I'm at work, listening (as I do throughout the work day) to music on Yahoo Launch, which until recently was a great online radio service with pretty decent functionality in their free service. They have since put so many restrictions and obstacles to simplicity on the free service that I feel compelled to respond in one of two ways: subscribe to the pay service (unlikely) or resume bringing in CDs every day for my listening pleasure (likely).

But, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, that's not what I came here to talk about. I want to talk about live rock concerts and how uncomfortably lame some of the performances can be, and why on earth any performer ever thinks it's a good idea to interject spoken commentary into an otherwise tolerable song.

As I said, I was listening to music online when the a live version of "Come Sail Away" by Styx came on. It was never one of my favorite songs, but the tune is catchy and the lyrics are the sort of drug-enhanced sentimentality not uncommon in the mid-'70s. The live performance was remarkably true to the studio version, until lead singer Dennis DeYoung came to this part:

I look to the sea
Reflections in the waves spark my memory
Some happy, some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
(We had dreams!)

HUH? What was that? Only the dorkiest and most embarassing moment I've heard in live music since Jon Anderson of YES employed his contrived and overused cosmic invocation of the song "Starship Trooper" (Anderson to audience: "Starship!" Audience response: "Trooper!" Lather, rinse, and repeat.) Or since Robert Plant ruined a perfectly good performance of "Stairway to Heaven" with the pointless inquiry, "Does anybody remember laughter?"

We all know (or should, if we aren't hopelessly naive) that every note, every word, every movement in a contemporary rock production is planned. I use the term "production" because there are spontaneous moments to be found in live music from time to time, but a good rule of thumb is that the more elaborate the visuals (stage, sets, costume, lighting, special audio and visual effects), the more choreographed the performance of the music itself.

There's a good reason for that, of course. You can't be at the top of your creative game all the time, but concert tours demand just that. So you work it out and then go with what works, over and over, and hope that there aren't too many groupies following you from city to city to recognize that the only deviation from one show to the next is the name of the city ("Hello Saskatoon!") conspicuosly proclaimed by the group's leader to demonstrate how really, really thrilled they are to be performing in your town, as opposed to that hell-hole they played the night before last. If they're smart, they'll remember to change their scripted ad-libs before they come back to your town on their next tour, though the Moody Blues were never able to pull this off in the three times I saw them during the '80s, and it was abundantly clear they had lost their creative edge well before they started releasing singles with lyrics like, "I know you're out there somewhere, somewhere, somewhere."

So if you want real live music, go to a club. Because as my recent experience with internet radio has shown me, live performances are little more than elaborate studio sessions with twice the hokiness and none of the intelligent post-production.

Sometimes I wonder why human history is replete with examples of conflict over religious beliefs. Then I read about such profound misunderstandings of my own religion that I wonder why there isn't even more conflict.

My latest musing began when I ran an internet search of an old friend, Chana Meira Golden, a woman I met more than ten years ago while we were both active in Feminists for Life of America. At that time, she was known by her birth name, Sylvie, and was an atheist soon to become a born-again Christian. A Christian myself (of the Roman Catholic persuasion), I would soon realize I was more comfortable with her when she was an atheist than I would become when she converted. She never said it out loud, but I got the sense that she thought Catholics weren't real Christians after she said that she believed that once you were saved, you were saved for good. Doing good deeds didn't matter, or something like that.

Sylvie was a Christian for probably a few years, and then the next time I heard from her she told me she had been studying for conversion to Judaism. As puzzling as her brand of Christianity had been to me, this was really hard for me to wrap my mind around. But far be it from me to judge anyone's path to God.

Fast forward to today, when I looked up Sylvie, who changed her name to Chana Meira upon her conversion to Judaism. She has a web site now, so I browsed for a few minutes and found this on a page about her spiritual journey:

Even as an atheist, I had known that Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc.) were pagan festivals that the Church had adopted, as a good encyclopedia will detail. It was difficult for me to accept that as a Bible believer I should be expected to actually forego Biblical holy days ("old testament") and to embrace man-made or pagan festivals.

I was floored. How could someone who once claimed to be a Christian so severely misrepresent something so fundamental?

I have always been more knowledgable about the fundamentals of the Christian faith than many who call themselves "fundamentalists," so I thought that perhaps Chana Meira had flirted with Christianity without really studying it. Perhaps her sources for historical context were themselves incorrect. So I began looking online for published explanations of purported pagan roots of Christian holy days. With Easter almost upon us, I began there.

On Wikipedia, I found a fairly succinct entry about Easter that points out that the dates of Easter and the related holidays "are based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews" and that the exact calculation of the dates changed over the centuries as the calendars we used were modified. It also notes that the traditional symbols of Easter were drawn from both Jewish and pre-Christian pagan symbolism:

The religious symbolism of Easter is explicitly Christian, with many elements adapted from the Passover celebration in Judaism—for example, the image of Jesus as the Lamb of God, which is linked to the Jewish paschal lamb. The Christian celebration of Jesus' Resurrection also paralleled pagan celebrations of nature's rebirth in the spring; the traditional customs of Easter eggs and the Easter Bunnys (originally a hare) are both tied to pre-Christian paganism.

Does the adoption and redefinition of pagan symbols mean that Easter is at its roots a pagan festival? For clarification, I thought it may help to examine the holiday of Christmas.

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance posted a page explaining the selection of December 25 to commemorate the birth of Jesus. They note that "the actual birthday of Jesus was forgotten by the early Christian movement" and goes on to examine the various pagan traditions of the time that celebrated the winter solstice as a divine event, mistaken by astronomers using crude instruments to be December 25. "The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day," they note. "So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth." This appears to be an attempt to call attention to an important event in Christianity, the exact date of which had not been retained through lore, by celebrating it at a time when pagans were celebrating something else.

What, then, about Halloween? The Gateway, student newspaper of the University of Omaha, published a short piece on the topic a year ago which note that by "Trying to extinguish the lingering pagan influence in Europe, the Christian Church decided All Saints' Day should fall on Nov. 1 to make it correspond with the traditional Celtic pagan festival of the harvest." As with Christmas, it was decided that a Christian observance would be celebrated at a time when pagans were celebrating something else.

This incorporation of pagan symbols or use of the dates of pagan festivals is a common practice throughout the history of Christianity. Just as St. Patrick is purported to have adopted the shamrock (not a religious symbol, but simply a plant) as a symbol of the Trinity, Christians throughout the centuries, especially in the early years, presented Christian themes at times of the year or in ways that non-Christians would embrace. It was an attention-getter, a conversion tool.

But back to Easter. If it is reasonable to call Easter an originally pagan festival because of the adoption of eggs and bunnies, it is equally as reasonable to call it a Jewish festival because the timing of it was originally based on the lunar calendar used by the Jews. Indeed, Jesus—an observant Jew—was crucified the day after celebrating the Passover; the last supper was a seder.

In fairness to Chana Meira, she is far from the only person to hear something, misunderstand it, and pass along that misunderstanding uncritically. The internet is teeming with urban legends that are propagated by people who believe what they read, and once released they are nearly impossible to reign back in. Just ask George Carlin.

Unfortunately, good intentions don't mitigate the damage that can be done by something as basic as misrepresentation of the religious beliefs and practices of millions of people. As current world events show, that kind of misunderstanding can have deadly consequences. Responsible people should be more wary of contributing to it.

Have you ever browsed online personals? I have, and I only have one question.

Why are so many older (35+) men looking for younger women?

Here's the thing. I've always believed, from personal experience, that young women are more mature than young men. I'm talking about the under-25 group. So when I was in high school and college, and immediately thereafter, I only rarely (twice) dated anyone younger than I was.

But once you become a full-fledged adult, it shouldn't really matter any more, should it? A 30-year-old man ought to be a grown-up and act like one. And in my opinion, that precludes the urge to rob the cradle, like this guy, who at age 45 is looking to date women aged 21-35 ("if you're as old as I am, what good are you?")

Then there are those who are trying hard not to look like cradle-robbers, like this one, 44 years old and looking for someone 25-45 ("hey, I'll tolerate someone who's older than I am - a whole year older!")

Not that I see a problem with a bit of an age difference. My grandmothers were both several years younger than my grandfathers (a sign of their times), and my brother is several years younger than my sister-in-law. As I approach 40, I stick with a simple rule: I will absolutely not date anyone closer in age to my son (19) or my father (63) than he is to me. That leaves about a 10-12 year window either way. I'm really not out to find me a sugar daddy, and I'm smart enough to know that I'd look ridiculous with a 25-year-old stud, not that there's anything wrong with fantasizing. But I digress.

I suspect that men who want some sweet young thing have either self-esteem or power issues. In any case, they've got problems. I would hope most confident, independent women wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. But they're probably not interested in independent women. More likely, they're looking for 1) someone they can control or make into what they want, 2) someone to provide the illusion they're still young and viril (with Viagra if necessary), and/or 3) a baby machine. And the women who would go for them are probably looking for a surrogate father or a meal ticket or both.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm looking for someone who isn't trying to recapture his lost youth. Someone who didn't waste half his adult life in a state of arrested emotional development before realizing that (horror or horrors!) he never got around to doing the world a favor by passing along his genes. Who isn't repulsed by the sight of a woman who has almost as many gray hairs and wrinkles as he does. There are a few online like this 36-year-old, whose desired date would be between 24 and 44. But not many.

No wonder they say that women over 40 have more chance of being killed by terrorists than getting married. Apparently there are more terrorists out there than mature adult men.

Just a quick note to point out that Sgt. Will is back on U.S. soil at last!

Will is a blogger just back from a tour of duty in Kuwait and Iraq. He is the second deployed blogger I've been reading to come home (the first being recently de-activated Navy reservist LT Smash, who upon his return became LCDR Smash and is now known simply as Citizen Smash since his resuming a civilian lifestyle). Reading their overseas stories put a human face on this war and gave insight into a perspective very different from that of either the skeptical bad-news-chasing media or the Pentagon spinmeisters. If any of you have a chance to read active-duty bloggers, I highly recommend doing so.

I am rethinking my quasi-decision not to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Since I last wrote on the topic, I have spoken personally to many people who have seen it and highly recommend it, and to no one who didn't think it was worthwhile.

Admittedly, I all but ignored most of the recommendations in favor of the movie, primarily because they were all ultra-religious and mostly conservative Christians (including several of my own church's most conservative parishioners) and I figured, well OF COURSE they'd think it was wonderful! I just didn't consider their opinions to be, well, unbiased.

But today, one of my co-workers mentioned having seen it and just raved about it, and my manager chimed in that while he hadn't seen it, his wife and in-laws had and they all thought it was excellent too. I asked if they were particularly religious, and it turns out they aren't at all. Sounds like an unbiased source to me.

All of which makes me wonder why so many vocal critics just detest this movie so. If these very normal people, not particularly engaged either religiously or politically, walked out of the theater without disgust over the blood and gore and without blaming the whole sordid event on the Jews, then why are so many other people worried? Perhaps this is a classic case of much ado about nothing.

OK, now I'm pissed.

The Support Our Troops Rally at which I spoke last Saturday in Washington attracted about 50 people. CNN, ABC, C-Span, and the Washington Times were there, and aside from C-Span, which was suppose to run it on tape delay Saturday night (I was too tired to stay up and watch), as far as I've been able to tell only the Times covered it. I figured CNN didn't because there wasn't a huge turnout.

But today, what do I see on CNN.com but a link under "More Top Stores" to an article about an anti-war rally of approximately the same size.

I am speechless.

People never fail to amaze me, especially when it comes to their inability and/or unwillingness to stay on-message and focus on the subject at hand. The most recent example involved a "Support the Troops" rally and the subject of gay marriage.

Last Saturday, I spoke at a rally in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Blue Star Mothers of America. I was representing Operation Free Spike, an organization formed to actively help our armed forces find U.S. Navy CAPT Scott Speicher, a POW in Iraq since the first Gulf War. I took great pains to tie my message in with the purpose of the rally, which is to support all the troops (I made the point that supporting our troops includes making sure we don't leave them behind like we left CAPT Speicher behind).

I can't say the same thing for Niger Innis, national spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality, whose speech began with the proposition that our troops serving in the war on terrorism are protecting not just out country but civilization in general. So far so good, but he went on to say that in order to protect civilization, we must oppose same-sex marriage. The link was a bit of a stretch, I thought, especially considering that there are at this moment gay and lesbian people serving honorably in our armed forces who may be inclined to disagree with Mr. Innis.

Not that he is the first person to draw a connection between issues where none exists. Anti-war protesters do it at their rallies on a regular basis, spending an inordinate amount of time railing about the economic policies of the Bush administration, which you just know they'd be doing whether or not there were a war going on and the war is just an excuse to get more media coverage for their ranting. And I long ago stopped attending the annual March for Life protesting the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decisions, after march organizer Nellie Gray welcomed to the stage an assortment of clergymen, "And I do mean clergyMEN," she emphasized. Deliver me.

The question I always ask in such situations is, "What does this have to do with the price of tea?" Are these people so obsessed that they must abuse any forum and risk alienating people who would otherwise support the issue at hand, are they so self-absorbed that they think anyone who agrees with them on one matter must also agree with them on all others, that they have to ruin a perfectly good event for the rest of us?

Niger Innis wasn't the only person who injected his peripheral political views into the Support Our Troops rally, but he sure was the most gratuitous. Iraqi expatriate Nofel Al-Jazairi waxed poetic about George W. Bush, which you could argue is understandable considering that he was thanking the man who led the war to free his homeland. At least he didn't go off on a tangent about tax cuts. And Arthur Foss of Rolling Thunder, a national POW/MIA and veterans advocacy organization, talked at length about veterans benefits, which is, I suppose, related to supporting the troops after they retire. And did I mention that former U.S. Senator Bob Dole was there? He talked about the upcoming dedication of the national World War II memorial, a recognition of the troops of last century's most important war. And like I said, even I spoke on an ancillary topic, focusing on one particular service member and the one particular way I want people to support him. I can't imagine that any service member would be offended by my request, or that any other American would disagree that we ought to bring a captured sailor home.

There is enough about this war for people to disagree with without giving them an excuse to not support the troops. One blue star mother spoke very succinctly and seemed to respond implicitly to Mr. Innis by pointing out that we were there for one reason and one reason only - not to express support for or opposition to the war or the President or any other issue, but to support the troops. It was simple, but evidently simplicity eludes some.

A couple weeks ago, my mother asked me if I wanted to go with her to see Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. I said yes. On the basis of many professional and amateur reviews I have read over the last week, I am slowly changing my mind.

Let me start by stating what my reasons aren't. I am not concerned with the possibility of an anti-semitic backlash. The television miniseries Roots didn't turn anyone against white southerners and the film Schindler's List didn't promote hostility against Germans -- at least not for people who weren't already disposed to such prejudices. So I presume that anti-semites will leave The Passion hating Jews, just as they did when they walked in, and that this movie will have neither caused it nor could have prevented it.

I don't care what Mel Gibson's religious beliefs are, any more than I was concerned with the religious beliefs of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice when they made Jesus Christ Superstar. Call me silly, but I prefer to judge a production on its own merits, not on the motivations of those who make it.

I am also not bothered by reports that the movie doesn't say anything about Jesus' teachings, his life, or his resurrection. Anyone who expected it would obviously wasn't paying attention to the title, which is not The Teachings or The Life or The Resurrection of the Christ. The passion was a defined event, or rather span of events, involving the arrest, beating, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. No one should be shocked that a film about that span of events would cover the arrest, beating, crucifixion, and death of Jesus.

I am most certainly not bothered by whether the film is historically or biblically accurate. Hollywood didn't insist on such a standard with The Last Temptation of Christ or political docu-fictions like Nixon and JFK, all of which were by every account far less accurate than Gibson's production.

The reason I will probably not go is that I need a very good reason to watch blood and gore. And in this case, I don't have one.

Yes, I am an active and dedicated Christian, or at least I try to be. I attended 12 years of Catholic school including daily religious education classes. I read the bible. I even occasionally read non-scriptural writings about the life of Jesus. I am aware what the bible says about the passion. I am aware of what historians say about Roman practices of justice and punishment. And I believe that Jesus let himself be subjected to it because of love and to redeem all humankind.

I don't need to see Jesus' suffering reenacted in graphic detail to believe. I can appreciate what firefighters risk in the course of doing their jobs without seeing someone being burned alive. I can grasp the wonder of modern medicine without watching accident or crime victims being treated at the trauma center. I'm fairly smart that way. You don't need to paint a picture.

So I don't need to see Jesus beaten to within an inch of his life, only to lose his life anyway, to know what he did for me. I get it already.

And I'm not one of those old-fashioned Catholics who thinks that we need to be miserable to really, really be saved by the Savior. I grew up post-Vatican II, thank you very much, and I find much more meaning in what we do in service to others than what we inflict in misery upon ourselves.

So for me, there's nothing to be gained by seeing the movie. It would be a better use of my time to do something good for someone in need for the two hours I would otherwise spend in the movie theater. I hope Jesus would think so too.