as the Socialist candidate from New York State, in 1904.  He does not win.  Originally from Ohio, Wilshire makes a fortune in real estate investments, farming and gold mines.  Wilshire Boulevard will be named after him when he donates a stretch of land to the city of Los Angeles for that purpose, and the Champs Elysees of L.A. will eventually extend from downtown all the way west to the Pacific.

Where have all the Socialist candidates gone?  Ou sont les Socialistes de hier annee? 

The End of Wilshire Boulevard, at the Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, CA, summer 2007:

    

Our Lady or the Faceless Man in Black.   What's it gonna be?

I suspect the artist intended something along the lines of a stylized madeleine but the truth is from the right angle She really looks more like a stick of chalk or lipstick.  Not to be sacreligious or anything, but that Art Deco aesthetic is not easy to pull off.

As for the Sinister Stranger with the briefcase, he was everything you're thinking: overdressed and out of place, with ominiously shifting features that wouldn't stay fixed or memorable and an unpleasant aura the camera couldn't capture even though he exuded like hot asphalt that unsavory shimmer of negative energy, clearly pissed about having his picture taken, all of which you could sense even from way across the street with a zoom.

And all of which is to bring your attention, Faithful Reader, to a matter of (in my humble opinion) growing concern for us all.  John Gray, author and reviewer, tackles the subject of what I would call (politely) "Faith-Based Government" versus Secularism in the January 08 issue of Harper's Magazine.  "There exists a widespread belief that as people become more modern they become less religious; that the ongoing growth of human knowledge contributes to the development of human reason," Gray writes, "with the result that societies become ever more secular... Nevertheless, recent developments suggest that religion and politics are not as separable as had been assumed."

Indeed.  I mean, I don't know about you, but I admit I'm one of those who (unconsciously?  unwittingly? naively?) had gone about my business assuming that yes, religion (in all its various forms) would eventually cease to oppress, that the yoke and the whip, the rack and other instruments of torture would lose their appeal (as either threats or objects of worship) and the people of the world would be truly free, without fear of fatwah or excommunication, to enjoy the sunlight of the spirit, so to speak.

Well, little did I know.  But Gray is careful not to define the issue as simply as I am tempted to -- in some black and white dualistic showdown between the Devout and the Godless, between the Virgin and the Bogey Man, the Mother of God versus Satan's Atheistic Sidekick, OUR LADY versus THE DEVIL.  Gray focuses on the 'gray' territory, the commingling, the compromises, the complex process of delineating the various ways in which countries like ours (and France, and Turkey, among others) have dealt with religion in politics, and by the way, by no means does the US come out ahead in Gray's analysis.

Really, we're now back to my favorite visual, the Venn Diagram (!) and the question of just how much those two circles overlap.  Because it's that powerful overlap, the convergence, that matters.  If Circle A is Religion and Circle B is Politics, then...  

And here's where I need your help.  Because on the one hand, there are those who argue that sure, religious folks have used their faith to justify violence and the restriction of people's freedom, but "godless totalitarians" have been the worst offenders; the Inquisition pales in comparison to the atrocities commited by the Nazis and Communists.  Point taken.  On the other hand, however, couldn't you make a case for fascism and communism as simply alternative forms of religious "faith"?  Hero worship, as one might say, on a Messianic level?  In which case, the "godless" totalitarian has simply substituted another form of God, sort of the way for example that Henry VIII did when he substituted his own kingly authority as head of the church for the Pope and confiscated all the Church property.  I mean, come on: the motivation wasn't really faith but power, right?

In other words, who and what is included in Circle A which is "Religion"?  Is it anybody's religion or just certain kinds?  I mean, a "journalist" on TV recently referred to Pakistan as a "secular" country.  What does she think "secular" means?  Because you can blame the British for the Partition by which they created a Muslim state, but that's what happened, right?  Or is "secular" the same as "godless" and just code for non-Christian and therefore the failure to be bathed in the blood of Jesus?  Because then the neo-conservative agenda really isn't even about Democracy, because American Democracy becomes code for spreading Christianity and it really does boil down to the Chalk White Mother-of-God Madonna versus the Evil Black Muslim-Jew-Hindu-Buddhist Everybody Else Godless Guy.  And I was sort of kidding about all that, to tell you the truth.

Call me crazy, but seriously, with the possibility of a Mormon or an Evangelical or a lapsed Catholic or god forbid even some godless woman as President, shouldn't we at least be trying to have this discussion? 

Because trust me, I am so aware it's going to take more than a Socialist to save us.