James O'Keefe at the Conference

Tweet

James O'Keefe

As some of you know, James O'Keefe is invited to ChesterTen in August. I am really looking forward to hearing him speak.

So I was distressed to learn this past week of his arrest, along with three other young people, in the office of a senator in New Orleans. Somehow, I knew the immediate press judgments of Mr. O'Keefe and the lack of detail surrounding the story meant that there was probably more to it than met the eye. If the press had asked me (which they didn't) what I thought of the whole thing, I would have said I needed to wait until I had more information.

When the left says tolerance, and keep an open mind, they don't really mean that for themselves, do they? Did they allow their minds to remain open about James O'Keefe? Did they give him any tolerance?

Oh, and conservatives are distancing themselves. Yes, since they asked O'Keefe to give a speech next week when he'll still be under orders to remain at home, since they need a new speaker for the event, the press labeled that "distancing". Yes, that seems fair and tolerant and unbiased of the press.

My first thought was not, "Oh my gosh, the guy who busted Acorn is busted so let's discredit the heck out of him and 'distance' ourselves from him." First of all, we still believe in innocence until proven guilty in this country. Or at least, I do. Apparently the press and the left leaners don't.

My first thought was, Who is this senator, and why were James and his friends interested in her? What's going on in that office? A question I still find inadequately addressed by the press. Her phone's been off the hook? Her constituents can't reach her? Is she ignoring the voices of those she represents whom she disagrees with? What's going on there?

Secondly, I find it amazingly funny that the press runs away with the "wire tapping" story, when there was no evidence of what exactly the young people were trying to do there. I think wire tapping can be done without going directly into an office and asking to look at the phones. Duh! If you were trying to be secretive, would you actually operate that way? Obvious to me is the fact that the boys WEREN'T there to wire tap. Wire tapping, it seems to me, could be done quite effectively in secret. I bet the networks are digital these days. I bet Chloe Sullivan would be able to hack into the system and find out what's going on via the computer. THEN the FBI could trace the hack and someone would REALLY be arrested for "digital wire tapping" or whatever they call it. The fantastic thing is, when someone thought of the words wire tapping, everyone else did, too. And no one stopped to think, oh, wait a minute--I don't think people actually "wire tap" anymore. Or if they do, they don't have to physically go into the office to do it.

So then, could it be possible that until we hear from the four boys, we really don't understand the situation or what they were trying to do? Could that even exist as a possibility in people's minds for a little while? I hear there will be a hearing on Feb 17, I wonder, could we wait till then to find out what it is they were trying to do?

And one more thing. The FBI. Why were they there? I mean, yes, the four were there, and yes, they weren't telephone repair people. But they didn't have weapons, they weren't threatening anyone, they didn't seem to have any violent tendencies, nor did they resist arrest. They didn't appear to have made off with anything of value, nor did they even attempt to take anything. So, the FBI. Again, why? Local police couldn't have come by and asked, What are you boys doing here? Have the FBI been following James and his friends around? Have THEY been "wire tapping" or following them on Twitter or Facebook, or hacking into their cell phones, just to see what they're cooking up next? Hmmmm. Because O'Keefe is so dangerous, exposing government fiscal corruption and senators ignoring their constituents is such a violent crime, I suppose.

Despite the press, I am, now more than ever, interested in hearing from James O'Keefe.

You can listen to a podcast interview where I talked with James here.

Interview with Dawn Eden

See what she's been up to since we saw her at the last conference, she's amazing. You go, girl!

O'Brien writes about the Conference

Kevin O'Brien's exuberance runneth over.

More pictures

First is a long distance shot of Mark Shea giving his talk on Becoming Innocent. Next is David Deavel, almost PhD, giving his talk on Chesterton and Hitchcock. Then a cute shot of the Control Room Guys, Julian, Landon, and Gabriel Ahlquist, manning the sound booth. And finally,
Rod Bennett, who spoke on Chesterton and Frank Capra.

Mark Shea--On Becoming Innocent

This afternoon, Mark Shea, blogger extraordinaire, in fact, once could say, one of the original bloggers, a blogger who began as a bulletin board aficionado, author, actor, speaker and all around nice guy, is speaking on Becoming Innocent.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting Mark's wife Jan.

Mark started out by saying he would talk about what he learned about being Innocent Smith. He spoke about being on the film set, and said the actors aren't the interesting part of the film making. The crew are the interesting part. Joey Odendahl is the man. The one who wrote it and directed it. Odendahl had everything to do with the movie Manalive.

The first thing Shea wonders is how Innocent Smith could possibly stay so fat. He's turbo charged, Shea says, is a compilation of Mary Poppins, who blows in with the wind, and Bugs Bunny.

Innocent is child-like, and has complete trust in God. There is an element in Smith that is terrifying. How does he live? How can he rush around like that all the time?

Shea learned what Spencer Tracey says: Acting consists of the following things--remember your lines, and don't bump into the furniture.

He learned that film making is an intensely collaborative effort, and everyone makes it happen.

Mark has a theater background. In college, he was a theater major for a few years. But he thought it was a rather unstable profession, so he decided to change to a rock solid stable field, and became and English major.

Mark realized that his faith, being a convert to the Catholic Church, and his theater background came together. Because as Kevin O'Brien pointed out last night, theater and liturgy are related. The theater and the liturgy have many parallels, which was so interesting, and Shea spoke so fast I can't relate it all here and encourage you to please get the CDs so that you can hear it all. It was fascinating.

It is a 20th century phenomenon that those we idolize are dramatic actors and in particular, film actors. The theater is the new liturgy. Theater and liturgy prepare us to receive grace. Theater can't deliver grace, but it can prepare hearts to receive grace.

Mark closed with the poem of Chesterton's called The Convert. Maybe you want to look it up and read or re-read it.

Michael Perry--On Chesterton and War

Again, from David Deavel:

Michael W. Perry of Inkling Books was awarded the Outline of Sanity Award for editing and publishing his four books by or about Chesterton, particularly his recent collection, Chesterton and War. His talk enumerated the prophetic predictions and policy recommendations—many of them ignored—that Chesterton made. His prophecies included the rise of Hitler and a second world war while his policy recommendations had in them the outlines of the West’s Cold War strategy, not limited to something that looks curiously like NATO. Perry also spoke about Chesterton’s views on how society should react to false views like cosmopolitanism and pacifism. Chesterton defended freedom of speech without resorting to relativism. He wanted debate because he of his own optimism that truth will come out in the end and rigorous argument was the tool by which it would happen. Perry spiced these points with many of his own views about how Chesterton would react to movements that arose after his death, both political and cultural.

Thanks, David.

Nathan Allen--on Chesterton and Ratzinger

This from correspondent David Deavel:

Deacon Nathan Allen took a stroll through the life and famous quotations of G. K. Chesterton, alternately referring to G. K. Chesterton and “our man.” Halfway through the talk he revealed his trick. When referring to “our man” he had not been referring to Chesterton but to Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, thus revealing certain notable parallels in the life and writing of the two. Allen had been noticing Chestertonian lines in the writings of Ratzinger, the election of the latter to the papacy in 2005 led him to investigate whether Ratzinger had ever quoted Chesterton directly. What he found was that he hadn’t, but that his thought truly was Chestertonian in many respects, particularly the criticism of various forms of biblical “higher criticism,” relativism, and indeed in his sometimes paradoxical descriptions of the life and mission of the Son of Man. Allen concluded that though it was probably fruitless to speculate on what Chesterton would be like as a pope, it is a source of gratitude, and very fruitful, to read the two in tandem. He didn’t use the term, but Allen, who is editing an annotated version of The Four Men by the second half of that odd beast, the “Chesterbelloc,” might consider a book on what we might call the “Chesterzinger”!

Thanks, David.

Rod Bennett--Chesterton and Frank Capra

Rod Bennett is speaking now on the connection between Chesterton and Frank Capra, and in particular, the movie It's a Wonderful Life.

George Bailey is the Manalive, says Bennett. He began by telling us some of his personal biography, the story of his seeing the movie as a fourteen year old. The movie was, it seems, a turning point in his life.

Bennett then gave us a brief biography of Frank Capra's life. He's been described as the cinematic Normal Rockwell. But his life wasn't all a road of ease. He valued education, and loved science, attending CalTech and becoming a bit of a scientist. He even considered becoming a priest. He has written an autobiography, which Bennett quoted from. Capra, during college, left his Catholic religious faith behind, and embraced science, and fell in love with a Presbyterian; although he still attended Mass on Christmas and Easter.

He was given the opportunity, as a scientist, to make a big amount of money as a still maker from the mob. But instead, he was connected with a scientist name Hubble, who got Frank to do some science work on some lights for a film, and thus, he entered the film world.

He quickly began to work in film, and married a woman who was a member of the Church of Christian Scientist. He never became a Christian Scientist. Now it was the early 30s, and he met a man named Miles Connolly (author of Mr. Blue). Capra described him as "violently Catholic". (This reminds us of Chesterton meeting Belloc, doesn't it?) Connolly actually knew of Chesterton and Belloc, and succeeded in getting them to write for his magazine. Connolly was also involved in the film business as a "script doctor". Connolly quoted Hilaire Belloc to Capra on their first meeting.

Connolly determined to bring Capra back into the fold, and he planned to do it with Chesterton and Belloc. Connolly began to goad Capra into using his great talent for a better purpose. Capra was making simple silly films, and Connolly told him is was wasting his talent. Capra described this period of a love/hate friendship time.

The best Connolly scholar, a priest in Boston, says that Connolly's book, Mr. Blue, was a direct response of Connolly's to his reading of Chesterton's biography of St. Francis of Assisi. Another scholar states that Mr. Blue was based on Chesterton himself.

The films Capra made after this period of time all are based on the temptation to faith. Capra continuously felt the pull between faith and science, and his films work out this skepticism. He begins the film with a family and a faith as a hypothesis. Then, he experiments with doubt, despair and tragedy, gets the situation to boil and burn, and find out whether the man will break or survive.

His characters then split into two characters, the idealist and the cynic. The idealist is the good guy, and the cynic is the bad guy. What will happen when their two world collide?

Mr. Deeds is the first film Capra made under the influence of Connolly. Mr. Deeds is based on Mr. Blue.

The reason the world invalidates Capra's films is that he resolves the doubt of the film. His characters doubt, wonder, think, work, and eventually resolve their issues. The modern world doesn't like this resolution, it wants to continue in its doubt.

After his retirement, Capra spent most of his money secretly on Catholic evangelization efforts.

At the end of his life, he made films for the Bell Telephone Company. Our Mr. Sun, Hemo the Magnificent, etc. Bennett says these films are wonderful.

Capra was also influenced by Eric Gill, and claimed he was a major influence in his life, and Gill was the man who designed Gilbert and Frances Chesterton's gravestone.

Pictures from Last Night

Here is the cast and crew of the movie The Honor of Israel Gow: Dale Ahlquist (Lord Glengyle), Eric Kaiser Johnson (the porter), Kevin O'Brien (Father Brown), Julian Ahlquist (Flambeau), Stephen Beaumont (the director) and Eric Genuis (musical score). And Eric Genuis is speaking about the importance of wonderful music for ourselves and our youth, Eric playing the piano, and
Kevin O'Brien speaking on Chesterton and Drama.

Pictures from the common room

Just a few pictures of the crowd in the lobby shopping for books and other Chesterton items.

The CDs

The Chesterton Conference is being taped, however, the tapes will not be available at the conference, as they sometimes have been in the past. As soon as they are ready, it will be on the ACS front page of the website.

Chestertoons

At dinner tonight, I was sitting with Mark Shea, David Deavel, Joey Odendahl, Adrian Ahlquist and having a great time.

Mark Shea, under the influence of the muses of the rest of us, came up with the name for next year's Conference. It will be called ChesterTen. Or perhaps Chester10, I'm not sure because we were only saying it, not spelling it. But ChesterConTen seems awkward.

The fork on our table had a Chester"tine". We know we have some Chesterteens. Any group of singers who sing Chesterton music should be the Chestertones. A group of male singers should be called the Chestostertones. And after some uproarious laughter, we went over to the auditorium, ready to hear Kevin O'Brien speak about drama.

UPDATE: Shea came up with a name for a female group of singers, too. The Chestrogens.

Kevin O'Brien on Chesterton and Drama

Kevin began by talking about working with Joseph Pearce on the Shakespeare production at EWTN, and the young actors who wanted to interpret Shakespeare in the modern way.

He connects Manalive and Innocent Smith's actions as dramatic action. Innocent Smith was a ritualist. He acted out with his body what he felt in his life.

O'Brien brought up Shaw then, and defended him as a friend of Gilbert's, as an excellent playwright. Shaw demanded that Gilbert write plays, with threats and letters demanded that Gilbert write plays. Shaw even wrote to Frances and begged her to convince Gilbert to write plays. Shaw's letters to Gilbert and Frances were quite humorous and persuasive.

Chesterton then wrote Magic. It was a hit, was brought to Broadway. I did not know that Magic was based on a short story Chesterton wrote that is now lost. O'Brien was sure that Geir Hasnes would some day find that story.

Chesterton reviewed his own play, saying the short story was better than the play. Shaw loved it and saw it many times.

A great example of creative irony was the TV show Columbo, which the creators tell us was based in part on Father Brown. At the beginning of the story we see the murder, Columbo figures it out earlier on, and our pleasure comes when we see judgment is brought upon the perpetrator.

Drama springs from ritual. In the English drama, it springs from liturgy. The theater is a festival, joyful, sensational, theatrical. Drama has its limitations, things have a frame. We see a play through a window.

ILN April 25, 1908 In an essay about the suffragettes and the war between the sexes, Chesterton talks about a woman going on a bicycle tour of England. She was exhausted, and sees a cottage. One of the blinds is askew, and she bursts into tears. She wasn't putting that on, but Chesterton goes on to describe people who do put on affectations. It was artificial. The women really felt it, the men, these aesthetes, decadents, thought it would be fun to feel the way women feel when they cry at the blinds that are askew. Actors and actresses like to pretend. They are drama queens. Even in their normal lives. It is playacting, and it has no root, unlike the woman who cried at the blind.

Chesterton applied the same to the feminists of the day. They love to playact at being like a man. Chesterton said that if the suffragettes would, rather than fighting the policemen, would nag for their rights, they would get it.

Drama is akin to ritual. Dramatic action is framed. Drama is festive and fun. Any ritual or festival or play that has not at its root the woman at the blind, or the man with the ribbon in his hair thinks ridiculous, the play must be true and show forth the truth.

The punishment in a drama must be the consequence of the evil act. MacBeth, Chesterton thought, is the perfect tragedy.

O'Brien feels that perhaps Chesterton's best play is the Judgment of Dr. Johnson. He proceeded to analyse this play in light of Chesterton's own descriptions of what makes a good drama.

O'Brien would very much like to have The Judgment of Dr. Johnson either put on as a play, or made into a movie. If you'd like to donate to this cause, please do so.

O'Brien then recited a poem for the restoration of the dramatic arts to long and hearty applause. An excellent speech.

Geir Hasnes

Our keynote address last night was presented by Norwegian Geir Hasnes. Hasnes is the meticulous biographer of G.K. Chesterton's. He very clearly loves this man, calling him "my Chesterton" with true feeling. Hasnes has spoken at several of the last few conferences, and never fails to amaze us with his trifles about Chesterton. One quite memorable speech proved methodically that Chesterton was not fat. I believe this will go down in history. And the subject came up again this year, as Hasnes related some interesting facts about Chesterton's 1921 American Lecture Tour.

Hasnes stated that the lectures were sold out repeatedly, and dates had to be added to accommodate the huge numbers of people who wanted to hear Chesterton. However, in researching this phenomenon, Hasnes discovered that many of these people not only longed to hear Chesterton, but also to see him. Apparently, word of his great girth had created a culture of curiosity amongst the American people, and they wanted to see if Chesterton was as fat as people said. Hasnes related their disappointment at his lack of gigantic proportions, proving, once again, Chesterton wasn't that fat.

In addition to the amazing trifles about the American lecture tour, Hasnes proceeded to lay waste to several other myths about Chesterton. One of these myths is that Chesterton wasn't published or recognized for his writing prior to the prize he won at school for the poem about St. Francis Xavier. Hasnes has found at least 15 occasions where Chesterton was published in school publications.

A second trifle Hasnes unearthed were the books that Chesterton ghost wrote prior to his first book publication. One of these books was titled: Roman Life Under the Cesaers by Emile Thomas.

A third trifle was that Hasnes was able to dispel the myth that Chesterton's fame waned in the later years after his conversion in 1922. This was simply not true. He was written up in Vanity Fair, and international publication, in 1923 as one of the most interesting people in the world.

There is more, but you'll have to read the Gilbert report, so stay tuned. Also, Geir informs me that this information is incomplete. Well, yes, it is because I don't know shorthand ;-) But for more, please see Gilbert, the Oct/Nov issue when it comes out will be all about the conference.

Carl Hasler--GKC and/or Education: Why We No Longer Use Chalk

Trying a bit of live blogging at the conference, since the Pigott Auditorium has better reception than anyplace else I've been since obtaining internet.

Dale just gave a little talk on why everyone should join the American Chesterton Society. If you aren't a member, please consider joining. If you were a member in the past and let it lapse, please consider reenlisting.

Now, let's get to Carl. Carl is a teacher at the Collin County Community College, a place I used to actually live near when I lived in Plano, TX (in Collin County).

Carl reminded us, as we also heard last night, of the meaning of the words Tremendous Trifles, as the 100th anniversary of the publication of that book is what we are celebrating this year at the conference.

Chesterton is speaking of the false ideas of his days, lies proffered as truth. And the problem of education seems, to Hasler, a theme of the book.

Chesterton's ideas about education are so different from what passes as education today. Fads are implemented and the modern dark ages falls upon our children.

The Dumbest Generation is a book which relates this problem.

Chesterton says there are so many wonders to wonder at in this world, it is hard to learn enough about anything.

But today's generation is distracted by the things they engage in: TV, iPods, SmartPhones and computers. Not that each of these things isn't good, but that we don't appreciate them enough.

The new philosophy lies at the heart of the social and political sphere, as well as the education movement. Relativism is its name. These believe in the visible, but not the invisible.

Modern man has confused what causes what. Knowledge is knowing cause and effect.

As the wind blows the trees, so the spirit of philosophy and theology influences the material world: the society, cities, civilizations. A child may think the trees, like some gigantic fans, make the wind. Modern thinkers think the society makes the philosophy. But the real cause and effect, just like the wind and the trees, is that things happen in the sky before they happen on earth.

Nothing can be known if we don't understand what is abstract, what is invisible. We must properly educate the civilization. The truth is the wind moves the trees. the modern thinker says the trees move the wind (that man comes before philosophy).

We can only create a moral world when the revolution takes place, and people realize that the philosophy comes first.

I can't say I agree with Carl when he seems to pit real education against modern technology. He objects to the spending of money on computers in school. But computers are not the problem. It is the philosophy behind the teachers and the educational theories that is the problem.

I think Carl is right that education needs to begin with philosophy, and that the oldest philosophy is probably better than the newest experiments in education.

ChesterCon09

I am here! I just got on the internet for the first time since arriving (blast password protected internet service) and the service is sloooowww.

OK, now that I've got that out of my system, I'm going to post some pictures from yesterday, and let you know that we are having a gloriously fun time here in Seattle.

The next session is about to start, so I'll be back later.

#ChesterCon09

Tomorrow begins the 28th Annual American Chesterton Conference.

If you will be there and Twitter, please use the hashtag (#) #chestercon09 as this creates a searchable Twitter for those interested in following along. Thanks!

I hope to see you there, and if you cannot come, please know that you'll be with us in spirit as we celebrate the life and work of our man G. K. Chesterton.