads (here’s looking at you, Joe Quesada—by the way, stay retired from penciling, your art is atrocious) originally stated that this was the result of a tighter economy and to combat mounting paper costs but later Quesada admitted in an interview that it was really because “this is a business” and they wanted to see how much profit they could make if the cost of the titles continued to go up and sales didn’t dip accordingly. To make matters worse for Marvel, their output hasn’t been good enough to justify such tactics anyway. The only really smart move they’ve done recently is re-tool “Amazing Spider Man” last year, shedding the excess titles, hiring a great staff of rotating writers and artists for it, releasing it thrice monthly and generally making it the best popcorn, fun-for-everyone-over-13 book as possible. They have even (thus far) kept it price-pointed at 2.99 and the stories from it all year have been great escapist fun. Other than that, they’ve consistently dropped the ball. Big tie-in events and mini-series? DC’s “Blackest Night” is far better than Marvel’s “The List” or whatever they’re calling it now (since it’s an ever continuing fall-out tale from last summers “Secret Invasion” which was far inferior to DC’s “Final Crisis” at that). Thor? An Eisner-winning surprisingly smart book by Stracinzski is now moving on without Stracinzki and staying at 3.99 (without the extra ten pages). Then there’s the it-just-won’t-die slew of “Marvel Zombies” mini’s that get worse with each sequel. Or dumb ideas like “Marvel Apes” or “X-Babies.” There’s the never-reveal-the-ending-to-the-mystery compost-heap “Hulk,” which gets ever more ridiculous and stopped being fun half a year ago. They were building up steam with “Uncanny X Men” each issue after 500 then lost it having each issue be part of an asinine tie in to an asinine concept series. The only other worthwhile Marvel title right now is “Fantastic 4,” while DC has been on a run with their mainstream work as well. Geoff Johns and Gary Frank are producing the best Superman mini in years, “Secret Origin,” and their entire run on “Action Comics” was terrific last year. Since Batman’s death, every tie-in Bat title has been excellent., notably, “Batman and Robin,” with Grant Morrison and initially Frank Quietely but “Detective Comics” as well if only for J.H. Williams III’ impressionistic and unconventional art. “Green Lantern” and every “Blackest Night” tie in has been great sci-fi and “Wednesday Comics” was a truly original and successful idea. Of course, “JSA” has fallen off and “JLA” seems to never work, but the point is that much of their mainstream work is great and most of it is approachable and more affordable than their competitions. Most importantly, where DC has it’s “Vertigo” imprint which puts out a lot of great, intelligent adult-geared work and DC utilizes that imprint heavily, Marvel’s “Icon” imprint which allows creator funded work to be released doesn’t get nearly enough emphasis. “Criminal” by Brubaker and Phillips is back again with another miniseries, and it’s great. “Kick Ass,” is always fun whenever Mark Millar bothers to get it out (he’s late on everything lately), but what else does Icon have? And why no funding from Marvel? Why not more emphasis?

Okay, last up (and briefly) is “The Wire.” Harvard recently announced a college course that will utilize “The Wire” in its curriculum. If any show has ever been worthy of this, it’s this one. The smartest, most important and best produced television show of all time. Five seasons, so check them all out. That’s all for now.

The end of the year is a few months away but I always start ordering my top 10 albums, movies and the like about this time each year. I try to place everything in the spot it stands as of now and wait to see what upsets the list will have based on end of the year releases.

This year while starting on that, I’ve decided to also do a top 50 albums and top 50 singles for the entire decade of the 2000s, seeing as it’s over come January. In doing so I’ve noticed a lot of older, established artists from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s made seminal, career-worthy work over the past ten years across all genres and many of those will factor into the list. There are also plenty of great albums that popped up unexpectedly from bands who had never before and haven’t since managed to recreate the magic.

But thinking about artists who’ve come to the forefront during the 2000s, releasing all of their work in the new millennium or just the bulk of it, a few come to mind that simply define the decade in terms of consistently excellent album, songs and live performances.

Wilco- Wilco released three very entertaining alt-country albums in the ‘90s and then got extensively creative and genre abandoning in the 2000s. The best example of the bands melding of experimental and approachably warm is their decade defining “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot” in 2002. From there they got weirder – “A Ghost is Born,” then scaled way down with “Sky Blue Sky” and followed that with this year’s “Wilco: (the album) the most straightforward folksy album they’ve released this decade.

Drive by Truckers-  Although DBT released a few independent, small press albums in the late ‘90s, they really didn’t emerge notably until 2001’s “Southern Rock Opera.” Released on Universal (and then dropped by Universal and left labeless until New West signed the band), SRO was a critically acclaimed yet initially low selling work but a masterpiece nonetheless.  They haven’t released a bad album since – ““Decoration Day,” The Dirty South,”  “A Blessing and a Curse” and “Brighter Than Creation’s Dark”  are all tremendous records and DBT was one of the best live shows you could catch this decade, which it was usually possible to do up close in a relatively small venue. If you’ve never been able to make a show, “Live at the 40 Watt Club” and “Live from Austin TX” are two wonderful rock concert DVDs you can catch.

Ryan Adams- Adams was an alt-country pioneer with Whiskeytown in the ‘90s. His first solo record, “Heartbreaker” from 2000 remains his best work. He’s a consummate songwriter, with the potential to be one of the greatest but despite his surplus of recordings his personal quirks and indulgences dampen that potential sometimes. But, with the exception of “29,” any of Adam’s 10 albums is a great listen.

Neko Case – From 2000s “Furnace Room Lullaby” to 2009s “Middle Cyclone,” Neko has put on record the decades best voice. A perfect singer capable of traditional country, blues, power-pop or gothic, none of her work is to be missed. The record on which her best lyrics and her best singing match up is “Fox Confessor Brings the Flood” from 2006, but arguably her best single song is from “Deep Red Bells” from 2002’s “Blacklisted.”

Lupe Fiasco – So far we only have two official Lupe albums, 2006s “Food and Liquor” and 2007s “The Cool,” but one more is due by the end of the year. I’ll keep my fingers crossed. Lupe’s not released a weak track yet, or a weak verse for that matter. He touches on every imaginable social issue in his songs and could very well be the best and brightest political commentator rap has had since Chuck D–and not nearly as suspect as some of D’s propositions. Lupe’s ethical intelligence is never suspect in his songs.

The Hold Steady – With 4 studio albums and 1 live album over the past 5 years and tremendous live shows to boot, The Hold Steady are the best bar band in America. The lyrics are consumed with parties, scripture, drugs, God, sex, death, Mass, angels, love, chill out tents and interesting characters. Like a punk Rock-Springsteen-Tom Waits milkshake, The Hold Steady get better every year.

Death Cab for Cutie – Sure, they’re a bit pretentious and a lot of those emo kids dug them a bit too much for comfort. Yet they’ve captured a lot of this entire decade in their sound. The use of the title track of “Transatlanticism” in Six Feet Under with the characters stonily singing along was a generational signifier. Every album they’ve released in the 2000s has been good, but their last three have been  classic – “Transatlanticism,” “Plans” and “Narrow Stairs.” Even on years without an album they’ve stayed present- this year with a great EP and nice singles.

Ghostface Killah – Okay, in the context of Wu Tang Clan, Ghost is very much a 90s rapper. But aside from his solo debut “Iron Man” in 1996, every solo albums he’s released has been in the 2000s, starting with “Supreme Clientele” in 2000. He’s been pumping out an album a year almost, and you won’t get any Lupe worthy socially conscious moments on any of it. Check all that at the door–there’s nothing morally redeeming in the lyrics, there’s just insanely killer flow. Ghost constructs rhymes that are so hilarious, sad, exciting, repulsive, and sensory observing that it’s a little miraculous. He can make a good agreeable point from time to time, but mostly you’re going to get urban poetry steeped in vivid detail– crime narratives more cinematic than any movie as well as jokes, double entendres and metaphors with a lot of tongue in cheek.

Sufjan Stevens – Stevens may be the decade’s best songwriter if only people could fully understand him without looking up the lyrics. That’s a turn off for many, but for the rest of us his hushed, frail and almost whisper like melodies backed by a slew of sounds uncommon in pop music (he’s a wildly talented multi-instrumentalist) are engaging, addicting and reveal just a bit more each time you hear them. Then there’s his ambitious project to make a concept album depicting the history and culture of every American State. “Greetings From Michigan” is his best overall work, followed by the close second “(Come on Feel the) Illinoise.” The “Illinois” track “Casimir Pulaski Day” may be the most heartbreaking yet beautiful song of the decade with lyrics about God, love and teenage loss by death and disease.

Kanye West- Hate him love him, or simply be sick of him due to his latest string of rude shenanigans, but some of the 2000s best hit singles were from ‘Ye. Three Grammy winning albums that actually deserved a grammy and one flop of an album that can’t be criticized in terms of ambition at least. Here’s hoping he takes a break and comes back down to earth a bit.
So, that’s the big ones. Some of the albums by these folks will rank high on the top 50 list when I post it toward the end of the year. Others by artists who managed just one great album, and albums by already established artists will all intermix with them.

So I recently read two vastly different books that both extensively referenced Christian and Hebrew scripture to espouse two completely antithetical viewpoints. Of course, this is nothing new. Theologians, religious commentators, preachers, teachers, rabbi’s, clergy and laypersons alike all quote scripture to back up their respective viewpoints on a regular basis.

Yet the stark difference in the two books made me step back and reaffirm for myself what many others have: that in any religion or philosophy in which scriptures are held to be canononical, inspired, important, revered, foundational or simply useful, there comes a point when you have to choose which overall thematic consistency you wish to stick with and affirm. That is, if you wish to stay with the scriptures in the first place. Saying that you do wish to keep some grounding with them, you have to decide and I think (like John Dominic Crossan mentioned in “God and Empire”) that it comes down to peace or war; love or judgment; common ground or divide and conquer.

The two books I’m writing about are drastically different in every sense of the word: they were written in different decades, by different personalities, in different styles, from different worldviews, from different religious doctrines and perspectives yet both claim absolute Christianity. One is “The Sovereignty of God” by Arthur Pink. It was written in 1918 as a treatise. It’s writer is very confrontational throughout, claiming most of the religious folks of his day have completely lost their way and turned to a fake, watered down and irrelevant God. His convictions lie in an absolute controlling, all powerful, intimately involved God who selected a few certain souls to save from hell before creation was even formed and who has laid out every breath of every person and every turn of every event before it occurs. For Pink, this is the only possible interpretation of God in light of scripture as he reads it. For Pink, the utmost important thing to realize is that God is mighty, powerful and deserving of deep reverence, fear and awe. Every thing that happens to an individual is for a reason known only to God; humankind is base, vile and created from the “polluted” ground and deserves nothing but punishment and hell–which most of them will get since only a small “elect” are destined for “salvation.” For Pink, the entire purpose of life is to preach this truth and await judgment hoping to be one of those elect knowing that no man truly knows who is among that number. Pink’s treatise is early 20th century hyper-Calvinism; he acknowledges that term with a scoff but never denies it and never delivers anything but it. He’s not crafted anything new, nor does he claim to. He claims it’s the original message of scripture that has been watered down, but more accurately it hearkens back to John Calvin and further back to Augustine. “The Sovereignty. of God” isn’t my typical reading, but it was recommended to me by someone who espouses the same view with full compassion and sincerity today. It’s also a popular theology for many young Christians now, folks influenced by writers like John Piper.
The other book is “The Irresistible Revolution.” It’s not a treatise, more of a memoir in the making. The writer, Shane Claiborne, is a young evangelical yet also a very “radical’ person in the sense of modern Christianity. He is uncomfortable with the term without amending it with the term “ordinary”– thus “ordinary radical,” because he doesn’t wish to puff himself up. He writes of working with Mother Teresa in Calcutta, assisting in leprosy care there near the end of her life. He writes of flying to Iraq to spend time with children and be an “advocate for peace” when the US was bombing them heavily. He writes of the lawsuits he’s been forced to defend himself in for sleeping on the streets, communal sharing, giving free food away to his neighborhood, etc. Claiborne takes the idea of Jesus to “give up all and follow me” literally and tries to do that as much as possible with the hope that he and all around him will have enough to get by.

Although written 80 years apart, both of these styles of thinking have been present for hundreds of years. One sees the thematic thrust of scripture to be that of radical compassion and social justice: protect the stranger and the outsider; love your neighbor; honor God. Turn the other cheek; go the extra mile, if you have two coats give one away, advocate for a world in which the last become first, the wine never runs out at the wedding banquet and everyone is welcome at the table. This type of theology has been present for a long time; it was called “the Social Gospel” in the 1920s and “Progressive Christianity” in our own day (among other more deriding terms in both cases). The other theology is one of judgment, vengeance and damnation. We are vile; we deserve punishment; Jesus paid the debt for some of us; the rest will burn in hell. Care for the world in this theology is relegated to getting folks into church and that’s it–for extreme opinions in this theology even that is suspect since God can call strangers to church so we wait for them and if they come then we care for them–but not before, because the world turned its back on Christ so we must do the same to the world.
Well, you can thoroughly back up either view with scripture…maybe not correctly, but you can throw out and string together verses, phrases and doctrinal interpretations to support either view, and although folks on the other side can refute those verses with carefully selected verses of their own, it can become a circular argument and never stop. If it could be decisively argued, it wouldn’t keep coming back into popularity in certain circles.

Obviously, whether you like to admit it or not, eventually your opinion and worldview within a faith tradition must incorporate things outside of just the scriptures themselves; after all, all the books in scripture were written by different authors with different historical and cultural perspectives, at different times, in different styles, in different languages. They were assembled later, far after the fact. They were translated through multiple languages. If you want to grasp your head around what you believe in their regards, you have to consult historical criticism, personal revelation, faith history, denominational and religious context, modern discovery and ultimately your own intuition, intelligence and heart.

You ultimately have a choice…does your heart tell you the thrust of Religion should be forgiveness, love, compassion, mercy and work that leads toward justice for fellow humankind and honor of God? Or does your heart tell you Religion is about following the rules to the T, discerning that you are indeed correct in a multitude of issues and ensuring you are part of the one “real” in-group rather than part of the out-group? Only one of these viewpoints is compatible to involving all and working with all for the betterment of the world and all people, all religions. The other is very exclusive and has room for but a few. Of course, one view is highly concerned with making this world better while the other is best suited for closing your eyes and waiting for eternity, hoping hell doesn’t await. That’s psychologically difficult on a multitude of levels…

With Religion, there is much we take only as seriously as we are comfortable with.

 I argue that the heart of the gospel in a modern Christian sense is simply: love God, love your neighbor. I further argue this by saying that the ideal modern church can be thought of as a “social justice hub.”

 Recently I began struggling with the real heart of the gospel and the major aspects a life, career or calling in regards to it plays out. How do we love God best? By loving our neighbors, our fellow humans. How do we best love our neighbors? By acting. The “Kingdom of God” is what Jesus stressed—if we follow him, we are called to break it into present-day existence. “It is at hand.” It was then, it is now.

The Kingdom is an idealized life in which there’s always more wine at the wedding party, always a spot at the table for the “least of these,” always forgiveness, always compassion, always truth. We bring this kingdom about by doing work that seeks to set things “how they ought to be.” Work that encourages the depressed, inspires the despised, builds up the weak, makes the last become first.

Okay. Flowery language. But to get to the heart of what I’m really getting at here, I’ll say that most of us don’t really heed the call. I’m not talking about doctrine. We can argue about historicity, literality and metaphor. Whether the scriptures, the doctrines, the creeds or the church history of the gospel is factual, metaphorical, mythical or actual is pretty much irrelevant to actually “heeding the call.” We can also argue about sin: what qualifies as sin, what qualifies as lifestyle, what is ingrained, what is chosen, what is dependant on context, place, time and situation. We can argue about universality and inclusion; whether our mission is THE mission or merely a shade of the mission.

 I’ve written at length and probably will continue to do as such regarding much of these issues, but for what I’m talking about here, yet again, these things are pretty much irrelevant to “heeding the call.” What brings me to “the call,” that I stress we all seem to ignore is admission of my repetitive action of the same.

See, to digress for a minute, I tend to think of 3 aspects of a religious life, career or calling. 1) Worship 2) Action 3) Education Taking myself for example, I’m most comfortable with the “education” aspect. I can read, write, talk, debate, consider and think about religion and spirituality ad infinitum. After all, my planned profession is that of a teacher. I hope to someday teach world religion, theology and philosophy in a collegiate setting. I enjoy classes and subjects on these topics from a student perspective. I like books that discuss these things, I write about these things in various hackneyed ways. As far as the worship sector goes, it’s where I was first introduced to these concepts and ideas years ago as a child. It’s a sector I detracted from, only to find myself coming back to years later from a slightly different angle. It’s the sector with which I am growing in and struggling with to find the right meaning, balance and use of. Then, there’s Action. The more I read and learn in the Education sector, the more I worship in the worship sector, the more the already obvious becomes even more so. The real area for Christ- following is Spiritual Action and Engagement.

The “work of the kingdom” plays out in the real world. If we aren’t doing our part there we’re really just puffing ourselves up purposelessly. So, I try to devote time to that sector. From choosing student-work that I feel ties into social engagement to writing and working for needed social change, to volunteering time and money (in my case very little_) to appropriate organizations. The extent I do these things to is never the extent I should actually do though. I can even tie it in with the other aspects. For example, a book I’m slowly piecing together deals with calling on the worship sector to do more in the action sector (broadly speaking). So I use the area I’m comfortable in (education) to call on one sector to increase efforts in the other.

 Hmmm. Really though, I have to admit I only take it all as seriously as I’m comfortable with. All it takes is to read about people like Mother Teresa, Dorothy Day, Gandhi, MLK Jr., and even folks like Claiborne (who wrote “The Irresistible Revolution”) who worked in and sought to do the full deal for me to realize how little I actually do or feel capable of doing.

Reading the gospel, we can argue about the same old historicity and debate how much we really know of the historical Jesus and what he really said. We really only have the gospel text themselves to go on. But I feel that Jesus’ call to “Sell all you have and follow me,” stands out. His words to “turn the other cheek, go the extra mile” do as well. Paul’s writing of dying to self so that Christ can be all that lives through us is really clear. For if we died to self in all actuality and let Christ alone live through us we’d sell everything, go to work for peace through sacrifice and justice through non-violence.

We’d risk everything we had to make the kingdom present now. I’ve heard friends in recent days argue that:

(1) we can’t all do that and weren’t really all called to do that. After all, Paul wrote that if you are married don’t get divorced but if you aren’t married don’t get married. So you can’t be a light to the community if there is not community and we’re all wandering around seeking to help.” To that, I answer that no, we can’t all do that and yet we are all called to do that. Working single or as a couple we can do that, but Christ realized we wouldn’t all do it. We’ve always had the choice to not listen or to walk away. Since my concept of salvation and damnation is pretty far left, my concern is not that of hell but that of not really doing what we’re called to do.

 (2) “You have to meet people where they are.” Maybe. But are we not called to lead and go where we’re called and if the people follow, great, if not, that’s okay too? Christ knew not everyone would follow. Now, if my friends recognize themselves as being the ones who said these things, please don’t feel like I’m calling you out! I see clear cut examples of how to fully marry to the spirit and work for real change, real justice, real love and the real ever present Kingdom of God. Yet I don’t abandon what I’m doing and do likewise. I have family ties; my wife wouldn’t be too keen on trekking through central America (or even East LA) on a mission of peace with me. I like my time off; I want to read a book, go to a movie, watch a baseball game, go for a swim. I like good food and drink- could I live forever eating just enough to get by? I love music—I collect records, go to concerts, argue about the greatest albums of all time. Surely that money and time could be devoted to social justice causes. I own more than one coat, more than a few pairs of shoes. I waste my share of things, from time to food. I could go on, but I won’t. The point is despite student loan and various other debt I’m blessed enough to not fear where my next meal is coming from and I’m mulling over these issues from the safety of a graduate school when a huge chunk of the world gets slim to no education. I plan to teach in a university myself where I’ll continue to address justice issues that affect the world while I myself in all hopefulness will be relatively comfortable enough to be deemed “middle class.” It seems just a shade hypocritical to me in the light of “reality.”

So what do I do? I take it as seriously as I am comfortable with. I rationalize. I think that with grace I’ll be able to call attention to the real issues in the writing that I do, that I can donate money to valuable causes, that I can volunteer a few hours a week or month and ultimately that wherever I teach I can spark a mind or two to take the plunge and do the work I was too scared to.I was talking with another friend about all of this and I said that maybe we all rationalize our religious thought as a survival mechanism. Maybe it’s not wrong to do so. Maybe it’s a vocal way of acting on an inner calling that points us in the direction we are most fit for. Perhaps our skills and the needs we can address come together in certain areas and our rationalization leads us there. Maybe it’s a survival skill. Then again, maybe it’s a cosmic hi-liter we use so that we can avoid doing what we’d really be doing if we were more devout! The call for transformative justice isn’t an easy call and it’s not one we can all take

Vertigo consistently makes the smartest, deepest and most diverse comics for adult readers in the mainstream market. Whereas some publishers used the “adult” rating to merely amp the violence and sex, Vertigo allows the freedom such a rating gives them to explore thematic depths, philosophical concepts and ambiguous character traits that more approachable fair shies away from. Of course, using “Scalped” or “Preacher” as an example, the violence and sex isn’t shied away from either when necessary to the story. Yet it’s never the main goal or method in a typical Vertigo work. The problem presented by Vertigo is evident in last month’s cancellation of “Young Liars.” These are not books that fit a wide variety of tastes and preferences. Being funded by a subsection of a mainstream company, in this case DC comics, means that only so much money will be allocated in support of an artistic venture. With creator owned and distributed works like Jeff Smith’s “RASL” or Terry Moore’s “Echo,” low sells and limited appeal is overcome if the author has the time, money and passion to devote to a work that may take years to catch on. DC can always pick another up-and-comer to give a 2 year shot to with Vertigo, or they can move some money back to their main stable and release a new Superman ongoing title.

So, even though there is a tremendous history of smart, great works in Vertigo that got to start, run and come to their natural culmination in the beforehand planned “final issue” like “Sandman,” “Preacher” or “100 Bullets,“ the still ongoing “Hellblazer,” the going-past-originally planned “Fables,” or a host of other books that look like they’re in good shape to end their tale correctly, there are also a lot of books that get the axe before their time. Most recently this is the case with “Vinyl Underground” and “Young Liars.” Both of these titles launched about 2 years ago– “Underground” lasted 12 issues, “Liars” made it to their 16th last month. “Young Liars” is a frustrating example. It was the full work of writer/artist David Lapham, who never got around to wrapping up his creator owned “Stray Bullets” but who looked fired-up to tell this mind-bending, fully involved head-trip adventure through Vertigo in an on-going that never shipped late, often was set on the day it shipped to stores, and always delivered the goods. Axed before its time, we’re left with a hastily thrown together ending that tells us pretty much nothing…we have no idea where this would have really ended up and what detours it would have taken along the way.

So, that said… There are a few very promising works kick-starting this year, all a few issues into the story now. These three books all started around the same time, so the odds on all of them making it to the usual 70 some-odd books it takes to fully wrap a Vertigo tale aren’t tremendous…but if the numbers are decent, they will make it. So as a fan of these, I’m doing my part to get the word out. Buy the monthly…buy the trade too, and, if you like at which point you can sell the “floppies,” but you must buy the monthly if these series’ are going to last. It’s a gamble you take, sure, but you’re certain to be entertained along the way even if the ending never comes. We’re talking about an 8 or 9 dollar a month commitment; dig for some change and take the plunge.

First off, “The Unwritten.” This is a literary fans dream; if you’re a classics dork, check out the entire premise and especially the great detour this past months issue, Issue #5, takes. The basic story follows Tom Taylor, son of a famous author who has died. Taylor is the basis for his fathers best selling books about “Tommy,” a teenage wizard with animal cohorts and adventures. The series is written by Mike Carey and billed as a “literary conspiracy mystery.“ Last month’s issue  # 5 tells an alternate history of Rudyard Kipling and features his encounters with Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). There are things that have occurred in the first 5 issues of this book I haven’t seen done since Neil Gaiman ended “The Sandman,” and I don’t mean to imply any overt similarities other than artistic ambition and non-pandering to popular taste.

Next, “The Unknown Solider.” A fully researched and prepared book by a former self-proclaimed pacifist struggling with the concept of war and “just” violence in the pursuit of peace. It’s set in Uganda and is complete with child soldiers, corrupt governments, agencies with misplaced priorities, humanitarian fervor and real, vivid- yet- dark, life.

“Sweet Tooth,” a post-apocalyptic story of a half-human/half-deer teen in the company of a hunter on the way to the promised land. Bizarre and although entrenched in an overly-used archetype of a setting, wholly invigorating and unconventional enough to make that setting new again.

Okay. I’ve pitched them and if you’ve ever been a fan of comics or graphic novels, pick them up. Support them, lets see them through to their natural conclusion.  Don’t forget “Scalped,” either— Vertigo’s best series which seems to be going strong, winning awards and in no danger of cancellation. It’s modern noir at its finest and hopefully one of the above three titles live up to it in time.

I hear a lot about balance and compromise lately, especially in light of the ever increasing polarized political climate we find ourselves in.

Recently, parents across the country became angry when the President wanted to address the nation’s schoolchildren via television. Right-wing parents screamed that this was an attempt to “indoctrinate” their children in “socialism” and pulled them out of class in droves. That the President only wanted to speak of the value of education and hard work was irrelevant. Then came the infamous “You lie!” shout during Obama’s health care address. Even though the point Obama was making was proven true by independent political watch groups, reform opponents refuse to deny the “liar” claim even if many of them do agree that the way it was voiced during the speech was inappropriate.

So why rehash this now? Everyone else has already mentioned these things. I noticed a few facebook friends had linked an article by Pat Buchanan to their pages, and normally I’d avoid Buchanan’s opinion at any cost but I decided to give it a read. The piece, published on the web on September the 10th is titled “Is America Coming Apart?”  Buchanan makes a few good points, rightly pointing out that when G.H.W. Bush went to a school in 1991 the left freaked out, and went on to mention that those of us on different sides of the “big issues” (like abortion, gay rights, environmental protection and conservation, etc.) tend to label our position much more nobly than our opponents label it and term their position in a much more derogatory term as well. Buchanan goes on to make various observations about cultural and political issues he feels further polarize us today. Oddly enough, he at one point laments that we’ve replaced “heroes” like Robert E. Lee with people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have major problems with the idea that it’s a bad thing to replace Lee with King as a modern hero, and I find it silly that King should be considered “polarizing” when the things he stood and worked for are good for all of us, but that’s another issue altogether.

 Buchanan seems to think that we now have diversity but not unity. Those of us who feel drawn to do work that seeks to help people, to help society, to build things up and those of us with spiritual and/or religious lives, feel a need to be open, tolerant and to seek unity. But some people seem to think this means we must be more “balanced.” I follow that we should speak with respect, debate with care and love those we don’t agree with. Yet I feel it’s worth pointing out that we can’t seek peaceful balance at the cost of mediocrity or apathy. Buchanan asks “where is the unity?” in a way that suggests that we once all got along much more civilly from both sides. I grant him that with the advent of openly biased 24 hour news networks like Fox News and MSNBC, the proliferation of politics on the internet and a slew of amped up anger and judgment, things are more vocally polarized. Yet there have always been universal differences in the right and the left. If in the past those that strove to bring about equality and justice through the civil rights movement, the women’s movement and various peace movements in our country had been too concerned with peaceful balance, progress would never have been made. I stress that peace was necessary– Dr. King used pacifism and nonviolent protest to accomplish his mission. Yet the idea he should have had to “compromise” with the Alabama government without offending their beliefs that African Americans shouldn’t have the same rights as whites seems absurd.

We can have respect for others as people without compromising our beliefs on issues that are very important-take the health care debate. There are hard facts involved. The World Health Organization ranked the US 37th out of 191 on the list of all health care systems in the world in 2008. France was ranked at number 1. Yet despite this FACT, those on the right argue we have nothing to take from the system France uses and that the system they use is really worse than ours because it is “socialism,” the latest hip disparaging word used by a sector of the right that really have no comprehension of what socialism. The struggle to be bi-partisan, to reach across the aisle and to compromise in this health care debate is seemingly fruitless. There is no compromise, because those on the right don’t see a need for reform.

I struggle with knowing how to draw the line. There are people that I love and respect that I don’t see eye to eye on over many issues. Yet when it comes to speaking out on, writing about and working towards positive change and progress on these issues, I feel I can’t be overly concerned with being “balanced” if it means balancing fact, compassion, justice, hope and progress with misinformation, hysteria, prejudice, greed and selfishness. The current health care debate affects the health, wealth, well-being and security of millions of Americans. Any of us making less than $50,000 a year, even with health insurance, aren’t secure under the current system because one serious injury or illness could easily result in bankruptcy for us. Yet to speak these things is considered “polarizing.” What about the environmental issues, as Buchanan mentions? Despite conclusive and repeated studies and warnings from every major scientific mind in the world that state that unless major changes are made we will irreparably harm the planet, must we still “debate” and compromise over that as well, at the cost of all future generations? What about issues concerning women, immigrant, minority and gay rights? Must we compromise that some of these people simply do not deserve all of the rights the rest of us have?

 That ‘s where I see the urging for balance as being misguided. I wholeheartedly agree that we should speak to those on the other side of issues with care, respect and compassion. I agree we should be friends with those that share completely different political and religious ideals than us. We can always learn from them, they can always learn from us. A dialogue and a friendship can provide all of us with a better understanding of the “Other.” Besides, outside of politics and religion, surely we have plenty else to talk about with our fellow human beings in friendship. But, on these issues that affect health, justice, love and equality we must not be afraid to speak, write and work towards a better tomorrow. When facts don’t work to persuade the opposition, non-violent action and devotion might. I remind myself that, according to the Christian scriptures and ideas, even Jesus got angry. When? Anytime an issue of justice came up. Jesus loved and spoke with all, regardless of their personal sins and flaws. He befriended and cared for everyone on a human level. Yet he had no patience for any system , belief or practice that oppressed the “other.” If government, religion or marketplace devalued the rights of the poor, the different, the immigrant, the overlooked, Jesus spoke out. Most other major figures from the enduring world religions and philosophies did this as well. Would they compromise their opinion on justice so as not to trouble or offend anyone?

The first four innings of the Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox September 2nd game contained everything I love about baseball. Oddly enough, it caused me to think about some of the major problems I have with Major League Baseball despite my sincere fandom of it.

Since I’m not really a fan or opponent of either team, I just happened to begin by rooting for the Sox but soon began to root for the Rays upon seeing their entire team exemplify to the audience and the viewers at home how to do everything right on the field and at the plate.

A depressing sight, however, occurred anytime the cameras panned the stands—which were practically empty. The commentators stated that it was unusual for a team playing very successfully and that had just been to the World Series the previous year to draw such dismal numbers. The Rays have been drawing several thousand under the average MLB team attendance this season. The sportscasters suggested that the local Florida fans had already fled for college football. While narrating they reiterated the oddity of local fans not supporting such a winning team but said that (to paraphrase) “however you wish to spend you disposable income in such an economy is up to you, but it’s just odd.”

So despite the excellent baseball I was seeing, I began to wonder how the national pastime would continue if the recession lasted a significantly long period of time. I could go on yet another rant about baseball being better than football in a historic, artistic and cultural manner and digress that it’s simply symbolic of short attention spans and degraded culture that has caused the almost usurpation of baseball by football. I’d do so primarily in jest, even though I can’t help but believe small aspects of those arguments, but that’s not the direction I thought in nor where I am going with this now. No, here I was watching Major League Baseball on a public television set—I don’t even have cable so unless the game’s on a network available by antennae I’m not getting it at home. I also quite clearly wasn’t at the park paying the ticket price to see it. So the organization wasn’t making a dime off of me no matter how much I enjoyed it. If the recession continued a long time, the general public simply wouldn’t have time or money to spend to go out to the big game. By the time a family pays for gas to the park, tickets to the game and a few concessions, they’re looking at over a hundred dollars for an afternoon’s entertainment.

How could we bring down the cost to see the big game? Of course many will still pay their large cable and satellite prices. Many will pay the additional dozens of dollars a month to expand that to get things like “Season Pass” to catch all the games no longer available for the general public on basic cable. Eventually, though, if there aren’t enough people in the seats something has to give.

How would the cost come down? Well, let’s see….these players are making millions of dollars to play this game. When that much money is going to the people playing, the tickets have to be expensive. If this game is truly a national pastime, how about we lower the ticket prices and fill the stands?

Here the argument becomes one very comparable to a complaint many have over health care reform (believe it or not). A common fear expressed by some Health Care Reform opponents is that if we pay doctors less we won’t have doctor’s that work as hard, we won’t have the drive for technological and medical breakthroughs and we’ll fall behind. A recent AP article took on 5 common health care myths and in addressing this one, mentioned many of the products, techniques and breakthroughs we use in the US that emerged from medical communities in France, Germany and Canada under socialized health care plans. Well, when it comes to baseball, the argument is that salary caps and cut pay rates for players accustomed to lavish lifestyles will result in the greats dropping out and the powerhouse years coming to a close. As much as I love many of the players raking in big money and I do recognize that many of them devote decent chunks of their money to needed community programs, I feel that even if they were to leave, there’d still be those that are just hungry to play the game. Look at the minor leagues alone. Ninety percent of those playing in AA and AAA teams will never see the big leagues. Granted, most of them have the hope or even the confidence that someday they will and that in that day they will make millions. Yet many, if not most, players in these leagues probably realize the odds say they won’t and yet continue to play very hard every time. These players make less than most middle class workers. They also spend their time shuttled around on the roads playing in out of the way parks for sometimes uninterested viewers. They wear their bodies out and live pretty hard. Yet many of them play the game with complete heart. So, say the average Major League player goes from making millions a year to making $400-500,000 a year. That’s still quite a bit more than an AA player making $20,000. Add fame, recognition and all the perks and do you really think the average AA or AAA player will struggle less to make the jump to the big leagues?

If we really want to return Baseball to its rightful place as a national Pastime and a populist sport, a drastic cut in salaries and restructuring could do that. I say this begrudgingly I guess, because I love the game and I love the big name players, the World Series, the entire thing and it’s so big scale now that a drastic restructuring would shake it up completely. Will this happen? Almost certainly not. Should it? Yes. Will I continue to watch either way? Yeah.

I love MLB, movies, music and entertainment. Yet hearing the sportscasters lament that the stands weren’t full and that our expendable income was our choice (but “hint-hint” we should probably spend it at the baseball park) made it appear even odder to me that in a recession, we the fans are asked to show our support. We the fans who make between 20,000 and maybe $200,000 a year are to support those that make 2 million and up a year? I hope the amount these players are giving back to the community and the world has gone up tremendously in these hard times, yet I doubt it’s gone up enough. Why do we pay those that entertain us so much better than we pay those that protect us, save our lives, treat us in clinics, educate us and serve us?

The news has been full of coverage concerning the health care reform debate. Now with the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, we see clips of a young Ted giving speeches calling for health care reform, stating that the availability of universal health care for every American should be a right rather than a privelege. The clips date back 30 years and put the current debate in a sobering context. Many have fought for reform for a long time, in great depth ever since the profit-gleaning shift in the insurance business that occurred during Richard Nixon’s presidency. An excellent clip from Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” plays a recording of Nixon approvingly admiring a move to “great financial profit for private investors as a result of a new system of health care” (to paraphrase). So, it’s been a long time coming and it’s still not here.

So we see this continuous coverage. An excellent summation of what’ s happened, what is currently happening and what will likely occur at the end of this strain of the debate is laid out in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone. “Sick and Wrong: How Washington is screwing up health care reform and why it may take a revolt to fix it,” by Matt Taibbi is a comprehensive, stomach churning and head shaking look at the mess we find ourselves in today.

Granted, Taibbi makes Moore look look understated and unbiased. Taibbi writes in an almost Hunter S. Thompson-like gonzo, over-the-top and expletive laden vitiriol concerning social issues. Yet he nails every pressing point that gets swept under the rug on the mainstream television and radio. Tellingly, he lists that the so-called “Gang of Six,” the “bi-partisan” group of senators that are supposedly working towards a compromise on this issue all received major donations from the health sector in amounts ranging from $600,000 to a whopping $2,034,000 for Sen. Grassley, a leading Republican senator in the “gang.”  Do we really expect that such major donations don’t entail a “favor for a favor?” Each member of the gang has financially backed reasons for keeping the current system in place. Insurance companies make large profits under the current system, as do private investors and Wall Street bankers. Senators are untouched since they already have their own “public option” through the government simply by being senators. The only people that suffer under the current system are everyone else that have no, little or untrustworthy coverage.

Taibbi points out, like everyone else with clear reasoning in this debate including the 41 witnesses recently barred from testifying in a government review in favor of a universal plan, that the only option that is likely to work and make sense is one with a public option.  A public option will give everyone who is unable to purchase coverage in the current market and affordable means to do so. A public option will force the insurance companies to bring down their astronomical rates in order to be more competitive with the public option. Any universal plan without a public option will not do much of anything to sovle the current problems. In fact, any plan that passes without a public option as a “watered down” version of universal health care will simply leave the openents currently screaming “Socialism!” feeling vindicated and have them shouting “I told you so.”  If such a disaster occurs this country may never have a chance to pass a real and valid universal plan again. The major complaints voiced by senators in regards to the public option concern the existence and profits of the insurance companies. Taibbi quotes Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as saying that “private insurance companies will not be able to compete with a government option” and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson as complaining that the public option will “win the game.”

So how have the opponents of the public option and of health care reform in general succeeded in what looks to be excising the public option from any possibly passing act?  By complaining– loudly, threateningly and accusatorily in hostile, misinformed and sensationalistic ways. Those on the other side share the blame by not addressing these loud and incorrect complaints fully. An excellent feature article in the Sunday, August 23rd edition of the Louisville Courier Journal compared the current struggle for health care reform to the many reform struggles faced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt over a half century ago. The difference now? FDR spoke out over the radio in a series of “fireside chats” to address the loud and false shouts of “fascism!” “socialism!” “communism!” and “total government control!”  that were hostilely being thrown at his administration. He decried the simple and shallow labels and fully explained that his reforms were in continuing with the American legacy of progress, reform and steady work to make this country a place where all have an equal chance and in which we can truly grow as a nation and as a people. Obama thus far has played it too safe in taking on his opponents in this issues. Now is the time to act, for there may not be an opportunity like this again.

In light of the work of Dr. Cornel West ( I recently read his book “Race Matters”) and an article from a current issue of “The American Journal of Theology and Philosophy” by Gary Dorrien,  I’ve been pondering what a true “prophet” is, who some examples in our past are, and the (possible) absence of current examples in our society today.

Contrary to the perception most people have when they hear the word “prophet,” a prophet is not a fortune teller or prediction giver, at least not in a magical sense. Of course, a true prophet may well be able to tell what will happen to their current society if certain changes are not made but it’s not a parlor trick.

A person can be a prophet of rage; a prophet of justice. A prophet of truth, revelation, social gospel, love or peace. Most often a prophet will be a mixture of all of these things. Prophets may be teachers, preachers, rabbis, clerics, doctors, thinkers or writers. They may be singers, poets, artists or activists. They may be religious or irreligious. Pious or plagued by bad habits. Many prophets don’t live full lives; society has a way of using violence to remove them.

Prophets seek truth, regardless of how that truth will be received by those that hear it. Prophets are consumed with purpose, driven by genuine emotion and spirituality. Prophets have connection to the past and a vision for the future. Prophets seek the advance and fulfillment of the entire group, culture and ultimately of all people. Prophets aren’t figures confined just to ancient history and scriptures. Certainly there were figures from those sources: Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Elijah and Elisha, Amos, Jesus, Paul, Buddha, Muhammad (for many people), etc.  But in more recent history there have been plenty more: Gandhi, the Dali Lama, Dr. King, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk.

We need Prophetic figures, certainly. Yet we need Prophetic Movements and Prophetic Religion for those figures to emerge from (or perhaps start?).  Such a religion, church or movement calls out greed, apathy, disregard, waste, prejudice, subjugation and hatred wherever it sees it. Such a movement seeks justice, equality, love and progress everywhere. Such spirituality is more concerned with people than dogma, spiritual fulfillment than pious regulation, love rather than misplaced judgment. Of course, judgment pours forth from a prophetic movement but rarely towards specific individuals (unless that individual is a political or religious leader) for specific missteps, but rather towards entire cultures, countries and groups (usually from which the prophet emerged from—critique from within) for their lack of effort toward justice, their acts of oppression, their mistreatment of those with the least…almost every single Prophet in history has called out nations for their mistreatment of the poor.

Okay. What brings in the recent article from the AJTP is that it concerns “liberal Christianity,” which other writers have more accurately captured with the name “Progressive Christianity.” Gary Dorrien published “The Crisis and Necessity of Liberal Theology” in the spring issue of the above mentioned journal. He describes the history of liberal theology and progressive Christianity which in modern forms was predominant in many areas of the country throughout the 1800s and up to the 1930s. The great Depression and the culmination of two world wars reduced its popularity at a time when many people wanted a more concrete, definitive, and unquestioning and strictly rooted religion. The modern problem facing progressive theology and Christianity is, to paraphrase Dorrien from his article, that it’s too religious and spiritually minded for our secular friends who we may otherwise share opinions with on the social issues facing us, it’s too full of openness, doubt, searching and interpretation for our more orthodox traditional Christian counterparts, and it’s too wordy, complex and academic for those that are unversed in philosophy, theology and academia. Dorrien noted that most of us enamored with Liberal Theology feel that Progressive Christianity would spread tremendously if only we could express its message more succinctly, truly and simply. Yet, he writes, it’s wrong to think droves would “flock to our doors” if only we could better express our beliefs. Most people DON”T WANT a Prophetic Religion that seeks to address social change and progress. Most people want a religion that acts as a personal security blanket, reinforcing pre existing thoughts, beliefs and prejudices. But as Cornell West calls out for in his writings, we need those prophets to enlighten those that don’t even seek such progress. We’ve had them throughout history and we’ve made great steps in their wake. When they’re not here we grow complacent. Yet as West writes, we can’t look towards a single person speaking prophetically and say we’ve got it. We must have that entire movement. For there surely are voices crying out now that speak the truth that seek to transform communities, culture and countries. In very recent years West himself as been such a person as well as Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Barbara Ehrenreich, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, Marcus Borg…the list can go on and on and include writers, musicians, poets, teachers and preachers who maybe don’t always live in and think of themselves as prophets, but seize certain prophetic truths and address them to entire groups of people in the hopes of causing positive change. Yet we need an energized movement that speaks to more people and inspires them to do more for others; the more people inspired to do even a little more is like water rolling down hill, the work done for others may inspire some of them to get involved themselves. The point is, we live at a time when drastic prophetic social change truly can occur. We’ve been stuck at a point in which it was possible for some time now, yet it really hasn’t happened. Dorrien may be write that Progressive Christianity may never be fully widespread, and that’s okay. If it’s a niche corner, then it needs to be a strong niche corner in which good work is done, truth is spoken and it needs to partner with like minded niche corners in every sector, religious or irreligious, secular and spiritual, political or communal.

It’s not yet August and I’ve already begun thinking about some of what will make my year end best of 2009 music list. The reason? There has been a surprisingly large amount of great new music this year already. If there is as much great material in the last half of the year it’s going to be hard to narrow and rank ten singles and ten albums. As for films, there’s plenty of room on my list for those since the greats usually hold out until the year’s almost up. But music? I’ve raved over Patterson Hoods “Murdering Oscar and Other Love Songs” as well as the new albums by Phoenix, Passion Pit and Morrissey.  Earlier in the year, two of my all-time favorite bands released albums that were okay for me then but have steadily grown better and better the more I hear them – U2’s “No Line on the Horizon” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Working on a Dream.” Two of my favorite ‘00 bands have released live album DVD combos– The Hold Steady and The Drive By Truckers. Green Day put out another great rock opera album. Neko Case released her second flawless album in a row. Steve Earle released a hauntingly good Townes Van Zandt covers record and his son Justin Townes Earl released a great county music album himself. The lead singer of My Morning Jacket, Yim Yames, took time from recording his first solo album to release a George Harrison covers album that is sheer beauty (not to mention the first ever George Harrison single disc career overview, “Let it Roll,” came out this year as well). Mos Def made his return to pure, low-key but high-talent hip hop with “The Ecstatic.” Jay Z and Lupe Fiasco released great hip hop singles to tease their up-coming fall and winter albums. I discovered the indie band “Grizzly Bear” through a performance they gave on David Letterman and found their pop-collage art rock album “Veckameist” to echo Steely Dan and Paul McCartney just enough to bring the listener in through familiarity to discover the most creative and original pop album in years. I’m still digging those Passion Pit and Phoenix albums as well.

You like James Brown? No one really makes jam-heavy, funked out R&B anymore, right? Wrong. “Black Joe Lewis and the Honeybears” left Nashville and went national with their tight, funk rhythms’ and hardcore R&B in “Tell ‘Em What Your Name Is.”  On tour with my favorite current rock band The Gaslight Anthem is British folk rock and singer-songwriter Frank Turner, formerly of the punk band The Milkmen now his own solo act trying to prove modern male singer-songwriter acoustic music doesn’t have to suck. Death Cab for Cutie released “The Open Door”  EP with 4 new songs as good as anything that was on last years “Narrow Stairs.” Wilco, who have never make a bad album, made their most accessible and enjoyable album in ten years with “Wilco (The Album).” A columnist for Paste magazine said not voting for a Wilco album in a top ten list in the 00’s is like passing on a Stones or Beatles album in the late ‘60 and early ‘70s and she may be right.

Then, biggest of all for me so far this year has to be “Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King” by the Dave Matthews Band. Now, I’m not a DMB fanatic. I don’t swap bootlegs and jam to 11 minute alternate takes of “Rapunzel” or anything. In fact, although I’ve always recognized them as good I’ve sometimes thought maybe they were a bit over-rated as to how hardcore of a following they seem to have, like Phish or something. I take it back. I loved “Broken Stuff” back in 2001 because the lyrics and songwriting were so fantastic and the religious observations are always a sell for me. I love some of their live albums for the great multi-layered band Matthews has to show off. But I love every thing about “GrooGrux.” Every song. From the sad sax notes that lead in on the intro (sad in that great DMB sax player LeRoi Moore died in an ATV accident before this album came out) to the sax outro at the end of the very last song.  “Shake Me Like a Monkey” is the best pure, energetic rock song DMB has ever released. “Funny the Way it Is,” and “Dive In” (among others) offer biting, relevant social commentary. The religious observations are back and poignant in “Lying in the Hands of God,” and “Time Bomb.” “Alligator Pie” is pure funk and fun. Every single song is good. I actually had a stack of coupons (I know, I’m cheap) while I was on vacation at a record store and stocked up on a few physical CDs (instead of free or discount downloads per usual) and I’m glad this was one of those because I love the artwork and the booklet/liner notes. I stared at the art and listened to the entire thing through at least twice and it’s been years since I’ve done that with any album. Get this album. There’s not a single wasted moment on it. It’s currently my front runner, but who knows what can happen musically in 5 months.

That’s all for now.