Serena Williams vs. Justine Henin: Rivalry Renewed

Getty

The Australian Open organizers couldn't have written a better script. In the first Slam final of the new decade, 11-time Slam champion Serena Williams, world No. 1 and defending champion, will face off against 7-time champ Justine Henin, the 2004 champion playing in only her second event since abruptly and mysteriously retiring from the tour as world No. 1 -- the only player in history to do so -- 20 months ago.

Serena is gunning for Slam title No. 12, which will tie her with the legendary Billie Jean King on the all-time list. Henin is going for Slam No. 8 which will tie her with Monica Seles on the all-time list and move her past Venus Williams into second place among active players behind Serena.

There's mutual respect and a few vials of bad blood. Henin will never be able to live down her infamous hand shenanigans in the Roland Garros semifinal, which ultimately cost Serena the match and a chance to defend her first Roland Garros title. And after a string of successive defeats in the quarterfinals of Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open in 2007, Serena virtually ran Justine off the tour with a 6-2, 6-0 beatdown in the quarterfinals of Key Biscayne in 2008.

A few weeks ago, when the Sydney draw came out, Serena and Henin were to face off in a potential second-round encounter. But Henin withdrew citing injury. She had just completed a grueling three-set final against her Belgian rival Kim Clijsters in the Brisbane final, so the tennis world would have to wait to see these mulitple Slam champions go at it.

Didn't have to wait too long. Some are calling it a dream final, others a cat fight. Based upon the player's current form, the encounter could be over in an hour. Serena's serve and return are the key. As much as Henin fights, her serve hasn't held up well throughout the fortnight. But her opponents haven't been able to fend off her aggressive return game to hold their own serves.

Serena went through four rounds without dropping serve and it wasn't until nerves overcame her at the outset of her quarterfinal encounter against Victoria Azarenka that she finally surrendered a service game. Several of them. But if she's comfortably holding serve -- she's served the most aces (53) and clocked the fastest serve (126.7 MPH) through 6 rounds -- and breaking serve at will, Henin won't win a set.

But Serena is trying to defend a Slam title for the first time since Wimbledon 2003. And while she asserted in a presser that she doesn't enter events to defend titles but to win them, I can't imagine some nervous pressure won't leaden her feet in the first few games of the match.

Henin, who recently admitted being afraid of playing Serena, could play with nothing to lose or as anxiously as she did against Elena Dementieva in the second round. Either way, her second serve is a wasteland and her penchant for double faulting at the crucial junctures of a match could be her undoing. However, if she's cracking forehand winners with that shorter backswing and earlier contact and wearing Serena down with dropshots, she could take Serena the distance.

Serena leads their career head-to-head 7-6. The American is 4-1 on hardcourts, the Belgian, 4-2 in Slams. They're tied at 2 wins apiece in event finals. Amazingly, this will be their first match in a Slam final and their first match in Melbourne.

Even though Serena has never lost a final Down Under, she's never won the title in an even year. Henin's only Australian Open title came in an even year.

ESPN will air the finals live at 3:30AM eastern standard time. Take your naps, set your alarms, prepare the popcorn and get ready for the fireworks.

::

Cross posted to Huffington Post

Netherlands In The House

A DUTCH journalist put up this blog post today. You can read it in English by clicking on the sidebar. She's writing articles about Dutch people from a certain province in the Netherlands who emigrated to the United States. She'll stay with us for a few days, then she's off to the Michigan and Wisconsin, my native state.

The End of America's Longest War

Another eye opener from a Daily Dish reader:

Earlier this week, in your post “The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama”, you wrote under Point 4: “A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.”

On the one hand I agree with you; on the other hand, you don't go nearly far enough. An Obama presidency means much more than a truce in the 60’s culture war. It means the end of a much older and more terrible war, in which the 60's was merely one battle: the American Civil War. That is what is at stake here.

The Civil War was fought from Sumter to Appomattox, from April 12, 1861, to April 9, 1865. But the roots of the war predated 1861, and the consequences lived on long after 1865. In reality the Civil War never ended, it just shifted from a military to a culture war - the same culture war that is still going on today.

What you call the “boomer warfare” of the 1960’s was part of that larger war, marking the struggle to end Jim Crow, the century-long regime of American apartheid (Vietnam was, in my opinion, related but secondary). The end of apartheid was a second humiliating defeat for the forces of the conservative "South" at the hands of the liberal "North", and it subsequently gave rise to those decades of distorted and irrational politics you so deplore, as the reactionary and fundamentalist forces regrouped and mounted yet another rearguard insurrection against their liberal "oppressors", culminating in their partial ascension to power under Bush. (And we can only hope it ends there, instead of with Palin and the Christian Nationalists in 2012).

I realize this may sound harsh; I do not think Bush is a racist, for instance (quite the contrary), and I am very aware of the progress made in this country since I was young, including in the South; nevertheless, this election is clearly about race, about who and what we are as a nation, as a people, as a family (I would throw California's Prop 8 squarely into this battle too).

So let's be clear - it is not "boomer warfare" which has distorted our politics, or made rational politics so elusive since the 60's: it is something far deeper, something far older, something which has been with us from the beginning in this country, and which we in turn brought with us from the Old World; something which in fact traces back to the very origin of humanity - spiritually, psychologically, politically, evolutionarily. That depth is what gives the American story its pathos and its importance. That is why the world watches us: to see if we can work it out - to see if there is hope.

And that's why January 20, 2009, is so important: the day Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th president will mark the third, and I believe the final defeat of the forces of repression and division in this country, and the actual end of the American Civil War.

How can I be so sure? Because when the American President is inaugurated, it is directly homologous to the crowning of the King in ancient days: the King is the groom, the Nation is the bride, the crowning is the hieros gamos, the sacred marriage. When Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, a symbolic marriage will be enacted, binding us together forever, black and white. We will have chosen to become one. We will have chosen to become family. The War will be over. E pluribus unum.

The whole world will be watching this. You have stated over and over again that an Obama presidency would be “transformational”, even “indispensable”. You're right. And you're right that this is only the beginning. A new chapter is dawning.

Will the old guard resist? Of course. But their power is waning. Providence made sure the better man lost in 2000, and the eight years since have been just enough rope for the old, corrupt right to hang itself.

There's not a whole lot more to say, is there?

Obama Is The Real Conservative

SO SAYS Jeffrey Hart, a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Patriotism

A READER over at the Daily Dish nails it to the wall:

I'd like to add a thought to your post "The Winner," about the Will.I.Am video. You mentioned that it resonated because of eight long years of shame and drift and failure - and no one could disagree with that. But I would add to that reason another - one that may seem hokey to some, but one that is central to the success of this campaign: patriotism.

The McCain campaign and far right detractors have questioned the patriotism of Obama and his supporters from the very beginning, when in fact, patriotism is the very basis for his success.

Obama's campaign simply could not function without an abiding, strident belief in the American people, the American dream, the American way. With two ongoing wars and a coming economic crisis that rivals the Great Depression, what can explain this fervor, this pure optimism, if not patriotism?

Without patriotism, where is the passion, the determination, the conviction that we, in fact, can? Without patriotism, we are left with only fear and cynicism. That video resonated because millions of people (young, disadvantaged - those with more reasons for despair and cynicism than hope and optimism) believe strongly enough in what their country stands for to stand up for it.

Hillary Rodham Nixon

I'VE BEEN calling her that ever since her bungled attempt at bungled healthcare reform attempt back in 1993. I'm surprised Andrew Sullivan took so long.

Spike Lee Says the Right Thing

Spike Lee stands before Danny Aiello, the racist owner in Do the Right Thing

TO NEW YORK Magazine:

What do you think of Obama?

I’m riding my man Obama. I think he’s a visionary. Actually, Barack told me the first date he took Michelle to was Do the Right Thing. I said, “Thank God I made it. Otherwise you would have taken her to Soul Man. Michelle would have been like, ‘What’s wrong with this brother?’ ”

Does this mean you’re down on the Clintons?
The Clintons, man, they would lie on a stack of Bibles. Snipers? That’s not misspeaking; that’s some pure bullshit. I voted for Clinton twice, but that’s over with. These old black politicians say, “Ooh, Massuh Clinton was good to us, massuh hired a lot of us, massuh was good!” Hoo! Charlie Rangel, David Dinkins—they have to understand this is a new day. People ain’t feelin’ that stuff. It’s like a tide, and the people who get in the way are just gonna get swept out into the ocean.

Some folks will say this language is divisive. That it undermines the unity that Obama seeks to inspire. Those folks might have a point.

But there is a mindset among many people that the Clintons are the saviors of Black people in this nation. President Clinton apologized for slavery, after all, didn't he? He was the "first Black president," right? He found refuge in the Black church, even had Reverend Jeremiah Wright come to the White House and pray for him at the impeachment hour, didn't he? He set up shop in Harlem after his second term because he felt so at home, so close to soul food, right? He's always been a friend, his loyalists say, to Black people, despite all the compelling evidence to the contrary, hasn't he?


Reverend Wright stands before Bill Clinton at the White House

But here's the thing: the Clintons have shown in this very campaign that the votes of the Black electorate are expendable. Instead of defending Reverend Wright and the Black Church, the Clintons are pushing the Wright controversy on the nation like Nixon segregationists and Dixiecrats to solidify the racist vote. But what's even more insulting, the Clintons think Black people will come back to the fold en masse should the Clintons succeed with their race baiting and secure the nomination by any means necessary.

Spike Lee has never minced his words. Has never hesitated to air our dirty laundry. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then put School Daze at the top of your Netflix queue. Black people can be complicit in their own oppression. Some call it internalized racism. Others call it the mindset of the House Negro. That's what Lee is talking about here.

And he's right.

This is a huge tidal wave, writes a commenter in the blogosphere. Shaped and hardened by this nation's collective experience. Many people are poised to end up on the wrong side of history, swept aside because of their refusal to embrace this transformational energy. While the number of folks who understand that something special is happening grows, there remains a considerable amount of people who utterly lack this foresight. In the end it will be those who wish to revel in a glory long since passed being washed away by a nation determined to create new foundations for glory yet to be realized.

Clinton's Five Percent Chance

FOLKS in the blogosphere are circulating a petition today asking Senator Clinton to put down her armor and help begin party unification. Almost as if he knew this day of blogging for voter justice was coming, David Brooks cuts through the bullshit and lays bare the truth.

The Clintons wouldn't dare exhibit such self-sacrifice.

The Assassination We Should Fear

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL, associate professor of politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, writes in The Root:

The social death of slavery has cut off many black Americans from our ancestral narratives. During Black History Month we adopt our collective accomplishments and our common heroes as a salve against our lost personal stories. This is critically important, but there is something special about naming your own ancestors and encountering yourself in their reflections.

Yet here in Black History Month, Obama's own black history is being used as a weapon against him. President Bush can traipse around the motherland safely encased in his armor of whiteness. No one can mistake him for a "native". His role is simply to dispatch the White Man's Burden with billions in abstinence-based HIV/AIDS programs and malaria-fighting mosquito netting. In a single photo, Barack can be painted as indelibly tied to a deep and mysterious, exotic and dangerous Dark Continent that produced the shame of slavery and the fear of Islamic radicalism.

Obama is vulnerable. This is the assassination that we should fear, because the Secret Service cannot protect him from it. The voters of Ohio and Texas will have to be the armored vest against these attacks. South Carolina voters soundly repudiated the Clintons for their race-baiting strategies. I believe that Ohio and Texas voters will ignore this revival of fear-based politics and embrace a new direction for American elections.

[via Jack and Jill Politics]

The Mirror Has Two Faces

I NEED TO let off some steam. This diatribe might go on for a minute, but bear with me. I do have a point or two.

Last night's debate between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in Austin, Texas, wasn't all it appeared to be. And it wasn't Obama who proved unauthentic.

I won't summarize the debate here. A quick Google search will reveal countless links in the blogosphere where (over)analysis about what happened can be read.

But I want to point out two points that struck me when watching. The first is that Clinton completely dodged the question about the seating of delegates as something that would work itself out, a nominee would be elected and the party would be unified in its march to taking back the White House.

Pundits took this to mean that Clinton agreed with Obama's premise that the will of the voters ought to be the ulitimate decider and that Clinton wouldn't contest any delegations that had been denied by the rules or fight for a brokered convention where superdelegates would have to decide the outcome.

The second point regards Clinton's much touted closing statement where she reached out to Obama, stating how honored she was to be sitting on the stage with him, and then in John Edwards fashion let the world know that she would be fine with whatever happened in this election. She backed that up with her Bill Clinton moment. If you click here you will also see that Senator Clinton is as much a "political plagiarist" as is Obama by lifting lines from speeches both Edwards and her husband have given. I don't think either Senator Obama or Clinton are plagiarists, but if you're going to call out your opponent for it and then turn right around and do it yourself within the hour....

But anyway.

Many thought her tone in her closing statement was so genuine and conciliatory that she was planting a seed to concede gracefully if she wasn't able to win in Texas and Ohio, her all-eggs-in-two-baskets approach to attempt a comeback.

Viewers took Clinton's words and their apparent meaning quite well. Some thought she might have read this eloquent and impassioned plea from a devout supporter to step aside. Pundits couldn't stop talking about how valedictory her remarks were. Party unification is exactly what we want heading into November. The sooner it happens, the better our chances of reclaiming the White House.

But this morning, Clinton had an about-last-night moment. In an interview with Evan Smith of Texas Monthly that will air next week just before the Texas primary, Clinton informed us:

There’s been a lot of talk about what your campaign would do should it get to the convention. Would you commit today to honoring the agreement made earlier not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations?

Let’s talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that’s an important distinction. I did not campaign--

The press seems to have missed the distinction if that’s the case. The talk is that you agreed not to seat the delegation.

That’s not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

So your intention is to press this issue?

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It’s in large measure because both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that.

I try not to bash Hillary Clinton because she's a brilliant and determined woman who's taken more than her share of irrational criticism. But this about face turns me off just as I was thinking about warming up to her.

No wonder why she dodged the delegate question and then got all warm and fuzzy at the end.

I don't know that I've ever seen a presidential campaign so duplicitous in my entire adult life. One pundit called it schizophrenic. I'll buy that.

Either you're going to be negative and divisive or you're going to be positive and unifying. She's trying to do both things at once and it's pure folly.

Here's my thing: If she were that concerned about enfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida then why didn't she protest against the DNC, whom she practically owned, before she started losing, and tell them to take their rules and shove them? She calls herself a fighter, battled tested and ready to take on her opposition. Well, why not fight for what you believe among your allies?

Because she thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday with no plans to do anything beyond that.

I despise entitlement.

All potential presidents must have huge egos and a thirst for power. I get that. Can't rule a nation without it. But being addicted to power for power's sake and trying to wrest it and keep it at any and all costs is simply not what I'm looking for in the next leader of the mess this country is facing.

I think it's time for Senator Clinton to look in the mirror and get real.

A commenter who went by West_Virginian_in_Texas had this to say: "I don't agree with this tactic and I told a Clinton staffer that yesterday at the Watch Party. However, this Obamamania has gotten a little out of control, and I fear it has become more of a bandwagon to be a part of history than a reasoned decision."

I couldn't hold back anymore, so I responded as follows:

The only thing that has gotten out of control is the media's coverage and perpetuation of the myth of "Obamamania." As Obama himself pointedly stated, it's an insult to him, his supporters, his voters, his endorsers.

Somehow only those who support Hillary have reason, and yet when confronted with stuff like this, she's defended at all costs.

Enough already.

You know what's really out of control? The cult of the Clintons as America's Democratic Royal Family.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton.

There's the rivalry right there in two words. That's what this election is all about for the Clintons. They want to even the score with their rival Republican Royal Family at the expense of what's best for the nation and it goes against everything they say about being in it to bring about change for the American people. But then again, she announced at the very beginning that she was in "it to win it." Enter the senator from Illinois. When victory wasn't achieved quite as she expected, well, here we are.

I'm fed up with the American political stage being hijacked for 20 years by two families determined to fight out their personal and professional battles.

Texas vs. Arkansas.

Enough is enough. Close the curtain.

I hope the voters in Texas and Ohio and Vermont and Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, etc... haven't been duped by Hillary's duplicity, jump off the Clinton bandwagon of entitlement and just due and cast a vote for real change.

Obama Wins Democrats Abroad Global Primary

HOW FITTING. Just after rebutting someone's notion that Obama had no substance by reminding him that a person without substance couldn't have gotten this far on words alone; that without substance, a person couldn't inspire people in a place just beneath their navels; that some of those are leaders around the world who are looking forward to a chance to work with him on global matters which can only improve America's perception around the world, I found out that Obama won the vote of Democrats abroad with 66 percent of the votes cast to Clinton's 33. The delegates awarded so far are 2.5 for Obama; 2 for Clinton. There are more to be distributed at an April convention. I guess that makes it 11 in a row.

[Hat tip to The Daily Dish]

Shameless Promotion

If you enjoy reading this blog, please consider taking a few minutes out of your time and giving me a shout out in the appropriate categories for the 2007 bloggies. Best lgbt blog, best writing, best kept secret... you know, whatever you see fit. I'm not picky. And nominate your other favorites as well. In fact, if you are promoting your own blogs, tell us about it in the comments section. Or tell us about other blogs we should take a look at, no matter their topic(s). Nominations close soon, so get right on it.

This is the infinite Internet. I have no delusions of grandeur about my chances for this blog or my other one (I said I was shameless), but hey, I can ask for a little word of mouth, can't I?

Thank you in advance for nominating me. Thank you always for reading me.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Jennifer Hudson: Very Best Supporting Actress

Today is StinkyLulu’s Supporting Actress Blogathon. My winner is:

JENNIFER HUDSON’s performance in Dreamgirls is stunning. I had high expectations going in; she surpassed all of them. As Effie Melody White, the Dream who is unceremoniously booted from the group because of her big voice, big body, and bigger mouth, Hudson breathes life into her archetypal character as if she was born to play the part. We all know that the American Idol also-ran has a set of pipes that can raise the roof off a church, blow right through the walls. And oh, but no. It’s not just her singing, which is nothing less than superb (think young Aretha crossed with established Whitney, add of touch of Lisa Fischer and mix it all with God’s favor), but also her acting that indicates with a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work, this young actress is here to stay.

No superlative will do her justice. The look of raw and open vulnerability on her face at the beginning of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going” was like nothing I’ve ever seen before on celluloid. It elicited spontaneous sobs throughout the audience, and the rest of that scene left me unable to breathe. I was reminded of Barbra Streisand’s closeup rendition of “My Man” at the end of Funny Girl, but still, Hudson moved me even more. Every time she sang, I was in awe.

It was hard at the time to imagine that anyone could be in more awe than I. But I seem to have been mistaken. S.T. VanAirsdale from over at The Reeler had this to say:

Then there’s Jennifer Hudson. The American Idol alumna was one of 780 women Condon saw for the pivotal role of Effie, the voluptuous Dream who endures one (literal) setback after another before Foxx’s Curtis—also her lover—sends her packing. Effie’s reaction song, “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going,” became a Broadway standard not long after the stage musical found its stride (Jennifer Holliday’s historic version at the 1982 Tonys is now even a YouTube standard); onscreen, it retains its dramatic imperative while surging with tear-jerking catharsis. Hudson is exceptional throughout the film, and her handle on these five minutes is virtually beyond description. It’s willful, vulnerable, dynamic, more than star-making, really -- it’s the stuff of instant legend. I hate sweeping extremes like what I’m about to say almost as much as I hate musicals, but I have thought about it and I mean it when I say Hudson’s performance signals the greatest debut by an American actress in my lifetime. The accolades? Deserved. The applause in movie theaters? Legit. It’s truly, truly phenomenal. The woman may not have been able to win a TV talent show, but she’s pretty much a lock to win an Academy Award.

Hudson is a natural. Her screen presence electric. The rest of her remarkable debut was nuanced, intense, comedic, broad, quiet, electric, and superior to anything in the movie.

And the movie is sensational.

And a brief note on the murmurs of category fraud percolating about the blogosphere. In Dreamgirls the music and the music industry are the main characters, the protagonists. That’s what the archetype is about. All the human characters support them. So even though Jennifer Hudson steals the movie (and how could she not with that gift-from-God voice who sings most of the great anthems), she is a legitimate supporting player.

If Miss Jennifer Hudson doesn’t win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress on Sunday, February 25, 2007, they should simply stop giving them out altogether.

The Curse of Effie?

Tis the Season

TO GET all caught up in awards hoopla. I’ve already begun, as you can see here and here. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending how I spin it, awards season coincides with the beginning of the tennis season. I’m probably more obsessed with tennis than with anything else in life, but alas, it’s a healthy obsession that has led me to start my very own tennis blog recently. And tennis fanatics are more demanding than cinephiles. With so much to write about on both fronts, I won’t be sleeping much. It doesn’t help that the tennis season begins in Australia, so I’m going to throw my sleep patterns out of whack in just a few days.

But I digress.

I’ll be taking part in Stinkylulu’s Supporting Actress Blogathan on January 7. At the crack of dawn, I’ll post my thoughts on this year’s most compelling performance by an actress in support of her star. I’ll give you one guess who I’ll be blogging about. But know knows, I might surprise with more than one entry. It should be fun to see who all the bloggers write about and which actresses get several nods.

A Book Meme

I GOT this from Terrance who got it from Rachel. According to Terrance, neither of them tagged anybody, so I'm going to jump on board.

1. Find the nearest book.
2. Turn to page 123.
3. Go to the fifth sentence on the page.
4. Copy out the next three sentences and post to your blog.
5. Name the book and the author, and tag three more folks.

Here goes...

Once you forgive yourself, the self-rejection in your mind is over. Self-acceptance begins, and the self-love will grow so strong that you will finally accept yourself just the way you are. That's the beginning of the free human.

From The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book by Don Miguel Ruiz. One of my favorite books indeed. My sister-friend Gail called me up and read me excerpts of the book, exclaiming that even though I had found my biological people, she had found my spiritual people. She'd say, "This guy sounds just like you!" and read another section. The book helped me navigate the complex process of relating to my birth relatives. Coincidentally, the hard cover edition of the book, the one I own, was published in 2001, the year I found my birth family.

Now I had three books sitting on my desk and I didn't want to choose (three sentences, three books: why not?), so here's the second:

I feel like I'm drowning. The only way out, the only way to fight the waves, is to move up from under them, twisting and contorting, grasping and reaching. With each movement, a new idea, with each new idea, another phrase...or word.

From o solo homo: the new queer performance, Holly Hughes and David Román, editors. Coincidentally, the above sentences happen to be my own. As Spirit would have it, page 123 includes the artist statement for my solo performance skin & ornaments, which the editors were kind enough to include in their book.

And, finally, the third:

The Church had to preserve its doctrines intact, and, like the pure body of the Virgin Mary, it must remain unpenetrated by the false doctrines of the barbarians (many of whom had converted to Arianism). A deep sadness also informed Augustine's later work: the fall of Rome influenced his doctrine of Original Sin, which would become central to the way Western people would view the world. Augustine believed that God had condemned humanity to an eternal damnation, simply because of Adam's one sin.

The last three sentences are from A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong. Excellent read for those who enjoy the history of religion.

I've no idea who I'd tag next. Not that it matters because I haven't the slightest idea how. But if you want to participate, go for it! If you don't have a blog, feel free to post your quotes in the comments section.

tags: books, performance art, religion, spirituality, theater