A Show After the Show for Ferguson the Play's Final Closing Curtain

Conservative entertainment provacateur Phelim Mc Aleer held the World Premiere of his  2015 play "Ferguson the Play" in New York City . The drama depicts the shooting of Michael Brown by a greater St. Louis police officer  in 2014 which sparked several days of rioting. This ugly incident which galvanized the Black Lives Matter movement under the ersatz slogan "Hands up, don't shoot."  Mc Aleer wrote the play because he believed that the truth that it was a defensive shooting was not getting out because of media bias buying into a progressive activist agenda.

What made Ferguson the play notable is that playwright McAleer constructed the verbatum theater completely using the released transcript of the Ferguson Grand Jury.  McAleer and director Jerry Dixon worked with a multi-racial cast to put on the controversial courtroom drama  for a short run at the 30th Street Playhouse in Manhattan.

On the closing night, Cedric Benjamin commadeered the stage at the close to voice his displeasure as he thought that the play was unbalanced and biased.





Director Jerry Dixon shut down the rogue actor's rant, but the histrionic polemic spilled out into the street, with actor Benjamin accusing playwright Mc Aleer  of "white arrogance".  




Mc Aleer later praised the director for shutting down the unscripted lecture by a cast member.

It seems ironic that the actor invoked arrogance against the playwright, who raised over  $51,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to mount the production, when the actor could not just say his lines. Mc Aleer deliberately brought Ferguson the play to New York after the cast of Hamilton accosted attendee then Vice President Elect Mike Pence to defy the conceit that conservatives are not welcomed in the New York theater community.

On the first production, which was a stage reading in 2015, nine members of the Los Angeles cast walked off, with one actor claiming that he did not trust Mc Aleer's motives.  At least those thespians were professional enough to disassociate themselves with a theatrical vehicle with which they could not agree.

Ironically, Cedric Benjamin's grand gesture might prove to be counterproductive.  It has drawn more attention to a small production, thrusting it into the news.  Phelim Mc Aleer continues to fund raise over the controversy with an expressed purpose of continuing to perform Ferguson the Play in New York.   Mc Aleer took great consolation that one BLM attendee who attended the play and left shocked and mystified that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was a lie.

Pollster George Barna recently sought to understand why evangelical Christians supported Donald Trump, who seemed to contradict many of their mores.  A large part of the answer is that SAGE-cons (Spiritually Aware Governmentally Engaged) conservatives have great distrust in the mainstream (a.ka. lamestream) media because of biased reporting against Trump that they now use alternate media sources to avoid "fake news".  By banding together on core issues like rule of law,  Barna contends that this 11% sliver of of the American electorate voting for Donald Trump was "The Day Christians Change America" (2017).

The strength of SAGE-cons influencing America was shown more than for Election 2016.  The informal boycotts by football fans of the NFL as they tolerate players who Take A Knee during the National Anthem has severely cut into attendance along with television ratings and is influencing advertisers like Papa John's Pizza to pull back.  Such a motivated minority of SAGE-cons may well see Ferguson the Play as a chance to actuate their ideas and counter the "fake news" phenomenon in entertainment as well as cultural conceits.

Knights of Columbus Picks Up Its Crux

Recently  the Boston Globe indicated that it would be withdrawing its financial support for "The Crux", a website covering "All things Catholic", on April 1st 2016, citing a lack of Catholic advertisers.   But within a week, the Knights of Columbus announced that it would partner with the website so that the Crux could continue to be "Keeping its finger on the Catholic Pulse".

The Crux coverage featured veteran Vatincanista reporter John Allen, Jr., who was respected on both sides of the Catholic spectrum.  When it  began in September 2014, The Crux sought to cover all things Catholic, appealing to active Catholics, "casual" Catholics and those who were just interested in spirituality, religion and Pope Francis.

This new partnership between the Knights of Columbus and The Crux will allow esteemed Vatican reporter John Allen, Jr. and Ines San Martin to continue to report on the Holy See, the Church and religious liberty around the world.

The Knights of Columbus plan to merge their current Catholic Pulse web effort with The Crux.  The hope is that the combination of skills and resources will bolster informed, responsible and fair journalism that sets the tone for consideration of Catholic issues nationally and world wide.

The Knights of Columbus will become The Crux's main sponsor and advertiser but it will continue to solicit appropriate advertising.  There is some consideration that The Crux may allow for co-sponsorship on specific topics which align with the Knights of Columbus and The Crux mission.

When the Boston Globe announced its intentions to abandon The Crux, national reporter Michael O'Laughlin and spirituality columnist Margery Eagan decided to leave The Crux.  Eagan's departure may be fortuitous, as traditional Catholics have been irked by some of her thought pieces, particularly on homosexuality and the Church.

Card. Donald Wuerl dedicates JPII Shrine altar 10/02/15

This is not the only high profile effort the Knights of Columbus have done to preserve and spread the faith.  The Knights of Columbus bought the struggling  John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington DC  for $27 million in 2011 and converted it into the St. John Paul II Shrine, featuring Redemptor Hominis Church, featuring the mosaics of Fr. Marko Rupnik (also the artist of Pope John Paul's II's personal chapel).

I believe that it is good news that the K of C has picked up its Crux, as the New Evangelization requires re-introducing the faith and standing for religious liberty, alas neither of which will occur through the secular mainstream media. 

Between Bluster and Brashness Over the Benghazi Bungle

 

 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th), the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, responded to the Hillary E-Mail controversy on CBS's Face The Nation.



 Some cynics wonder why Chairman Gowdy is now in the forefront about Hillary's sui generis e-mails while heading the State Department, as the Select Committee had knowledge of this practice going back to last summer.  Gowdy is a former federal prosecutor so he is patiently building a case and did not want Ms. Clinton to testify before he had all of the information vetted.

While a litigator in an Article III court wants all relevant information, such a broad request could be framed as a witch hunt or a fishing expedition in the political realm.  So now that there is sufficient public pressure, the former Secretary of State may feel compelled (for continued electoral viability) to "step up" and completely surrender the cyber records and not just feign compliance.

 Chairman Gowdy, who first came to office as part of the 2010 Tea Party wave elections, may distinguish himself between the bluster and the brashness of the District of Calamity by building a compelling case to discern what happened in the Benghazi bungle of September 11, 2012.

But if Gowdy fails to impressively interrogate the former chief of Foggy Bottom, conservative cynics may echo Hillary's last Congressional testimony--"What difference, at this point, does it make?"  Combined with Speaker Boehner's capitulation on DHS funding with a rider excluding Executive Amnesty (which lost 167 Republican votes on final passage), conservatives might wonder if having friends like that in high office whether they need enemies.

Former Secretary of State Clinton claimed that we should strive to figure out why the Benghazi bungle happened.  Could it be due to insecure communications from hdr22@clintonemail.com (or mau-suit@clintonemail.com)?  Or a pattern in the Obama Administration to use backdoor, off official communications, to convey inconvenient truths? It does not seem that it was just Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, as we should not forget the pseudonym Richard Windsor (a.k.a. EPA chief Lisa Jackson ).  So much for the Obama Administration being the most transparent regime ever, as they took their anti-secrecy award in 2011 in a closed door presentation. 

On Internet Argy Bargys and Charitable Commenting

Writing is an avocation for most who have blogs. Without the resources of a Madison Avenue magazine, a blogger is writer, editor and publicist. When a blogger shares his thoughts with the world, it can be a cathartic, but it also a desire to engage others with one’s thoughts. This desire to be read and engage readers can be likened to the philosophical conundrum: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?” 

 In the era of dead tree editions (traditional publishing), a commenter would have to go through the bother of putting a pen to paper and then mailing it to a publication. The editors sifted through the correspondences, selecting the best of the bunch and often editing them for space and content for publication in a future edition. This could take weeks to transpire. 

 Things move much more rapidly in the internet age. One can hurriedly compose a comment and immediately share it with the cyber world. Sometimes vexed writers rush to publish a poison pen reply to a piece before applying common sense and civil decorum. Or an impassioned commenter pushes “Enter” without spell checking or editing a response. 

 As one who writes and maintains a website, I appreciate engaging with readers. Feedback can be useful (and is often incorporated without fanfare). I prize having civil exchanges, even with those whom I do not see eye to eye. However, I believe that in social media that the veil of absolute immunity often brings out the worst in people. From my perspective, it’s fine to use a handle when responding. But a site which allows for unmoderated and anonymous comments tend to quickly degenerate into crude, ad-hominem snark fests which are far afield from the original point. I have no desire to let the lunatics run the asylum, so to speak. 

 When comments are on point, they move the chautauqua of ideas forward. Disagreement can allow for a refining of ideas, even if the internet interlocutors ultimately retain their original positions. I have friends with whom I strongly disagree and can keep honest by exchanging challenging comments. Yet I do neither hold it against them that we differ nor do I fixate on the disagreement. 

 In my experience, when comments amount to a prolonged back and forth between two posters, it loses the rest of their audience as they become indulgent and unfocused. Thus their dialogue should be taken “off line”. So after couple of volleys over an issue when there is an impasse of views, I act as an editor and end the exchanges. 

 Some over-eager commenters perseverate and want to continue “sharing”. I am of the belief that it is preferable to chastise in private. Thus, I will send an email as a courtesy to let the riled up reader why continued comments restating the points will not be published. 

 Another sort of commenter thinks that it is sufficient to damn the published viewpoint and then simply redirect readers to another site. It can be a courtesy to include source material via hyperlink at the end of an argument. But a one word response and a hyperlink is not argument, it’s crass marketing. If you wants to promulgate a position and not engage on topic, attract your own eyeballs. 

 Then there are the self important commenters who thinks that they can dictate how someone else should run his site. Good for them. They can do what they want on their own blogs. So there is no confusion, let me state my editorial rules for comments: 
1) No ad hominen attacks (gratuitous personal attacks without reason for those in Rio Linda) 
2) No profanity 
3) Stay on point