Learn From It

Hollywood isn't as brave as it thinks it is.

Hollywood isn't as bold as the right thinks it is.

Hollywood isn't as blunt as some of us think it should be.

To show clips from Brokeback Mountain where it's largely each male lead with their respective wives instead of with each other is cowardice.

To paint Crash as something other than an overwrought interpretive dance about reality is crass.

Brokeback Mountain is distruptive not because it tries to make a Statement About Love, but because it doesn't make a statement.

“Show me, don't tell me” is the first rule of story. Some might say it's the only rule and the rest are corollary.

Rightwingers out there were going to criticize the Oscars one way or another. Since everyone expected Brokeback Mountain to win, they were all focused on how Hollywood supports the gay agenda and is “out of touch”. Now, I suppose, they'll find something else.

But who ever expects Hollywood to be in touch? The Chronicles of Narnia is somehow an “in touch” kinda thing?

I mostly agree with George Clooney in his acceptance speech that Hollywood has done productive work by being out of touch. Then again, it took until 1993 to come out with Philadelphia and even then they couldn't be buggered to show a real relationship between two men. AIDS had been around for too, too long even then.

And it took them until 2005 to show real passion and love between two men, something else that's been around for a long, long time.

All that said, I'd rather have a Hollywood that is out of touch and demands that we follow towards a Utopia, rather than a Hollywood that regresses to an “in touch” martinet that is nothing but an echo chamber for the status quo.

That road leads to stagnation...and to LiveJournal.

Technorati Tags
Academy Awards
Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney
god of biscuits
godofbiscuits
Oscars

Posted by Jeff at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I've seen some crazy shit in the (supposedly) conservative blogosphere, but I finally found one that left me speechless (I know!) for quite some time.

This one had to do with the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

But first, I'd like to exercise my rights as one of the “Moonbats” in this darn “reality-based” world I live in and give some perspective about the bombing:

• perhaps in excess of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the U.S. occupation
• there are multiple religious groups in conflict in the ruins of Iraq
• the U.S. troops are spread thin and don't seem to be very effectively keeping the peace
• the Golden Mosque is one of the holiest Shiite sites in the region

The last point bears repeating: so holy is this mosque that the entire country is in danger of a full-scale civil war. For all the “bleeding heart” accusations the Rightwingers make about the Liberals, for all the contorted heart-wrenching the Progressives have done over so much death, so much injury, so much violence, so much fear, so much hurt, the fine, fine folks at blogsforbush.com post an entry entitled, More Bad News for Democrats, an offensively myopic and rabid notion that the Democrats might consider it “bad news” if a civil war in Iraq is avoided.

Yes, so horribly perverse they've become that they can't even celebrate the hope that civil war might be avoided! Instead, they try to paint it as a bad political turn for Democrats.

They're humanity stretched to its lower-limits. They couldn't find a realistic perspective with both hands and a flashlight.

Delusions of grandeur and intense paranoia might explain the rightwing blogosphere's behavior, and maybe they've become this way because they're starting to understand that keeping power requires more finesse that seizing it.

In any event, I can't avoid the overarching sense that they're simply despicable.

Technorati Tags
georgewbush
god of biscuits
godofbiscuits
golden mosque
iraq

Posted by Jeff at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Agnus Dei. That's Latin for Lamb of God, did you know?

In 1985, there was a movie whose title was a play on those words. Actually, first it was a play whose title was a play on words. It was called Agnes of God.

Anyway, Agnus Dei is Jesus. Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus Is Lamb.

It's difficult to overestimate the effect that ol' Is-Lamb has had on the Western world (even though some would claim the entire world).

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the whole Microsoftian embrace-and-extinguish approach to non-Catholic cultures. The Reformation, essentially a cell-division of Catholicism into enemy Christian factions leading to all-out wars in Spain and the Netherlands and just about any other place you can think of—any other place in the West, that is.

Is-Lamb is almost everywhere in the West. It's the “almost” that really pisses off the flocks of followers. Almost isn't enough. They want it all because all is an absolute and absolutism is the only thing that matters. The rest is just relativist crap. The rest is the not-Good. The rest is Evil. There's a certain syllogistic elegance to it all, in their illogic “thinking”.

Is-Lamb is to blame for so much good and so much bad. Is-Lamb has brought unity, and the idea that there's something more than a given moment or a given individual to consider. Is-Lamb can be blamed similarly for nonpareil violence throughout history, that which stems from Absolutist Illusion.

Only it's not just Is-Lamb that aligns all the ecstatic energies of its followers into the fire that drives the crucible that removes the so-called impurities, is it? It's any dogmatic reverie that finds traction in the reality-based world of accident and time.

The Ideals must be expressed! Is-Lamb wants us all heterosexual and applying our genitalia to only state-approved tasks. Is-Lamb insists, moreover, that it own the reproductive apparatus of each female. Is-Lamb wants your babies so that it can continue to feed on a never-ending stream of humanity. Is-Lamb wants and needs, takes and feeds.

Is-Lamb does violence, just as Islam extremists do violence. Is-Lamb is more insidious, more clever, more covert in its violence. Is-Lamb has learned to adapt and pervert itself in order to continue to exist in its multi-cultural environment.

Islam hasn't yet had to adapt.

Is-Lamb sips where Islam gluttonously gulps. Is-Lamb obstructs where Islam extinguishes. Is-Lamb institutionally cuts you a thousand times with the paper pages of the Bible while Islam individual extremists resort to scimitars.

Is-Lamb knows there is no reflexive relationship: it does unto others whatever the hell it will with impunity. Islam suffers from a conscious form of absolutism.

Is-Lamb knows that it cannot literally and absolutely interpret its own texts, act upon them thusly, and expect to survive in a multiculture. Islamic extremists have yet to get over their own xenophobia and join the rest of the cultures of the world, much less try and survive in the face of all of that.

Frank Herbert once wrote:

Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: “I feed on your energy.”

Is-Lamb sits back and slowly nods the head atop its massive bureaucratic body, knowing that real wisdom lies in context, not fervor.

Technorati Tags
christians
frankherbert
god
god of biscuits
godofbiscuits
is-lamb
islam

Posted by Jeff at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rightwing Christians are suddenly anti-censorship, since it suddenly suits their own selfish purposes to take that tack. Dear me, moral relativism! I'll hold my breath for them to start supposed naked breasts and erect penises on primetime broadcast television.

Remember how up in arms the Christians got because of these works of art? The only difference is that here, with wide and varying access to differing points of view (enjoy it while it lasts, folks) helped to temper and mollify, diffuse and expand.

Technorati Tags
pisschrist
mohammed cartoon
godofbiscuits
elephantdung
virginmary

Posted by Jeff at 09:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

1. In San Francisco, when one man takes another man into the woods and shoots all over the other's face, we call that a Trick.
   
   
2. Saying “Dr. Pepper” when you really had beer is like going into a gay bar wearing a t-shirt that says, “I'm only here doing research.” I'm sure that for him, being drunk is “just a phase”.
   
   
3. How much do you wanna bet that Dick Cheney was sure to burn the dress that had the beer stains on it? (I'd go for more, but I don't want to even think about what passes for a Texan Bohemian Grove.)

Cheney was quoted as saying, “You can't blame anybody else” about the shooting. But who's really blaming anyone but you, Dick? Eighteen hours happens to be quite long enough for anyone to piss out whatever alcohol they were drinking. But you know, if that's your story, just be make sure no one finds a way to do an end-run around your story, have your friends tell the press that you did have “one cocktail” (which is up from “no cocktails” in the original story) after they took you friend to the hospital.

But then again, what kind of message does that send to [cue crying violins] the chilllllldren! when you take a drink to calm your nerves? That drugs really are ok to use as a coping mechanism?

Funny thing, when you've created such a privilege for yourself that you can be the head of the US Government (let's not kid ourselves) and still expect people to “do as I say not as I do”. On second thought, there's really nothing at all funny about it.

Technorati Tags
cheney
godofbiscuits
whittington

Posted by Jeff at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Leave it to that shrill bitch to pour gasoline on a fire.

She calls for all blogs to participate in a “blogburst” to post all the “forbidden” cartoons. “Forbidden”? God, if I didn't hate that bitch's self-loathing rhetoric so much I could applaud her for her sense of theatrics. Instead, it's just histrionics.

Malkin and the crazy right wing blogbursters—the selfsame people who accuse the progressives of being “blog-addicted”—are purely, puerilely hostile. They're not speaking freely, they just want dissenters to shut up.

And for all the posturing in this country about the sanctity of ____, and the fear that the Christians are being plowed under and are “under attack” by the larger American society, she sets out to be the biggest cunt she can be by espousing the tactics she sooooo deplores in others.

She's counting on the irrational pleadings of hyper-religious leaders as the sole source of information in order to accelerate the violence and extreme religious reaction.

All of this, you stupid bitch Michelle, is called hypocrisy.

Freedom of speech is one thing, a sacred thing if that parlance is more organic to you. But crying fire in a crowded moviehouse isn't free speech, it's hostility.

Technorati Tags
mohammed cartoon
michellemalkin
blogburst
godofbiscuits

Posted by Jeff at 05:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Christians get a bad rap; hell, I give Christians a bad rap. While my aim was true, the blast radius tended to be a bit too large: I included too many of the Christian individuals in my slamming of the Christians Who Speak And Politic Too Much.

Truth be told, I was raised Catholic, my family are all Catholics. Mass-going, Communion-taking, tradition-respecting Catholics. And they're all more than just ok with me, they love me. They accept the bio-diversity and/or socio-diversity that produces homosexual individuals. My partner Sam isn't my “friend” Sam, he's just as much a part of the Barbose clan as my sister-in-law Karen or my soon-to-be-sister-in-law, Jessica. Sure, my parents had expectations from their children which were in line with what the Catholic Church wanted: marry a Catholic girl and have lots of Catholic babies who will grow up to be Catholics who marry Catholics and have lots of Catholic babies.

And so on.

I remember telling my Mom on the phone after I came out to her that the hardest part of coming out at all is the loss of expectations. Everyone, when they're young and living in the 'normal' section of society (belonging there or not) has a set of expectations for how their lives will play out. And most people's expectations in NormalLand tend to be very similar to one another. In this similarity is the tacit assumption that there's really nothing outside that small population of expectations, and that to fall outside the ±2 standard deviations of Median Normal was to fall off a cliff and be forever an outlier.

Alas, I geek too much.

The Silent Majority of Christians are out there, I'm certain of it. And, there is evidence in the numbers that go with the movie Brokeback Mountain that people like a good love story over and above the circumstances and traits of those whom the story is about.

In returning the favor, in relaxing about Christianity, in setting aside the politicos who falsely fly under the banner of Christianity, in paying attention to those authentic Christians out there, in choosing story and talent (Aidan Quinn, Susanna Thompson, and, OMG, Ellen Burstyn), I have very much enjoyed the experience. It is just a TV show, after all is said and done.

I have never really lived my life as a contrarian. Not to the Catholic Church, not to Christians, not even to Republicans. Sure, I go up against each of those groups, but if you look back, you'll see that it's in response to something they've said or done (or both). For instance, because Pope Panzer says stupid things about homosexuals and homosexuality doesn't mean that I deplore my very Roman Catholic mother.

So I wasn't automatically predisposed to dislike The Book of Daniel because it was about an Episcopal priest. Not even because Jesus was in it!

On the contrary, the trailers and ads for the show—which, granted, got seen only because I caught images of Aidan Quinn in a Roman collar while fast-forwarding through commercials—were impressive for their originality: honesty.

Nothing cloying and sugary like Touched by an Uncle Angel or Hallmark-cardy like Seventh Heaven, but something involving prescription drug abuse and the nuances of relationships and the reality of gay people in families and politics and how even Churches have to live in the real world instead of the abstract and idealistic world of theism.

Watching the show has helped remind me not that reconciliation between my world view and the majority-christian-worldview is possible, but in fact, that there's very little to reconcile at all!

Those who profess faith in the Christian mythos (def: a set of beliefs or assumptions about something) aren't different enough from me and my particular spirituality when it comes to the things in our daily lives to matter.

I identify more strongly with the main character, Daniel Webster (Aidan Quinn), than I do with the gay son. In fact, I identify more with their particular version of Jesus in the story than with even Daniel Webster!

What's wrong with a mild, understanding, non-judgmental pose? What's wrong with accepting the differences in people while also identifying their strengths and encouraging those while also continuing to understand what might be identified as short-comings? What's wrong with looking and dressing differently to everyone else? What's wrong with patience and meekness even in the face of “Evil”?

I'll answer: there's nothing wrong with any of those things.

These were the things I was taught as a Catholic, and these are the things that remained with me, even as I came to understand myself and my lack of belief in the theological aspects of Catholicism and walked away from it.

Those out there who identify as Christians or Catholics, I have a question for you: am I wrong in any of this, according to your own values? And those who identify as atheists or agnostics? Is any of this off-the-charts crazy?

Technorati Tags
bookofdaniel
brokebackmountain
christians
godofbiscuits

Posted by Jeff at 05:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

The sheer blatancy of Rick Santorum's recent disassociation with the Thomas More Law Center, a “Christian-rights” organization, speaks volumes about the hubris of the American Right Wing. They've always been in a state of denial about the world, but until recently, they've fooled enough people that they could get away with it: there were things that no one would call them on, a space where no foes would enter: the Conservative Sanctum Sanctorum.

On the surface, Rick Santorum's move is inexplicably stupid. He gives every appearance of being a fair weather friend, of changing his mind because he backed the losing whores horse.

What he actually is doing is attempting to set up further support for so-called “Intelligent Design” by distancing himself and ID from the “religious argument”: Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he was troubled by testimony indicating religion motivated some board members to adopt the policy.

Religion and ID overlapping?!? Why, The Honorable Mr. Santorum seems to be surprised by the notion that they're not separate things! What a fellow.

Apparently Santorum will hook up with just anyone without checking out their background. He had an association with the Thomas More Law Center, whose website contains their mission statement, quite easily discoverable. An excerpt:

The Thomas More Law Center affirms the right of Christians to publicly practice their religion and freely express their religious beliefs. Our Founding Fathers fought for a nation built on a foundation of religion and morality. Our lawyers are committed to restoring and preserving that foundation.

These are the folks who were defending the Dover schoolboard's decision to require teaching of ID in science classrooms. So you can see how Santorum would be surprised to find out that people choose ID over evolution for religious reasons.

Personally, I think ID should be mentioned in Science classrooms in its due proportion of scientific merit. If I were a science teacher, I would mention the existence of groups of people who believe origins to be based on Intelligent Design and then offer a summary of their position: God Did It.

And then I'd spend the rest of the school year providing examples and theories and research all supporting evolution.

ID isn't Science. It isn't even anti-Science. It's ridiculous posturing and lying by Christians who should be following their own Commandments.

Technorati Tags
dover
Evolution
godofbiscuits
intelligentdesign
santorum
thomasmorelawcenter

Posted by Jeff at 05:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In my 41+ years, the holidays have meant various things. When I was a child, Christmas was, of course, about presents, about Santa and about going to church to commemorate/celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas wasn't ever really the day Jesus was born, not that I remember; it was just the day we all agreed upon as the day to celebrate or remember the fact of his birth. It was a chance to think about external things to look forward to rather than think about the internal world that I always knew was different to anyone else's.

When I was a bit older—we're still in the pre-teen Biscuit era—my burgeoning fabulousness (and whatever happened to that?) had me saving my Christmas money to go shopping one year, obtaining for myself a 4½ ft artificial tree and an assortment of ornaments: Marie always went with a monochromatic theme on the tree (she was ahead of her time) and I wanted a more “traditional” fake tree. You know, one with strings of tiny multi-colored lights and a round treetop which, also multi-colored, used fiber optic strands to great effect. Tradition also had me adding to the ornaments over time, and eventually replacing the fiber optic treetop with a heat-powered one that rotated and cast disco-like lights all over a dimly lit room. “Tradition” included glass ornaments with fake snow painted on them; icicles made of reflective mylar; bubble-lights and garland that looked like a boa on a Christmas Diva from a Christmas Pageant.

I helped with the decorations. I helped with the cookies (though I had always done that, even since I was very small, helping my great-grandmother). I set up the Nativity scene, a group of figurines cast in clay and handpainted and sold by a neighbor of my grandmother. Quite a little business she had going. I even grouped the white electric lights in such a way that a light-burst shone on the Baby Jesus, although I recall struggling with whether the effect was too-Easter for a “traditional” Christmas display.

Teen years had me trying to talk my parents into getting a live tree instead of the “fake” one.

All through this, I should point out, there was yet another Christmas Constant: our Uncle Bill, who always showed up with the most amazing gifts for each of us. He's not really our uncle, and he's gay (had I known this much earlier in my life, the knowledge would have been the best gift of all) and not the real Santa, but awaiting his arrival was always one of our best traditions, not because of the gifts but because he always commanded a room and had everyone laughing and feeling firmly ensconced in Family.

Another of our traditions is a meatless Christmas Eve. Well, meatless until you went to Christmas Mass. This one comes from my mom's forebears, a Polish tradition. Such starchy and seafoody fare was poverty food at one time; today the palette is a bit different, as are the economics, so seafood includes not only sole, but also scallops. The thin mushroom soup is still made by hand by Mom, still from locally harvested mushrooms (though obviously not the same kind of mushrooms they harvested in Poland) and french-fries are still, technically, potatoes. Oh, and pierogies. My grandmother and great-grandmother always made them, but they're labor-intensive and these days they can be bought from Greek Orthodox Churches with the proceeds going to the Church or to Greek-Orthodox-compatible charities. This is the traditional Christmas Eve family dinner for me. Or was until about twenty or twenty-five years ago, when my father, a self-confessed man of non-letters decided it was the right time and mood and situation for him to write his own prayer of grace over the meal. And this has become the finest of our Christmas traditions; whenever I am not there (as will be the case this year), I call them on the phone and listen in. Perhaps this year the tradition will include live video over iChat and Airport and Mom's broadband connection.

In the early days of the Holiday Season “stealing” the Christmas Season (though, I swear that all of my life—Lo! These 41+ years!—I have seen “Seasons Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” appearing in all sorts of places). I always thought that there was a multitude of ways to greet someone at this time of year, and, in greeting a stranger with a smile and the spirit of the season, it was best not to assume anything. Not that I knew about Hanukkah, but I did know that the Protestants were a wily bunch and that there were subtle differences between them and us “real” Christians (e.g., “what was all that 'And Thine is the Power....' bullshit?”). Good times.

These days, I'm on the other side of the “Seasons Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” kerfuffle. I am not a Christian nor a Catholic (though the Catholics will tell you “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”, I think their global assumptions have a tradition of being inaccurate), but you know what? I like the Holiday Season. I like the little twinkling white lights everywhere.

Here there is no snow, nor will there be. But snow is tradition and technology has created a pleasing homage to snow and icicles in the form of these white lights and other decorations.

At this time of the year there is more good will and more joy. Not because of the Baby Jesus, necessarily, but probably fueled more by the tradition of pausing and holding one's breath as the odometer turns over to the next big chunk of time. We're closing out yet another year where we're still here, and why not get the world all tarted up to celebrate the fact?

Christians aren't happy about the world opening its kimono, though, to allow everyone to join in and be convivial. Not happy with welcoming without malice or expectation those who believe or behave different to their own Tradition.

In fact, we Liberals are accused of being at it again. We're “stealing Christmas”, says the “Reverend” Jerry Falwell.

I, of course, have a tradition of thinking that Jerry Falwell is neither reverend nor terribly “Christian” in his deportment. He's quite the Soldier of the Lord, but somehow, I think soldiering is better rendered unto the world's Caesar than to Jesus. Just guessing.

I, for one, would like to thank anyone and everyone who chooses inclusion over an apposite display of piety, who acts like a Christian instead of just sounding like one.

But most of all, I'd like those who think people are stealing Christmas from them to remember that they, in fact, stole the notion of the Christmas tree from someone else and incorporated it into their own mythology.

Now, maybe I'm just full of shit in this, but I just want you to consider the Christians holding so dear that symbol which they consider a fair and true representation of the birth of a person they believe willingly came to this world, born of a virgin, who would eventually be crucified, died and buried, and who, according to myth, did it for all of us. So! Without further ado, I give you the symbol of the Celebration of the Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ that the Christians of this age so need to protect:

Someone has to protect the original meaning of Christmas, right? But I tell you what: while you're doing that, I'm going to enjoy the lights, and the feeling. And being spared from preaching. And the inclusion many Christians give the rest of us. And including the Christians in whatever they choose to participate in with the rest of us. And the concept of “show me, don't tell me”. And the promise of a new year. And the green of our Winter.

And my father's prayer over us all.

Technorati Tags
Boston
CapitolHolidayTree
christmas
christmastree
godofbiscuits
holidaytree
jerryfalwell

Posted by Jeff at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The Constitutional Court of South Africa has uncovered the Horrors of the Gay Agenda™ and applied them to the South African state:

A democratic, universalistic, caring and aspirationally egalitarian society embraces everyone and accepts people for who they are. To penalise people for being who and what they are is profoundly disrespectful of the human personality and violatory of equality. Equality means equal concern and respect across difference. It does not presuppose the elimination or suppression of difference. Respect for human rights requires the affirmation of self, not the denial of self. Equality therefore does not imply a levelling or homogenisation of behaviour or extolling one form as supreme, and another as inferior, but an acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. At the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society. The issue goes well beyond assumptions of heterosexual exclusivity, a source of contention in the present case. The acknowledgement and acceptance of difference is particularly important in our country where for centuries group membership based on supposed biological characteristics such as skin colour has been the express basis of advantage and disadvantage. South Africans come in all shapes and sizes. The development of an active rather than a purely formal sense of enjoying a common citizenship depends on recognising and accepting people with all their differences, as they are. The Constitution thus acknowledges the variability of human beings (genetic and socio-cultural), affirms the right to be different, and celebrates the diversity of the nation. Accordingly, what is at stake is not simply a question of removing an injustice experienced by a particular section of the community. At issue is a need to affirm the very character of our society as one based on tolerance and mutual respect. The test of tolerance is not how one finds space for people with whom, and practices with which, one feels comfortable, but how one accommodates the expression of what is discomfiting.

Those bastards! How dare they subvert the Will of God[-followers]?

They have no shame. The document also states:

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, accordingly, is not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.

Wow...they've come a long way from the Apartheid State of just fifteen years ago.

I keep thinking about this “activist judges” concept. Considering that the courts don't get to write new laws, only knock down those which conflict with the abstract ideals of our country as laid down in the Constitution, I don't see the opportunity to be an activist of any stripe. In fact, the Judiciary, at least in the upper echelons, is the closest thing to idealism as any government gets.

By the way, the Constitutional Court of South Africa did not vote unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage and order the rest of the government to make it happen within twelve months. There was one dissenter: she wanted the government to make them happen immediately.

Technorati Tags
southafrica
samesexmarriage
godofbiscuits

Posted by Jeff at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)

Move over Britney, you're not the poster-child for penis-vagina-only marriages anymore.

It could be worse, I suppose. The state could decide that the uterus involved was under their jurisdiction and, consequently, decide for themselves the fate of the pregnancy.

But then again, who in their right mind would ever wish the state to be that invasive?

Technorati Tags
abortion
godofbiscuits
probirth
prolife
georgia

Posted by Jeff at 09:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's a strange tack to take, not only pigeonholing the infinite, but then having the audacity to speak on behalf of His Holy Infinity, but Pat Roberts has managed to do just that. Again.

Now, before I launch into this, I should put Pat in some perspective. He's not the only Christian who does this sort of thing. Many other Christians climb their bully pulpits every Sunday and remind their fellow Christians that heathens and the profane should fear the Christians. Not only fear the Wrath of God, but fear, in earthly and malevolent ways, Christians.

And to also be fair, there are an enormous number of Christians, who, despite the hubris and pomposity of claiming to know their Creator's wishes in the first place, are really rather decent, mild, meek, helpful people.

But these days, those people remain silent. Perhaps they've bought into being afraid of not toeing the Christian party line, too?

So Pat Robertson, the sore loser (at least ideologically) in Dover, PA, not only tells the fine, smart folks of Dover, PA—who rightly punished those who wanted to suborn science by removing them from power—that they've turned from God (hey, I thought “Intelligent Design” wasn't about God!), but that God has turned from them:

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city...And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there.

Well! How about that, Dover? You're up shit's creek without a Deity.

<sarcasm>And then there's my good buddy, Bill O'Reilly</sarcasm>.

So miffed was he over Prop I, or rather, miffed over the fact that we San Franciscans approved Prop I, that he's handing us over to the terrorists. It takes him just a little bit of time to get there. First he leads with what each and every one of us who voted in favor of Prop I knew could be the consequences:

You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, “Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds.”

That's how our government forces schools to permit military recruiters: by paying them to do so, or at least threatening to starve them of funding if they don't. I suppose patriotism and sense of duty should be the driving factors, but, whatever.

But then he becomes his usual insane self. You can almost hear the wheels fall off the wagon of his sanity:

Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead...And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Didn't he just commit an act of treason? And more to the point, isn't he going to get stretchmarks? All this from the man who wants his values pushed in schools and will do anything, no matter how unsavory, to make that happen, ranting at a bunch of people who want their values reflected in schools and actually go through a constitutionally-approved, let-the-voters-decide procedure to make that happen? Why, Bill, one might think you're a hypocrite, if you're not careful.

So Pat Robertson hands Dover, PA over to the forces of Hell, and Bill O'Reilly encourages terrorists to blow up San Francisco.

Where are the hoody's and the Vigilante Papists and the Aquinas-brown-nosers and the teen-age martinet-marionettes railing about God's love and how these people should be punished for their moral relativism? Probably we'll hear apologies, excuses, rationalizations, because clearly sacrificing people for their own agenda is more important than the pro-life agenda itself.

Watch, world. Watch how the theocrats decry nothing.

You didn't hear it here first.

Technorati Tags
aquinas
billoreilly
christians
dover
Evolution
fifthsacredthing
foxnews
god
godofbiscuits
humanity
kansas
patrobertson
prolife
religion
sanfrancisco
science
sf

Posted by Jeff at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (0)

Whew!

Some of those nasty state Props were close to passing (although the couple of what I thought were good ones also failed to pass).

Politics is a funny business, where often one is called to speak other than they think (and dare to call that “diplomacy”!). And these days, add to that that one is called to speak and proselytize other than what they believe (when I was growing up as a good Catholic boy, we were taught that that was called “lying”, though today it's just called “doing God's work”).

And what is God's work these days? Well, that depends on who you ask. There are plenty of absolutists about, daring to claim theirs the One True _____, daring to insult, desultorily or otherwise, the beliefs of others as inferior. Their Truth is Everyone's Truth, and to challenge that Notion, well, makes you a moral relativist and Not To Be Trusted!

The strange thing is, when it comes to the domain of opinion, or belief, or supposition, observable fact has very little to do with anything. Which means that Science has no entry point, nowhere to gain traction. So it goes where it will, it does what it does and leaves the opining-believing-supposing to those who need someone else to define their own places in the world for them.

You'd think religion would do the decent thing and return the favor: leave observation, analysis, empiricism, theory and fact to the scientists. But then again, many of these are people who so desperately need to believe in something that they'll go to great lengths to attach their cosmologies to things which cannot and must not ever be proven-observed-experimented! Certainty is the enemy of Faith. Those who talk to God are prayerful. Those to whom God talks back are crazy.

Crises of Faith come from within. Crises in science come from without. That is to say, the only “crisis” science can honestly admit to is the onslaught of outsiders who feel threatened by findings, or by prima donna individuals who place their own ascendancy before the ethic (and hell, the god-ridden have those, too!).

Being wrong, or being not-entirely-correct is not a bad thing in science. Often it's a good thing. Often it's the pudding which supplies the proof that the Scientific Method, the ethic of reproduceability, the mechanism of peer review and the rigors of scientific publication actually work. It makes for better scientists and that makes for better science.

The crises that faith suffers are from those who question openly, and from those who question in their own minds and hearts the veracity of what parents and other people of religious authority have asserted. And get it right, these are assertions. Not fact. Not Truth. They're not even evidentiary, much less proof.

When Science meets the Unknown, there is elation: more to discover!

When the Faithful meet the Unknown, there is one-note: God did it.

Thus armed with the weaponry of Christ go they into the world, a seed crystal of regimented (at least publicly) thought and behavior attempting to fix the world into a conformity that is nothing but replicative of themselves. More of the same, larger crystal. Pretty! Smooth facets and hard vertices. The only self-organization in the world they're willing to admit to.

Never mind the Brownian motion outside their own keeps. The 'theory' goes like this: give up your freedom of thought and belief and think how we do and believe how we do—or die. They'll clench so tight as to force an entire world down the long narrow path of their own neediness-based religion, and to hell with what horrors it creates along the way, to hell with the strife and the difficulty. To hell with fact and observation and rationalization.

Chaos and disorganization and rioting and mobs are useful tools when they happen to someone else. In fact, it's what the faithful have prayed for: praos.

It's the 11th Commandment, the “Godenfreude Amendment” if you will: though shalt delight in the misfortune of the profane and the heretical.

It's the only commandment they enjoy keeping.

Proposition 73, which sought to moralize young women through heavy-handed use of the government (remember when Republicans wanted the government to stay out of people's lives?) machinery, is a terrific illustration of Praos Theory. Make their bodies not their own and let the state have them: yes, dear, we know it's your uterus, but we're going to make our own use of it because we know better.

Praos Theory is the tactic of the Religious Right. Suborn human nature by praying. And show the godless that you mean it by hoisting whatever weaponry you can find as your praying to god makes a big spectacle of it. Offer them a choice: brandish the weapon or be at the business end of it.

Kansas school board fired that weapon because the heretics just wouldn't listen. Science is in crisis there because it's being silenced, or at least being led away from unobstructed search for the truths of our reality.

I hope some Kansas teachers who will be forced to teach the utterly debunked (from a science perspective) “theory” of Intelligent Design, who have been utterly reassured that it's NOT Creationism and it's NOT about God “per se” will remember that the world was created by Zeus and the other Olympians, and that the Hebrew god, like the platypus, was created by Apollo much by accident when he burnt his ass on the Sun as he pulled it across the sky and exclaimed “God Dammit! Jesus Christ on a Cross!”

I know I'll be praying they do.

Technorati Tags
california
Education
Evolution
falliblism
god
godofbiscuits
kansas
naturalselection
peirce
Religion
schwarzenegger

Posted by Jeff at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The huge corporations Republicans One-Terminator has pushed for this expensive special election, putting any number of propositions on the ballot to further entrench big businesses, take away money from schools and actually attempt to create activist judges in state politics.

Isn't it strange that he spends so much time and money putting things in front of the people to know what they are thinking, but vetoes without a second thought, the legislature-approved same-sex marriage bill based on five year old data? Why didn't he put it on the ballot this year, during the special election, so he—a true man of the American people—could find out what the people thought?

He figures that most liberals will not bother voting, but I saw in the paper this morning that voter turnout is expected to be nearly 7 million. I'm going to be sure to get out and vote down some of these heinous things. I love how the Republicans accuse the liberals of social engineering, then crap out things like Prop 73. Stupid, duplicitous assholes.

So get your ass out and vote! Don't let them win because decent people did nothing to stop them.

Technorati Tags
godofbiscuits
Religion
schwarzenegger

Posted by Jeff at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As far as I'm concerned, the existence of Kansas schoolboard members utterly invalidates “Intelligent Design”. I mean, who the fuck would design such unutterably, stultifyingly idiotic morons?

Technorati Tags
Evolution
godofbiscuits

Posted by Jeff at 07:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

I've known for about fifteen years now—ever since I'd met Allen, who then worked for the Midland (TX) Reporter-Telegram—that Texas was ass-full of backward-ass homophobic, racist, gun-toting fuckheads.

And after today's election results, I have quantitative evidence to support that assertion, for about 70% of them.

Dear Lone Star State: you suck.

Technorati Tags
godofbiscuits
samesexmarriage

Posted by Jeff at 07:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Never mind Iraq my low approval numbers Scooter Libby KKKarl Rove Scalito Harriet “Quag” Miers that I'm a moron Fitzmas day the man behind the curtain [ibid. Rove], says our feckless leader, George W. (where dubya is the long form of 'duh') Bush, we have a freakin' pandemic! to worry about!

Well, ok, we don't actually have a pandemic yet, but gull durn it, we will! And after all, the Republicans have an amazing track record on paying attention to the science of epidemiology, population mechanics and the like. Right? Riiiiiight? (is this thing on?)

The idea of being ready for a flu outbreak is a terrific idea, don't get me wrong. But I have trouble believing President Bush on this one, because he's being alarmist at the same time. I mean, it makes a certain amount of sense that if the smoking gun of a viral outbreak is found, then in some sense it's already “too late”. Wait. No. Mushroom cloud. Too Late. Smoking Gun. Prettybirdprettybird!

Ahem.

So he keeps using the word “pandemic”, which actually means:

pan•dem•ic
adjective
(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.
noun
an outbreak of such a disease.

Whereas “epidemic” means:

ep•i•dem•ic
noun
a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time : a flu epidemic.
• a disease occurring in such a way.
• a sudden, widespread occurrence of a particular undesirable phenomenon : an epidemic of violent crime.

The built-in Dictionary.app in Mac OS X Tiger (10.4)—which I believe uses these sources, even goes so far, in notes for the definition of “epidemic”, to make the distinction among “pandemic”, “epidemic” and “endemic”:

USAGE A disease that quickly and severely affects a large number of people and then subsides is an epidemic: throughout the Middle Ages, successive epidemics of the plague killed millions. Epidemic is also used as an adjective: | she studied the causes of epidemic cholera. A disease that is continually present in an area and affects a relatively small number of people is endemic: malaria is endemic in (or | to ) | hot, moist climates. A pandemic is a widespread epidemic that may affect entire continents or even the world: | the pandemic of 1918 ushered in a period of frequent epidemics of gradually diminishing severity. Thus, from an epidemiologist’s point of view, the Black Death in Europe and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa are pandemics rather than epidemics.

And so I have to wonder why the President would use pandemic when clearly it isn't even an epidemic yet? Did he feel the need to politically elevate a potential epidemic to a full epidemic to a full pandemic?

From cnn.com:

“A pandemic is a lot like a forest fire,” Bush said. “If caught early, it might be extinguished with limited damage; if allowed to smolder undetected, it can grow to an inferno that spreads quickly beyond our ability to control it.”

WHAT?

Forgiving for a moment the alarmist misuse of the word, why aren't the Reagan asskissers out there taking Bush to task for insulting the former President's public health policies?

It all reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon, where Linus overhears Lucy telling someone that “Indian Summer” was a ruse created by Native Americans to lull the pilgrims into a false sense of complacency. Linus, tongue out, can only say, “I think I'm going to be sick.”

Is that what you're doing to the pilgrims, Mr. Bush?

Don't get me wrong, I think something like this should be in place. But I also think it should be motivated by people wanting to protect other people, gunning for the ounce of prevention instead of the pound of cure. But this isn't that. This is grandstanding and panic-inducing. This is the same tactic he used to get us into a war. This is motivating by Bush imploding.

When are the pilgrims going to realize he just doesn't care about anything but himself? More to the point, that he can and will climb over the backs of any American to get the brass ring for himself?

When?

Technorati Tags
birdflu
fitzmas
georgewbush
godofbiscuits
H5N1
karlrove
libby
scalito

Posted by Jeff at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't subscribe to schadenfreude. I know that “justice” when visited on one's self, can burn so much more than a wrong accusation.

I don't wish Scooter Libby ill. But I expect that if he did what he did, he'll have to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less.

And as I sit here at home with a fever and feeling yucky and watching all of this as it plays out on television—and doesn't ABC's Bob Woodruff have beautiful eyes?—“nothing more, nothing less” than due process is the theme of the day. Thanks to Patrick Fitzgerald.

He was flatly honest. Blatant in his defense of the law and of the reasons for not disclosing the public, candid in stating that the American public does not understand some things. Flawed in his politesse by using the “negative” words that are so sound-biteable, rough in his eloquence and lack of savvy.

In lacking all those things, he showed something that no one in the Bush administration has shown at all: respect for the process and the law, the balls to admit when he wasn't equipped for something, the willingness to live within the limits of the law, and eager to impose limits on himself and his power for the good of the ethic.

Power attracts the corruptible, and Fitzgerald, while he seems to understand the necessity of possessing certain powers in this case, is clearly not comfortable with those powers lasting any longer than need be.

I don't know if he's politically affiliated with the Demos or the Repubs (since he's DoJ, I'm guessing Republican), but I like him so far.

And when's the last time the Left and the Right had someone all could like?

Technorati Tags
rove
plame
fitzmas
godofbiscuits
libby
scooterlibby
patrickfitzgerald

Posted by Jeff at 02:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some people enjoy the footfalls of syllables and sounds of symbols thrown down the metered hallway of prose; others prefer the lyrical poesy of too many rules applied to too few utterances.

Some escape the swoon of the siren's call of their own voices or the voices of the author or the poet and find meaning. Or at least for value.

Yes, escape from the swoon, a sobering up from the narcotic bliss of Truth! by attaching one's self to the speaker, the writer, the lyricist. He speaks Truth! one may say, falling all over herself to get the sweet misery just right. And up on a pedestal the sayer goes, a ceremonious removal from regular society, from merely mortal minds. A tall and a narrow pedestal, so easy for others to knock over.

The words of the speaker wither whither? To thither, of course, shuttled off to an out-of-earshot echo chamber on a wave of irony, cleaved from the speaker by the sycophants.

It's the thing that probably kept Flaubert up at night for, the reason he was so hell-bent on the separation of Church of personality and State of art.

Today we are asked to accept the writer, the poet, the philosopher, the mathematician, the priest, the saint, the martyr, not on merit but on Tradition. We humans have produced a great many great thinkers, or at least we have noted them. Noted them and whisked them away from Time and Refutability of Person.

Aquinas did not have the option of feeling in his bones the possibility of absence of a god; Gödel did not have supercomputers available to him; Peirce did not have Watson & Crick to rely upon. We do have all those; we are future Kant's and Nietzche's and Tutu's and Ghandi's. I do not puff myself up and suppose I am such a great thinker as Gödel or Russell or Kant or Peirce or Hegel, but neither do I accept that I am ill-equipped to challenge what I think are their shortcomings.

And after all, the Greats did not stand in the shadows of the giants who preceded them, they instead climbed upon the shoulders of such, saw what others priorly did not have available to them, and expounded on the view with their vision.

Shouldn't we all be doing the same?

Technorati Tags
flaubert
ghandi
godofbiscuits
gödel
hegel
kant
nietzche
peirce
Religion
tutu
watsonandcrick

Posted by Jeff at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Subtle thoughts come thronging soft, delicate, crowding rooms of the mind. But only when silence is had. And silence gains purchase only when isolated by a sense of security, something harder and harder to come by in the world today. A luxury so astonishingly costly, at times, that the mind can blank: a different kind of silence, the enforced tranquility of shock, an epinephric dousing.

But no, nowhere to be found is the unobvious. Not found because not searched for, not abided. These soft and delicate thoughts require the utmost care and the air of time to find their way out of complexity and nuance and into the harsh and awkward and desultorily ponderous light of language, then agreement, then broad acceptance.

Who would sit at Philosopher's Table to create? And which of those would labor to champion that which is not so easily seen or so easily understood?

Who might care to show that the not-readily comprehended isn't incomprehensible after all?

When the naked philosophy of tooth and claw is so ragingly insistent*, when the harsher elements of the immediate kick off the velvety festooning tapestries of a kind and decent and decorous and polite society, God makes a fist instead of presenting open arms of welcome. When a surplus of good will is traded for the surplice of a priestly soldier or a surfeit of sacred is traded for the conceit of sanctimony, when the chasuble protects not the child but those acts of the predator upon the child, there seems to be no chance that those who dare...with good conscience and good intent as concomitant companions...to permit their reach to exceed their grasp are given the chance to do so. And how else are we to forgive the future?

Instead, a priori angels swoop in, Votaries of a Lesser Godhead and notaries of a soul-management bureaucracy, offering truculent piety instead of beneficent humility.

Too loud, too rigid, a theopolistic cocaine that regiments the thoughts and focuses them on only that which can be seen, disgarding subtlety and variance, whimsey and caprice, in favor of Normalcy and a labored indifference towards Other.

* from Thomas Wolfe's You Can't Go Home Again

Technorati Tags
christians
fifthsacredthing
thomaswolfe
reading
Religion
writing

Posted by Jeff at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, “activist judges” in a New York Federal court decided that it was ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Now, honestly? Who the fuck in their right mind doesn't already know that religious organizations like the Catholics and, Fundus on the Family and all those kumbaya, hippie/huggie groups like CWA and jodhatesfags.com already significantly discriminate against people they don't like? That I can almost stomach.

But the Federal Court decided today that it also just doesn't matter if those religious organizations also receive federal or other government funding! Thanks, W!

Can't get your Constitutional amendment act in gear to keep the faggots at heel, so you'll just get your judges to chip away at our humanity instead, all the while dumping federal moneys into the cause?

Well, fuck you.

Technorati Tags
georgewbush
godofbiscuits
patrobertson
Religion

Posted by Jeff at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you noticed all the Christians who have been throwing themselves on their swords, giving up their very lives for what they believe?

Me neither.

Have you noticed all the Christians who have been throwing themselves on their metaphorical swords, giving up at least their livelihoods for what they believe?

Me neither.

But Jesus wants, apparently, a strong economy and a strong national defense—he was just having one on the moneychangers in that story—and for abortion doctors to be killed (thou shalt not kill anyone but a “killer”, it would seem). Jesus knew the jig was up with the whole Creation thing, it would also seem, and so wants his shallow and often pedantic crowd to cover for Their Lord in Heaven: Intelligent Design, as supported by clearly learning-impaired non compos non-intelligentsia. Jesus would also like everyone to be able to own semi-automatic weaponry and cop-killer ammunition.

Isn't It Ironic, Alanis?

I'll answer for her, and say, sure, if it weren't so very very sad. They all seem like they're betting on a horse more than being followers of the Biblical Jesus, going all Rapture and End of Days-y on our profane asses and crying Chicken Little one too many times. The sky is, indeed, falling, but not for lack of trying by the “liberal” folks out there to stop and hopefully reverse ozone depletion (they're waiting for Jesus to do it, I guess).

But, Our Lord God of the Biscuits, you say, doesn't God help those who help themselves?

Of course, but like any rank amateur or outmoded anachronism, he didn't cover all his bases. He allowed room for interpretation! Silly goose.

Now he's got a bunch of his crowd loving sinners, hating sins, tending vineyards bursting with grapes of wrath, and otherwise having dialed their focus so off from the original that now everything is upside-down.

I don't blame them, on a certain level, though (think: lions). Sure, Jesus said that if someone slaps your cheek, present the other one to him for the same treatment. Historical Jesus was a hippie, a lover of men (cue the Church pedants apologists academics swooping in here on their I-ain't-no-Monkey's-Uncle-wings to clarify that one to you all), a disruptive force and, dare I say, socially a communist! (you people! drop the needles, drop the camels: it just ain't gonna happen)

Fealty is defined as: a feudal tenant's or vassal's sworn loyalty to a lord and/or the formal acknowledgment thereof.

The religious West has stepped away from its abstractions, from its expansiveness, from its loving kindness and its spiritual hospitality and traded it for nothing more than a mean little corner of the world of humanity, erecting walls around what they believe and then telling you simultaneously that there's no room for you and that you are invited to their table.

Naturally there is a continuum of individuals in any membership—much as the super-elastic inversely-iconoclastic Christian Right would like to narrow and eliminate the spread—and naturally I do not mean to include those who are still abstract and expansive and kind and spiritually hospitable about Jesus or Vishu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whomever their belief system rests its butt on.

I mean those for whom a glint of the verisimilitude of righteousness appears in their eyes when they see the “godless” suffer or the “liberals” falter. There's a sick glee in Pat Robertson when he's blaming the faggots for Hurricane Andrew a few years ago, and in others blaming the “sins” of New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina or telling you outright that god simply hates fags unequivocally or whack-jobs in Eastern Washington desperately arguing with vehement voice that Matthew Shepard was dead from anything—anything in the world! Please God!—other than homophobia gone unchecked.

My friend, Lee, came up with the world for the twisted pleasure these Biblytic monsters derive from the pain of the ungodly: god-enfreude.

It would be funny, if it weren't so very, very true.

Where are those other Christians, by the way? The ones not so Very Right all the time? The ones who should be defending hippie-Jesus from misinterpretation? Someone has to. I think we all are fairly certain by now that God's not coming back.

Technorati Tags
zerosumgame
Education
fifthsacredthing
Religion
patrobertson
christians
naturalselection
Pope
god
godofbiscuits
probirth
prolife
humanity
Evolution

Posted by Jeff at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Fuckyouasshole.

Update: If you're in San Francisco, just heard about this:

Technorati Tags
california
godofbiscuits
samesexmarriage
schwarzenegger

Posted by Jeff at 03:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

California is a wacky place, isn't it?

Not the kind of wacky that lives in Eastern Washington, mind you, but pretty wacky nonetheless.

Take God, for instance (please). It seems that the Unholy State of Things in the Unholier State of California, has “activist” judges daring to proclaim that children should be free of coercion by the government. How dare they?!? Have they no shame? At long last, Sirs, have you no shame?

Activist judges who refuse god. Who refuse to embrace god's statements that marriage shall be only between a penis and a vagina. Activist judges who, decades ago, decided that the tribes of earth should be allowed to intermingle.

And now, they've just gone too far. Now, these California Hippies have said that children have—areyousittingdownforthisbecauseyoushouldbe—the right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

It's like they think Americans have the freedom of their own religion or something.

Hera and Hermes protect us! The Californians have gone mad!

Because, ohwhythefucknot:

I pledged my endtable
Cuz I'm such a fag
And the Unrivaled God of Biscuits
And to the Republicans
Whom we can't stand
Rhythm Nation
Underwear
And flibbertigibbets appalled.

Technorati Tags
california
christians
god
godofbiscuits
Religion

Posted by Jeff at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

You came to this country to show off ornanamental muscles. Style over substance, form over function. Aesthetics over athletics.

Like the cuckoo among nobler, more honest birds, you deceived your way into place. You hooked yourself into the glam slam no-work no-talent ironic celebrity and milked and bilked millions to make your own millions.

Like the cuckoo, you did no real work yourself—you tricked others into building your future for you. And counting on the baser instincts of the mob mentality, you took your recognizability and co-opted yourself an executive position. Still on no-talent. Still with no-work. Still by subverting someone else's machinery.

You, the man who got so much on so little, you who came to this country as an alien but were welcome and were lavished with abundance, see fit to pass the buck, pass the responsibility of fairness, of balance, of equality, back off to the mob of people out there who stab and swipe at fear with their torches and their pitchforks.

But then again, you haven't vetoed such profoundly, humanly important legislation yet, so you may yet do the right thing. Such an in-kind act on your part may open up a bright world for yourself and the rest of us.

Technorati Tags
godofbiscuits
samesexmarriage
schwarzenegger

Posted by Jeff at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)

I hear lines like, “It flies in the the face of natural selection (any hereditary gene for homosexuality would have selected itself out many generations ago). Therefore I ask again, where is the SCIENCE that supports homosexuality?”

Siiiigh.

Maybe I should start a little series of lessons to let these ignorant-yet-bellicose folks in on science's dirty little secrets?

Til then, don't give them too much credit, folks. Don't assume that they've taken basic science plowshares and perverted them into swords of christian kindness. No, they don't even know where to find the plowshares in the first place.

It gets worse, though. They won't actually go look up what 'natural selection' might be, in fact, instead pushing the legwork onto those of us under the onslaught of this kind of stupidity. Ironically, they know there are those who old fact and scientific truth on a bit of a pedestal, so they exploit our care and rigor to keep us busy while they just continue to blather utter nonsense.

Last time I checked, one typically challenged what they knew to be incorrect, not what they didn't bother to understand in the first place.

I guess they figure, if it works for secular conservatives, why not us?

Wait...did I just say “secular conservatives”? Are there any left?

Technorati Tags
Evolution
godofbiscuits
naturalselection
Religion

Posted by Jeff at 03:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Praying works!

I prayed for Tucson in my day, because I was told to by a billboard. Prayed that Tucson—or at least the rest of Arizona—would trade in the stick for a carrot (carrots, at the minimum, are more soft-tissue-friendly!) and stop turning the entire state into one giant prison for all sinners criminals great and small.

Well, I haven't gotten that wish yet, but small steps, right? What I have gotten is this:

From the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson:

Finally, we've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.

Now, it turns out that she's being replaced by one of the martinets fuckheads Murdoch's chattel “journalists” of FOXNews, Tony Snow, but...small steps, right?

Technorati Tags
anncoulter
arizonadailystar
foxnews
godofbiscuits
tonysnow
tucson

Posted by Jeff at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Nods to him for the pointer on this one.

Seems the Pro-Life Pat Robertson is calling for the assassination of another human being.

Think the “@%#$@#$% liberal media” is at it again, making trouble for a humble man of god? Think again. The New York Times starts off its article with this line:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming “a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

“Suggests!” you say! Clearly it's a witch-hunt! Well, it might be, if the Times hadn't quoted Robertson directly, just three paragraphs later:

“We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he [Pat Robertson] continued. “It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

So where's the moral outrage from those self-appointed absolutists? Catholic brown-nosers? Little Calvinists in Papist clothing?

Maybe the Catholics are too busy dissecting the threat of—wait for it—hand-holding during Mass!—to be bothered with calling out murder-threats made by one of their god-ridden own.

But, I suppose, there's too much political loss associated with in-fighting to be bothered with things like a call for murder.

Speak up, folks. Tell us how Pro-Life you are, and what you're going to do, quite publically, to defend that stance.

Technorati Tags
godofbiscuits
humanity
patrobertson
probirth
prolife
rightwing
romancatholicchurch

Posted by Jeff at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

We live in a time of Fear. Not because the world is inherently scary or bad—or good or joyous, for that matter—but because the prevailing politickers are solving for their own gain by subtracting from others. And the only way to rob emotionally is to play the vampire, using fear to snare, fear to compel, threat to swoon and then, prey immobilized, take from them all that you need to survive without ever putting something back into the system.

Multi-color alerts (bad guys are bad and imminent!), rainbow alerts (gay are bad!), amber alerts (the world is bad! we must protect the children as they are our main fund-raising, fear-raising mechanism!), soul alerts (we don't hate you, but we know you're going to hell!) all remind us that you can never be too frightened.

The be-afraiders want you to read books that spell out a future of gloom and doom. They've become parasitic to an End of Days kind of future because only that kind of future supports their current raison d'être.

Paint the future as a Wonder of the Possible, though, and you're a hippie or a communist or a—gasp!—liberal. Paint humanity as something that can achieve, that can find a balance and have respect and all that good stuff all on its own without the Republican Party's help or God's Help, and you're Evil. And they'll call you worse things as time goes on, make you lesser and lesser all the time, make themselves more and more superior all the time—for who isn't superior with god almighty on their side?—and eventually, they'll find a reason to call you soulless. Not human anymore.

That's why Utopian literature is so subversive. Isn't is so sad that things are so bad that utopian dreams are undermining to the establishment?

So, onward, christian lurkers and get thee to a bookstore to get

“The Fifth Sacred Thing” (Starhawk)

If you're not afraid of having your worldview disrupted.

Technorati Tags
fifthsacredthing
godofbiscuits
starhawk

Posted by Jeff at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I love Gary Trudeau. He's one of those guys who knows that “nice” is different than “good”, that polite doesn't begin to make up for material transgressions, and that the stink of hate cannot be covered by a perfume of politesse.

Apparently a bunch of newspapers pulled Doonesbury because one of Trudeau's character's said that Karl Rove's nickname was “Turd Blossom”.

If Trudeau were a self-described Christian and 99 44/100% god-ridden and he'd aimed his intellect at us Evil Liberals, the conservatives would be praising him for using “words of strength” and “calling a spade a spade”.

Christians will tell you they don't hate you, they won't call you a “Turd Blossom”, but off they'll go, trying to hurt anyone who thinks or feels or believes different to what they tell you is god's honest truth.

Technorati Tags
doonesbury
godofbiscuits
karlrove

Posted by Jeff at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In a sky full of people,
only some want to fly.
Isn't that crazy?

— Seal

I'll never ever understand this one. Maybe it's all in the language. I hope so, because if it isn't in the language it almost certainly has to be in the DNA. And I don't want to ever be that hopeless about humanity.

I'm talking about the ability to lead vs. the need to follow.

There are so many out there, just around me, that possess great, if non-obvious, qualities which would make them great leaders. Leaders of people, leaders among piers, leaders of policy, of society, of our own humanity.

Now, it's likely that my anecdotal evidence isn't a random sample, that the people who collect around me, and with whom I congregate, possess this quality in particular, but even so, I can't help but give humanity the benefit of the doubt on this one.

So the world is peopled with leaders? But, Skippy, you say, don't too many cooks spoil the broth? Well, no. Leadership doesn't necessarily work that way. Power does. Power requires the energy of the faithful diverted to unseemly projects. Annihilation is different to predation.

Projects of Self, projects of violence, projects of nothing but gathering more power. Strength is something that doesn't require material traction, but when applied, leaves the world a better place, restoring a certain balance of energy to the system.

The pack mentality is something we've brought with us in our DNA, over the eons of evolving, and under the laws of physics in general about tendencies for objects with mass to minimize their own surface areas: we are more comfortable huddled and hunkered down with friendlies and we'd rather be in the middle instead of at the edges where the enemy can more easily pick us off.

Except that in most packs and herds in most other species, individuals tend not to claw over the backs of other friendlies just to get a better position for themselves.

Those who would claw and scrape and clamor over the backs of their fellow humans just to get a better seat in the pack of humanity, contrapositively, view lack of Power as weakness and just ignore Strength altogether. Deep down they have to know they're backing a charlatan. I hope.

A good leader is what distinguishes a gathering from a mob, and haven't we all had enough of the mob mentality? Clubs with cross-arms on them. Beaded nooses counting decade-and-a-lord's-prayer, decade-and-a-lord's-prayer. Abortifetuses on piked posters paraded around like saints or kings or chairmen (hard pressed to choose the greater obscenity there). Fear Factor: Children and The Future.

It's so much easier to follow, but you end up paying for ease. A debt collects and is collected. Your ease now is someone else's dis-ease sooner or later. A leader knows that. A leader keeps an eye on the bigger picture, the bigger need, the qualities that emerge from the collected-led. The things no single follower might even be able to notice.

Good leaders have Strength. Power is a parlor trick that conflates the user and the used and brings both to a firey end. Power makes demands. Strength creates a space for choosing.

The charlatans will tell you Choice is Bad as they remove your ability to choose. They know they can't continue if you continue to lead your own life and choose your own path. Those with Strength applaud your successes and buffer your failures, knowing full well that success is airborne, contagious.

Lead. Choose. And tell those Power wielders about your own Strength.

Technorati Tags
Evolution
humanity
leadership
Religion
RomanCatholic

Posted by Jeff at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's oddly comforting to know that even a Pope gets treated, in death, no differently than anyone else. First they make you a Saint (or a Devil) and take away your humanity. Nuance goes to black or to white. And then they pile portent and pith on what you've spoken, or they resuscitate what's settled in order to change the nature of the Truth that was Your Life.

When Allen died—it will have been ten years ago next Wednesday—he was canonized by friends and family. It pissed me off that all those subtleties, the thousand things he thought about, the million little nuances that annoyed and delighted me, were all gone with the absolute stamp of a monoclonal remembrance.

And so the Roman Catholic Church herself turns what I'm sure at one point was a somewhat nuanced and quite human creature and manufactures a new Saint. And on a more personal note, Cardinal Poopyhead Schönhorn reverses a clear statement by Pope John Paul II and attempts to refute clarify it in more triumphal formalist fideist politically-expedient hardline terms. Yes, folks, John Paul II, the Pope of the Papists Worldwide, was not hardline enough for today's Romans—and he just died a few months ago!

Evolution is what is at stake. Again. Good, strong Science is at stake. Again. God blessed Kansas with Holy Ignorance and the Church wants a piece of that Blessing for Herself. By drawing such a fine point on the entire matter, Schönhorn undoes what JP2 ostensibly infallibly set out to do—while preserving the ex cathedra infallability of the Office Itself. Pope Panzer must be proud, the Pernicious turned Perspicacious on his watch.

That's a lot of alliteration by a bald Barbose blogging by blathering balefully!

No matter. If I sound bitter, it is perhaps that I have been arguing the wrong side of science, assigning the absolutist moniker to the wrong team: look at the Catholics, the Conservative Christians! They are the real relativists, redefining Science Itself to mean what they want, stealing fact and shwagging it up as ideology, and taking ideology and peddling it as Truth. Except when it doesn't suit. Then they change the nature of Truth itself and call it Absolute while absolving themselves of their own arrogance—all in the name of Jesus.

Life is funny; there oughta be a two-drink minimum.

You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal - except my life, except my life.

Technorati Tags
Evolution
JohnPaul2
Pope
RomanCatholic

Posted by Jeff at 05:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I love Harper's magazine. This cartoon by Mr. Fish:

Oh, and I'm messing around with Technorati Tags.

Technorati Tags: Religion

Posted by Jeff at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

The best things in this world—or at least the most robust and resilient—seem to be those which arise or emerge, forming a new meta-space. Like the power of 10,000 voices all singing the same song. Like 10,000 people having a moment of silence, for that matter. Something arises from below, something new is born. And no single person or thing directed the creation of that something-new.

I remember when the Twin Towers were hit. I was sitting in my living room in San Francisco all day long after it happened. I was home in time to see the second plane hit in real-time. I watched and waited, as did we all. Even though it was in this country, it was still very far away. Even though it was in this country, it was more importantly awful that human beings—and not just American human beings—were hurt and killed.

I was a spectator, tuned into any one of a handful of cable news channels, at the whip-end of the reports. Nearly four years later, technology has made the event of the London Bombings much more of a human event, much less of an over-there event. Click on that link and you'll see what I mean.

Over Here is, of course, over here. But Over There is also over here when people all contribute. It's one world; we're all human beings; we all care in our own ways whether expressed or not.

That page at technorati.com is largely an emergent phenomenon. Technorati gave it presentability and a place to be, but it's an organic thing, growing into what it will not because technorati drives it, but instead from a bubbling up of individual contributions into something heartbreakingly sad, lovely in its humanity.

And humanity's loveliness and tenderness needs all the visibility it can get in horrific times like these.

Technorati Tags: london bombings

Posted by Jeff at 04:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

At home, in one's own bed and bedroom, there are those few waking moments when the world is as it always was. A dependable cadence of days imbues balance and security and constancy to life, so much more than the boring rigor most describe.

The body awakes before the head; the eyes open before the mind opens up and shares its marvelous memory: the gift and the curse.

Those moments can vary from mere flashes up to many seconds, where he's still here and the bed is not empty just because I've left it, where all those horrible, horrible things never happened and life is still companionable and the days along which I trundle are not borrowed from anywhere but his heart, his love. My heart, my love.

Half the house it used to be, and none of the Home. Splendor is a luxury unattainable.

The universe is inverted, tilted, half-empty. Which is the same thing as absolutely not full.

Alone is something comforting in the way that Givens are; it's the way that one arrives and leaves this world. Lonely is quite another: the world has left you.

•••

Baby, where's that place where time stands still?

I remember like a lover can,

I forget it like a leaver will.

It's no place you can get to by yourself:

You've got to love someone and they love you,

Time will stop for nothing else.



And memory plays tricks on us, the more we cling, the less we trust,

And the less we trust the more we hurt,

And as time goes on it just gets worse.

So, baby, where's that place where time stood still?

It is under glass inside a frame?

Was it over when you had your fill?


Here we are with nothing,

But this emptiness inside of us.

Your smile a fitting, final gesture:

Wish I could have loved you better.


Baby where's that place where time stands still?

I remember like a lover can.

I forget it like a leaver will.

It's the first time that you held my hand;

It's the smell and the taste and the fear and the thrill.

It's everything I understand,

And all the things I never will.

— Where Time Stands Still, Words & music by Mary Chapin Carpenter

Posted by Jeff at 01:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I fucking hate dogmatists.

Absolutism carries the burden—no, the requirement!—of Being Right all the time. Every time. No exceptions. That's the rule.

And when you actually are Wrong, what do you do? You hedge, you change the nature of truth, and you claim Truth Once Again.

Bill Frist is on record and on tape as having watched a video of Terri Schiavo and concluding that there was no evidence that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Yesterday, after this,

An autopsy released Wednesday concluded that she had been in a persistent vegetative state and revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

Bill Frist now says he never made any determination one way or another as to her persistent vegetative state.

He and he and they held on, held tight to the notion that she was not in a persistent vegetative state, that she clearly was alive and on the mend, and that everyone else was Wrong Wrong Wrong. All this, despite their being a martinet, an apologist and a bunch of Calvinist Catholic teens, respectively, with no evidence—much less authority—to claim truth.

They, like most of the rest of the Right Wing Machinery, came down on the side of literal life instead of quality of life. Let's call them Quantity of Life advocates, shall we? When Science failed them—as it usually does in their more strident campaigns—they turned to blame. Blame the husband. Blame his “lifestyle”. Call him names. Call him immoral. Those are easy to do, because it's all subject to interpretation, even as they call every last thing as black or white. Black or White.

Never mind that Schiavo rearranged his life to care for his wife. Never mind that he turned down $1M so that he could stay with her and make the decisions. Never mind all of that. He dared move on with his life after it was clear that his wife was gone in all but carcass. That's unforgiveable, right?

As someone who has had a partner die, as someone who never wanted to move on and yet one day, admitted defeat and finally did move on, I think I have at least some personal authority to speak on the matter. Do these people?

Regardless, they speak. And speak and speak and speak.

They were drop-dead wrong about Terri Schiavo, so what do you do when you Must Be Right And Never Wrong? Easy, you go after the husband. Ol' Jeb is investigating the husband, claiming that he waited too long before calling 911.

What total bastards!

They're going to continue to ruin this guy. Why? Because they were made fools of. Because they were wrong and they lack the humility, candor and honesty to admit that they were wrong.

You were wrong, folks. Move on. And leave that poor bastard alone.

Posted by Jeff at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Jackson is innocent of all charges.

Not a surprise to me, because it seemed like all the evidence was circumstantial. Plus, I'm not a dad (well, not a parent...rrrrrrrr), but I know that even if someone was suspected of child molestation, I would not let my kids be alone with that someone. I wouldn't deny him or her work, or human rights, or even friendship, but I wouldn't take that kind of chance with my own kids in leaving them alone and overnight with the guy.

Those parents are all fucks. Why didn't they just name their kids “Paycheck” and get it over with?

Congratulations to Michael Jackson on his acquittal.

Now, how long before foxnews and the other crazies start talking about 'activist judges' and start making blanket statements about how liberals must all be child molestors?

Those crazies are all fucks, too.

Posted by Jeff at 02:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jim Wallis is a pastor who has run The Sojourners, a deeply Christian organization that is involved in politics.

While they're considered a “progressive” group, Jim Wallis was one of the people George W. Bush, back in 2000 as President-elect, brought in with lots of other evangelicals to talk about how he might address the “soul of the nation”. As I said, they are progressives, I can honestly say there's not much I have in common with their motives for doing what they do.

That said, Rev. Wallis has a lot of interesting things to say, in an already interesting article from the New York Times and truthout.org. It's an article written before the last election, but strangely—and unfortunately—it rings that much truer because what was prediction and trend in October 2004 is merely, spookily, reality today.

Rev. Wallis was asked by our faith-based-president, “I've never lived around poor people. I don't know what they think. I really don't know what they think. I'm a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?” That's a shockingly (today) humble admission. How did Rev. Wallis reply? “You need to listen to the poor and those who live and work with poor people.”

Later, after the inauguration, Bush told Wallis and other pastors that America needed their leadership. Rev. Wallis replied, “No, Mr. President, we need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.”

Wow. That's powerful imagery for a powerful concept that many of us have believed for a long time.

But that's not the only thing in which I find fellowship with the good Reverend. From the selfsame article:

 Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance - sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion - deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God - a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.

“Faith can cut in so many ways,” he said. “If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness - that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

”Where people often get lost is on this very point,“ he said after a moment of thought. ”Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not - not ever - to the thing we as humans so very much want.“

And what is that?

”Easy certainty.“

I am not a person of long-throw, Capital-F Faith. There are a bazillion more concrete, more localized things that I have a lower-case faith in—friends, family, my brain, the compassion of others, the family of humanity, eventual equal rights for all, the natural trend in the world towards Better. Not Good, not Evil. Just Better Than It Used To Be.

If I were certain of that last thing, it wouldn't require faith—or Faith. I'd just be certain. It's faith that carries one over doubts to get to the good stuff.

And, Ever Optimistic God of the Chocky Biscuits always has faith—not Faith—that there's always Good Stuff ahead.

Posted by Jeff at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Being 41 years old presents a bounteous set of advantages, if you choose to look at them that way.

For instance, I am old enough to remember when MTV went on the air, even though our shitty cable company didn't carry it then. I'm also old enough to remember when NIN started up.

Both had a certain mystique to them, both raising a counter-cultural middle-finger to Middle America. MTV had bumpers featuring Cyndi Lauper and her multivariate hair, Billy Idol bumpers and quick-cuts and special effects and the little moon man logo. Nothing quite like the feel of something new!

Trent Reznor and NIN kicked America in the nuts with its album, Pretty Hate Machine, and his version of a love song, “The Only Time”, which contained the !@#$!@# awesome lyrics: “Lay my hands on heaven and the sun and the moon and the stars, while the devil wants to fuck me in the back of his car.” Nothing quite like the feel of something new.

Today? What's left of videos on MTV? What's left of MTV itself? Apparently not much: over the weekend, NIN withdrew from the MTV Movie Awards Show because MTV wouldn't allow an image of George W. Bush (which was unaltered and “straightforward”), so NIN withdrew.

MTV says: “[We were] uncomfortable with their performance being built around a partisan political statement”

Trent says: “Apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me.”

I suppose these days, MTV's lack of interest in free speech is a better match for the American public than Trent's.

And sometimes, I suppose, having to remember when youth railed against authority instead of embracing the braces on their brains instead of just seeing it everywhere today is one of the disadvantages to being 41.

Who watches the watchdogs, if the youth won't do it?

Posted by Jeff at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

While Nat King Cole sings 'Welcome to My World',
You request some song you hate, you sentimental fool.
But it's the force of habit: if it moves, then you fuck it
If it doesn't move, you stab it.

Sometimes—oftentimes—it seems like Born Agains only do it so they have license to behave like children again for a little while: when sexual scandal rocks them and threatens to end their righteous reigns of insipid indignation, it's as if the new-child has hit a new-puberty.

Acting responsibly, speaking responsibly, offering up good will and respect to others are all the domain of adulthood; we can't have that, can we?

So rather than weather the storm, instead of choosing to proceed on to adulthood, they go for—you guessed it—being Born Again!

Another go-'round of childishness, churlishness, name-calling. Another go-'round of living a pre-lingual existence where the only notion of truth comes in the incessant and annoying repetition of the same set of clicks and grunts: the more the same pattern of gutterals repeats, the truer it must be. Or standing in judgment with <sarcasm>apposite</sarcasm> display of righteous indignation about someone else's lack of humility.

And they pulled him out of the cold, cold ground
And they pulled him out of the cold, cold ground
And they pulled him out of the cold, cold ground
And they put him in a Suit of Lights

There is no creative act, only creationism; there's nothing new under the sun and that bristles: where is Father God? Why can't He just come down here “again” and show these moral relativists [whatever those are] that He Exists, He Is, and He Is Who Is and settle this, ferchrissakes?

The same old same-old will have to do, the same failure of the imagination produces only still-births, the same overweening, over-preening dogmatism prays for normalcy and for the nothing-special.

There is no sense of the New, only the Rehashed, Reborn, Retreaded. There is no Art or Inspiration; only Ritual and Fervor.

Outside they're painting tar on somebody
It's the closest to a work of art
That they will ever be.

- Words & Music by D.P.A. MacManus

Posted by Jeff at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

The surface where philosophy meets science has always been amicable turf. Both Science and Philosophy tend to approach their respective subject matters with investment not in the outcome but rather the process; rigor over results; the soft, expansive space of better questions rather than a cold, hard slab where concrete answers are laid out like so many corpses.

Both Disciplines start with unknowing and the Unknown, with Zen's Beginner's Mind, and begin by populating the void with what is known, or what can be provisionally known. Both continue with drawing apparent connections, clear relationships between and among the sparse population of objects and ideas and notions, thus creating new objects and ideas and notions: something arises from nothing!

Built on the partially provisional, the Something New holds provisionally as well: a theory is born.

Philosophers may speak of the birth of new meaning; scientists may test the predictive power and the external consistency of the theorem. But both come from the same place: professional humility and an eye on the relative value of the new truth statement. Both groups have learned that with new knowledge comes change; with new thought comes new review; with new evidence may come the need to alter the truth statement to suit: mutability is an honest admission.

Honest admission? More like a necessity: life is change, existence is change. The nature of Truth changes daily. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a theory which works if you start with the axiom: the world is flat and at the center of the universe. Scientists are flipfloppers on the whip-tail knowledge, discovery and the need to make sense of disruptive technology and even more disruptive information.

Philosophers must swim in thought-liquid, afloat on strange tides and even stranger seas compassing drift as part of truth.

Both Science and Philosophy count on process, experimentation, constructive critique and the avoidance of absolutes to go where they must, do what they do, build what they must build and above all, discover what is there to be discovered.

Beginning with the void isn't just necessary, it simply is (and that's a strange thing to say of a void!). Science isn't science with presumption and Absolutes. Philosophy isn't philosophy without free rein of moral, ethical and cosmological territory.

Science with an investment in the outcome is merely Politics.

Philosophy with an investment in its own conclusions has devolved into Religion.

Setting aside Politics and Religion—as I've provisionally defined them—and limiting discussion to Science and Philosophy, the discussion of the origins of life—and the origins of a life—today takes the form of Stem Cell Research.

From a strictly and exclusively genetics standpoint, a new individual emerges when a sexual recombination of chromosomes comes together: fertilization. In humans this means a full single-set of chromosomes from the sperm matches up to a full single-set of chromosomes in the ovum, resulting in a genetically unique new individual.

From a strictly and exclusively developmental biology standpoint, a new organism is instantiated at the same time the genetics folks would state, but fertilization is just a trigger that leads to the construction of an organism eventually capable of doing the only thing it biologically can do: participate in sex. A single individual—in humans and in all species which sexually reproduce—is not driven to reproduce so much as to participate in the mechanics that lead to reproduction This is a fine point that gets lost when answers are all that is sought.

From a philosophical point of view, often the individual is of less interest than the greater picture of collections of individuals: families, groups, towns, societies, nations.

The South Koreans have successfully performed what is known as a “somatic cell nuclear transplantation”. A somatic cell is an cell that is not a sex-related cell. Meaning that sperm, ova and their progenitors are sex-related cells, but muscle, skin, brain, etc. are somatic. What the Koreans have successfully accomplished is to extract just the nucleus (present only in eukaryotic cells, a structure that contains the organismal DNA and has its own lipid bilayer that separates it from the rest of the cell) from a somatic cell and insert it into an embryonic cell, while destroying the embryonic cell's native nucleus.

If we are to take the geneticist as the sole authority on the beginnings of a new life, then the destruction of the native nucleus was the genetic 'death' of that cell. But the Koreans' success means that the cell remained alive.

Since the embryonic cell is now providing replication, protein synthesis and developmental mechanics to a totally different set of DNA, the developmental-biologist, taken at her exclusive word, would state that the organism continued to live, continued to be directed towards adulthood.

The resulting tissues that formed as a result of continued development would be genetically compatible, obviously, with the donor of that implanted nucleus. The not-yet-differentiated tissues could then be implanted into the donor's body, into a specific chemical and physical environment (say, the brain), and that chemical and physical environment would then direct the differentiation of those tissues towards the appropriate end.

Philosophers might argue or discuss the personhood of the donor, but neither the embryo nor the donated nucleus, since those would ever reach cognitive or autonomous personhood.

“Life begins at conception,” say some religious. But they count on the genetic uniqueness of the DNA of the nucleus as the basis for that statement. If the DNA—but not the organismal embryo itself—is destroyed and the religious still have a problem with it, are we to assume that Life Exists in the Nucleus? Now they're starting to sound like strict geneticists, when the world knows they're anything but.

And the so-called Soul? Did it exit and go to its reward when the native nucleus was disrupted and destroyed? Did the Soul transfer to what would genetically and essentially be the donor's twin, born decades after? Or is the modified organism without a Soul? And if so, does that make it the purview of Satan? Or just Soulless? And if Soulless, then how can a religious type call it human? And if it's not human, then why do they treat it as anything more than a cheek-scraping of cells from the inside of someone's mouth or a wasted bolus of sperm from a masturbating man?

The crime, the sin, in their minds is, of course, the destruction of that native nucleus.

The philosophers will consider individual uniqueness and the respect thereof as it applies to the greater human condition; the geneticist has it easy and delineates cleanly and without hesitation; the developmental biologist might applaud the superior technique that resulted in a successful nuclear transplantation.

Will the religious retreat once again from its current, relative stake in the ground of the Sacred Embryo and move ever more precisely into the Numinous Nucleus as the Momentous Miraculousness of Life?

For my part, part geneticist, part developmental biologist, part philosopher, part thaumaturge, I will enjoy watching the experts react to change, watch the religious pull up stakes and leave Absolutetown only to settle into Absoluteville just down the road apiece. I will enjoy the calm grace of philosophers as they note the beautiful shifts of reality as we stake claim to more knowledge, and I will watch the true scientists continue to revel in their work, settling one question and moving onto the new questions that they themselves created.

Posted by Jeff at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So, the U.S. House of Representatives wants to bar females from direct ground combat. Why, you ask? Well, why not is the only reply you're going to get. Never mind that some women are physically more qualified than men. Never mind that men get tortured, too, and sometimes at the hands of women. Sometimes men get raped too, when captured. Apparently, it really comes down to a vagina and a few bazillion extra X-chromosomes. In other words, no dicky no fighty.

And then there's the paragon of modernity (not), the good old Roman Catholics. This time, in Alabama (who let the Catholics in in Alabama?). Specifically, an RC high school banned a student from attending her own graduation ceremony. Why? Because she's pregnant. Guess what? Girlfriend attended anyway, and at the end of the ceremony, walked across the stage by herself, announcing her own name. She was cheered by other students; her aunt and mother, also in attendance, were escorted out by police.

My favorite part of the whole shebang:

Cosby was told in March that she could no longer attend school because of safety concerns, and her name was not listed in the graduation program.
The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation.

Roman Catholics? Roamin' Consciences, more like it.

Posted by Jeff at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (147) | TrackBacks (1)

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is demonstrated that the nose knows.

The studies found that gay men's and straight women's brains react similarly to any one (or more) of a number of candidate compounds known as pheromones.

• Score one for science and genetics.
• Score one against the silly notions of Intelligent Design.
• Especially score any number of points against all those religious types who call homosexuality a sin, a choice or Against God's Plan.

Now, maybe President Bush's appointee to the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs can find a pheromone to blame for the abuses (including anal rape!) he perpetrated on his wife and the mother of this children, so that he can have a clear conscience the next time he writes a book about Stress and the Woman's Body or his care of women As Jesus Cared for Women. Will the hypocrisy ever end?

That wasn't rhetorical. You know it's not going to end. You know that the Christians will start searching for their own excuses for extraordinary behavior because this whole god-thing can't last forever.

Speaking of...maybe there are pheromones or other biological triggers that lead us biological individuals to obsess on Invisibles, Unattainables and Absolutes?

Maybe the Supreme Designer will come down and become visible, make himself accessible, and hang the universe off his Giant Ego?

Naah, that has a certain bad stink to it.

Posted by Jeff at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Yeah, I'm still on this kick. Only the oddball rodents aren't the ID-ers themselves but rather a new species entirely of mammal that was just discovered.

The good people of Laos call them kha-nyou (pronounced “ga-nyou”) and were discovered at market by scientists visiting Laos. After much deliberation and experimentation—all evidence gathering, something the IDer's refuse to do—they concluded:

Scientists found that differences in the skull and bone structure and in the animal's DNA revealed it to be a member of a distinct family that diverged from others of the rodent order millions of years ago. “To find something so distinct in this day and age is just extraordinary,” said Dr. Robert J. Timmins of the Wildlife Conservation Society, one of the discoverers. “For all we know, this could be the last remaining mammal family left to be discovered.”

I wouldn't personally go that far, but I'm also never been that kind of scientist. Still, it's totally fascinating that something so new was discovered in such a common place. A marketplace! One of man's most ancient cultural creations. There's something about this discovery that situates humanity in very satisfying ways.

I wonder if this means that the IDers will shrug at such wonderment, denying wonderment, and blame just credit god the Supreme Designer with a well-placed lie.

Posted by Jeff at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to give Microsoft credit for finally—assuming this is the final stance—getting it right with the 3.0 version of their policyware: Steve Ballmer, the original Monkey Boy, wrote a far-reaching and quite concrete memo to his employees stating pretty much unequivocally that the wonderful diversity in its workforce is specifically related to its business and that Microsoft as a company would always support legislation that worked to include sexual orientation in laws that provided protections for all citizens.

You go, boy!

I can't wait to see what the crazy preacher from Redmond has to say in response. And for my own part, there seems to be a lot of god-ridden craziness coming from the Pacific Northwest. Maybe some St. John's Wart will help?

Posted by Jeff at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The story goes that a gay rights bill in Washington State was backed by various heavyweights, including Microsoft Corp. The story also goes that the bill was defeated by a single vote when it finally came up, and the results were due, apparently, in no small part to Microsoft Corp having withdrawn its support of the bill that would have officially banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means that as a gay man, if I lived in Washington State, I could no longer exercise my freedom as an American to fire someone's ass because they were one of those nasty breeders*.

Anyhow, Microsoft Corp withdraws its support. The bill fails. People investigate and discover that the Right Rev. Hutcherson—a man who used to sin against Leviticus and get paid for it and is now controls the spiritual lives of his sheep-like followers in a “mega-church” in Redmond—put pressure on Microsoft to back away from its support of the bill, saying, “I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about.”

So, beyond the egregious sin of dangling his participle in front of people other than his wife, the Good Reverend clearly no longer needs to wield God as his weapon: now he wields his flocking parishioners.

Having been raised a Catholic, I had little exposure to the Christian Bible, but my favorite parts of it were always those times when Jesus, tired of cajoling, went around threatening friends, Romans and countrymen. Because, as Mark 29:1 states: And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, 'show them the love of my Father, and if that doesn't work, a well-placed threat or two should do the trick.'

* and by breeders, I mean those evil heteros. And by saying 'evil breeder heteros', I'm being sarcastic.

Posted by Jeff at 09:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one's conscience.” — Martin Luther

“Hoe dichter bij Rome, hoe slechter christenen” — old Dutch aphorism
(The worst Christians are those closest to Rome, or The nearer to the Church, the farther from God)

First out of the gate, Love Papem #9 Benny #16 goes after Spain's civil government. So much for taking after Benny-the-Healer (#15). Now, this isn't unexpected. The Catholics, after all, at least officially must condemn the homosexuals, because let's face it, bureaucracies and democracies both require scapegoats in order to maintain the appearance of being effective. Homosexuals make a terrific scapegoat (and many, it turns out, can make a terrific coq au vin!). Very versatile (and not just AOL-versatile) buggers they are.

Anyway, what was unexpected was the level of vitriol hurled by the Papists towards the civil government of Spain. Popey went as far afield of sanity as to accuse Spain's same-sex marriage laws as “iniquitous”. Now, as God (of Biscuits)'s well-beloved flock, you all know I loves me my words, but even though that word had a rather ominous familiarity to it, I had to go look it up. The familiarity? It's the adjectival form of “iniquity”:

iniquity noun ( pl. -ties) immoral or grossly unfair behavior

Holy Hannah! as my younger brother would say. That's a lot of immorality and gross unfairness must be up in hrrrr with the Spaniards! Let's look closer at the beginning of the end of christendom, shall we?

• The same rights and conditions apply to all legally married couples, 'be the parties of the same sex or of different sex.'
• Couples of the same sex may inherit from one another
• Couples of the same sex may receive retirement benefits from their working spouses

Oh the horror! Oh the shame! Doesn't Jesus feel kicked in the nuts right about now? And by Jesus, of course, I mean Benny #16, because the Catholics believe that anything that Pope-eye says ex cathedra (they do love their Latin) can be assumed to come from Jesus Himself. Can you imagine the historical Jesus forcing his followers to kiss his ring? To have other human beings—often boys—act as his furniture? I sure can't. But that's how the Catholics see his Holiness.

My favorite piece in all of this comes from ABC NewsOnline quoting Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo:

“They should exercise the same conscientious objection asked of doctors and nurses against a crime such as abortion.

”This is not a matter of choice, all Christians... must be prepared to pay the highest price, including the loss of a job.“

Cardinal Trujillo insisted the Church did not discriminate against homosexuals, but said they needed help.

I'm at a loss to imagine the bloodsport that would be practiced by the Vatican if they actually did discriminate against homosexuals. The Popes have a glorious history of all manner of horrific acts, according to the Frontline Fellowship, including a bit on Pope Benny #5, described by a church historian as ”the most iniquitous of all the monsters of ungodliness.“

The Vatican never says Vati-Can't when it comes to their iniquities.

Posted by Jeff at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In what very well may turn out to be a continuing series of real-world analogies, today I offer the notion that the current state of insanity-politics is like blogging. Unfortunately, the neocons control the entries, in part thanks to the so-called “liberal media”—you know, the ones owned by huge multinationals...freakin' hippies—while the progressives are limited to the comments sections.

I'll give the Christians credit...stealing a page (a violation of the 10 C's) from their soi disant enemies was something no one saw coming. Not even those of us who are suspect of such people. You know, those who put so much confidence in Someone Who can't be bothered to show His face directly to anyone and Who taught His followers that sex outside of marriage, surrogate motherhood and underage sex were evil (but only after He sired a Savior from a 13 year old). In fact, in this day and age, God would have to register as a sex offender in most states in this country, by current definitions.

Anyhoo...so the ends (theocracy, or at least theocratic domination) justify the means (stealing tactics from the less savory types). As long as they get what they want after they've taken it from someone else (and isn't that covetous behavior?): the limelight.

So they have it, and the Foxies and the Rushies and the Hannities and the Coulters in the halters and the delays caused by the DeLays all come together in three rings o' fun.

The neocons have the stage even though they don't deserve it and they certainly aren't very talented or entertaining. Shameful in their excesses of greed, xenophobia and the odd mix of half-assed science and even-more-assed faith, they're like a second-rate USO show, there only to drum up the troops that will march across the face of the earth bringing Jesus' message of peace poised primly at the tip of a government-issue rifle.

They're like the bully that shows up and takes the ball away from a group who was merely having fun sharing it amongst them.

Time to take the ball and the stage and the initiative back, don't you think?

Posted by Jeff at 02:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In CRT technology (that'd be old-style computer displays and the lion's share of televisions still sold today) there is the concept of a refresh rate. An electron beam is aimed at the back of a screen containing phosphorescent material, causing that material to flash bright. The flash, however, lasts only a tiny fraction of a second before the brightness fades noticeably. So in order to give the illusion that it's a continuously-bright spot, the beam must pass over it at least 50 or 60 times per second, the more frequent the excitation, the more solid and less flickery the spot appears.

For most people, when given to their own devices, anger and hate are transient spikes of emotion. Oh, for all of us there are some things, some ideas, some people for which we have a low- or medium-grade slow-burn for or against, but for the most part, negative emotions are a reaction to things done in the immediate present or at least when the immediate present presents a particularly vivid and specific memory.

But there seems to be a chronic aspect to the continued pressing disgust that the neocons have for anyone who doesn't swallow the party line. This non-acute revulsion has to keep their tummies in an on-going tizzy, one would think, to the point where that vague, sad dyspepsia is taken as normal.

I'd love to help, but you know how they react to anything that they don't consider normal.

No, someone must be playing them...a trigger thread with a hook at the end of it, firmly lodged in the tentative tummies, ready to pull them into action, ready to tickle their “sensibilities” with a call to “moral values”. Such fine control over them that the desired effect can range from sour stomach to bilious projectile vomiting. How anyone can so desperately love a pre-person and also so despise fully-realized human beings at the same time is beyond me. But it's also beyond their own control, if I am to follow my own reasoning.

Now, should that be where my Liberalism steps in and decides that they need help and not discipline? That they need treatment and not just 'tough love'? Or should I steal a page from their bible handbook and just spout vituperations?

Or maybe I should get them some Pepto Bismol and ask them to turn off the Fox News Channel?

Posted by Jeff at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to not being in the habit of going to see movies in theaters, I didn't see the remake of The Manchurian Candidate when it came out, but thanks to Netflix, we did see it tonight.

Not as good as the original, but pretty good. The new one wasn't about Communists, it was about a world-wide mega-corp. The new one unfortunately downplayed the incest angle. The new one didn't have Angela Lansbury in it, but it did have Meryl Streep.

The new one, however, had an optimism that the old one didn't. That was a surprise to me. It seems that every time someone tries for optimism and the future these days, it gets shot down by the conservatives...you know, those people who believe the past is better than any present (and certainly any future).

The new one showed that the marriage of strong belief and power never goes well, while at the same time showing that the marriage of strong ideal and power can accomplish the thought-to-be-impossible.

Things were more black and white in 1962. People are more savvy in 2005. I can see the desire to want things to be more cut and dried; after all, it takes a lot more effort to navigate the world when you have to consider pesky things like nuance and subtlety and complexity. Good, Evil and other Captialized Bugaboos find no purchase in complexity. This is the core of the tactic taken by the conservatives these days. Most of what they do can be captured in simple (read: simplistic) syllogisms:

Liberals appreciate nuance and complexity
Good can't exist in such a world.
Therefore, Liberals must hate Good and so must be Evil.

As I navigate through the nuances of relationship as well as the flat-out goodness and badnesses of our current situation—which, in turn, makes for complex dynamics—I remind myself that dogma is bravura, a haughty pose by those unsure or unable to navigate the changing seas of being alive. In other words, it's bullshit.

So I applaud Jonathan Demme in his remake, even as I miss the simpler, spookier, nastier, more incestuous story-telling of the past. And with clearer understanding of these interesting times of mine, with reminders that even the bad parts of my past (recent and distant)—while easier to remember as black and white—were just as nuanced as everything else in my life, it's quicker to recognize and reject the dogma-junkies.

And that makes life a little easier.

Posted by Jeff at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know a person—ok, a lot of people—who seemingly have lost the ability to confess or admit an “I don't know”. You know the type...they always have done a thing you've done and done it better, or they know someone (a very close and dear friend, to be sure!) who is better than you at it. They own every conversation that comes up, or, actually lacking the background to own the topic, will disrupt the entire proceeding and steer the whole mess into Known Territory.

Often the rigidly contrarian and pointedly doctrinaire adopt this pose, keeping the world for Jesus, or the American Right, or whatever....interrupting all else and steering every conversation, every dialog, every public effort, back into the Bosom of Jesus or George.

Many have accused me of being one of those knows a lot, who thinks he knows more than he does. What I have not been accused of, so far at least, is avoiding topics for which I don't have significant experience or knowledge. Still, those who don't know me—who, ironically, are out of their depths—seem to take it upon themselves to call me a know-it-all.

Well, I don't. I never claimed so. Here's a few, just for the record:

• I don't know if there is a god or not.
• I don't know what it's like to have sex with a woman.
• I don't know what it's like to be a woman (tho I do know what it's like to wear a dress).
• I don't know what I'd do if I were a woman who had to Choose.
• I don't know what it's like to suffer anything but sunburn because of my skin color.
• I don't know enough about String Theory to hold a meaningful conversation
• I don't know what my immediate future holds.
• I don't understand how other people's definition of friendship can be so different from mine.
• I don't know why people so often decide not to decide or otherwise prefer to follow.

What I do know: I know enough to know that I can't ever know enough.

I don't know how I could have been so trite right then.

Posted by Jeff at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

• I coined the phrase “Culture of Life”
• I wrote about the dignity and rights of those who work
• I spoke out against the widening gap between the world's rich and poor
• I opposed the Gulf Wars—both of them
• I expressed my outrage at the abuse at Abu Ghraib
• I have spoken out against the death penalty, calling it “cruel and unnecessary”

Who am I?

Posted by Jeff at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

The word has many definitions:

n. The configuration of the sun, the moon, and Earth lying in a straight line.

n. The combining of two feet into a single metrical unit in classical prosody.

n. The association of gregarine protozoa end-to-end or in lateral pairing without sexual fusion.

n. The pairing of chromosomes in meiosis.

n. the straight line configuration of 3 celestial bodies (as the sun and earth and moon) in a gravitational system.

I'm not sure why the word 'syzygy' popped into my head. I first heard of it in some book my dear dear friend from my past, Marti Lawrence, lent me awhile. But that was in 1981. Go figure. I knew it had something to do with something. Gee, that's good. I mean to say that it had something to do with the connections between things.

So the alignment of the Sun, the Moon and the Earth. Check. If I am Earth, Sam is the Sun and if you take a bite out of the right side of the Moon.....well, that's interesting. Two different beats coming together in a strange versification? Downright spooky.

Organisms parasitic to spineless hosts, standing abreast. Well, there's a certain syncretic value to it, but nothing I want to go into in this forum.

Meiotic pairing. Crossover events. Blue eyes and black hair...things that don't go together necessarily but somehow finding their way to traveling in the same space, again abreast.

Syzygy is a fun word. It's a weird word. It's one of those self-referential words, like obfuscatory or pedantic.

I have words on the brain, I think. Ya think? Well, it's all his fault.

Posted by Jeff at 09:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

There's an expression, “Past as Prologue”, which I never really liked. It seems a bit, I don't know, trite and smarmy. It's yet another silly aphoristic bit of nonsense. Many people nonetheless glom on to because it's simple (actually, simplistic), easy to remember and it gives one the appearance of depth.

Ahh, so gratifying! Then you have it all! A clear and direct and simple statement that smoothes over all those nuances and complexities, and you appear wise and with an old-growth intellect.

Only it's not real. You can't have a simplistic world view and then claim profundity and wisdom at the same time. Wisdom requires accepting subtlety and the existence of paradox—raw, unvarnished paradox that remains orthogonal to sense and immune to the ministrations of magicals Threes. Wisdom requires abiding the unprovability of some truths and unassailability of some falsehoods. Tough luck if you were expecting to be wise and rational at the same time.

That said, I find myself cozying up to the more cautionary aphorisms. Maybe because they're the ones that are just plain simple, not overstepping into simplistic. Maybe it's because they're so innocently brave. Or maybe, just maybe, they're the ones that tend to leave interpretation up to the reader/listener, instead of laying out rigid, concrete advice.

Anyhoo. “Past as Prologue”. Those who repeat the past are doomed...Nothing new under the sun...seen it all before... Booooring.

Present as Epilogue. Same flavor, same balance. But instead of boosting the past, it boosts the future. Instead of dissing the future, it reality-checks the present. The Dutch have a similar saying: “Tomorrow always comes back; yesterday never does.” Same thing. And if you look closely, you can see that being displaced from the immediate present over and over again—continuously, if you will, along the continuity of Time—creates motion. The direction of the motion is arbitrary and void of meaning or intent, but there's momentum! Blessed momentum.

When Now is the End, Now is also the Beginning. Fickle Present. Codependent Past. Devoted Future.

Which one would you rather spend the rest of your life with?

Posted by Jeff at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I get accused all the time of being one of those evil, evil moral relativists.

Truth be told (ha, say the accusers, God of Biscuits, you wouldn't know Truth if Jesus bit you on the ass with it!), I am. I think morals are a personal thing, to be decided by each individual, or, lacking a significant personality, by the Church to which said lightweight belongs.

The irony here—and let's face it, irony is the sauce that makes the dry, gritty meatloaf of dogma the least bit digestable—is that the Christians out there seem to be the ones who have forgotten their Moral Absolutes.

Yes, kiddies, I'm talking about Satan. Remember him? Remember when he was the Father of Lies?

Evil used to have such high production values. No less than the fate of the Universe Entire was at stake. The good old days, heh?

But the Conservative Christians discovered one of the plays from our liberal playbook—not that we liberals actually have an official playbook and even if we did we wouldn't hide it cuz we're just like that—is that we can rightly point out that the Christians' Absentee God the Father is a convenience for a Host (get it, Catholics?) of Righteously Indignant Party Planks. They can go on and on about God says this and God says that, and give all manner of credit to God for what is actually the hard work of the individuals of His Flock: overcoming adversity, cleaning one's self up from drugs and alcohol abuse, avoiding any manner of recidivism really.

God gets the Win, or at least the Assist, in all things. This has the interesting added benefit to the Saved of being able to proudly, forcefully proclaim their Humility to all who will listen, and many who won't.

So Whither the Tempter? Where has Satan gone? Why do you not see the Christians still crediting The Prince of Darkness for all that is wrong with the world?

Why, isn't it obvious that they've belied Belial for the exact same reasons they've played up Jesus? The answer is this: credit and blame.

Crediting God for what is really human triumph creates the Saved, the Chosen. Blaming Satan for what is really just the human condition would be a politically wasteful disapprobation!

No, instead, such politically-motivated Christians must turn their backs on the teachings of their Bible and point fingers at far more available targets: humans. Humans are the bad guys—most notably, those who are not of the Saved. The Liberals, you see? Godless humans are Evil, while Satan-less Theists get to have their cake, eat their cake, and rub it on their junk because, dammit, buttercream just feels good.

For if Evil is assigned to the Big Baddy with Horns and Hooves and Tail (poor Pan, dissed by the Church for so long) and the red satin suit and the Perdition and the Flames and the Iraqi Lover, how would Christians build their Earthly Empire?

Speaking of Earthly Empires, didn't there used to be a Second Coming—darling, that's a busy night!—somewhere in there, led by the Antichrist? The Antichrist being someone who was believed by the masses to be the Real Savior, but was instead the Exact Opposite?

Naah, that would never happen. Christians aren't a credulous bunch, really.

Now I must leave, my evil self is taking my evil boyfriend—with whom I live in sin and with whom I carry out perverse, unnatural acts—out to go evil-dancing (Footloose, anyone?) with other like-minded evil-faggots, to dance our E-vil asses off.

Posted by Jeff at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Through some rather twisted websurfing path (thanks, hoody!), I arrive at Capitalism Magazine. Some Danish guy wrote a rather unscientific, rather unsupportable book about the purported lies and exaggerations among current “radical” environmentalist thought. I was accused of ignoring questions about this guy, questions that were never asked in the first place.

Long, perverse story. Anyhoo, check out the link to Capital Magazine, the magazine “in defense of individual rights”, go to the right side bar, to the last paragraph there:

Capitalism Magazine survives on donations.

Posted by Jeff at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Set 'em up, knock 'em down, George.

You simply lied. We still don't know the real State of the Union, we just know what you told us. Which isn't much.

“Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families”

Beg pardon? How much has spending risen under your watch? How much has my paycheck risen?

“Tonight, let us bring to all Americans who struggle with drug addiction this message of hope: The miracle of recovery is possible, and it could be you.”

Recovery is not a miracle; it's hard work by a person to recover. Don't trivialize the efforts of those who worked so hard to get better.

“Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.”

I know you, like, own the entire government, George, but I don't think that endows you with the powers to change the laws of physics. Producing hydrogen fuel is costly and does produce pollution. And why hydrogen? There are other cleaner solutions. Hmmmm, do you have friends who stand to make a ton of cash if hydrogen is the fuel of choice? Where is your $1.2B going?

[15 lines on AIDS]

Apparently, gays aren't a high-risk group anymore, George? Gee, thanks! Condoms be gone!

•••

Quite a speech last night, huh? Except the above quotes weren't from it. They were from 2003. How's he done in 2 years?

This year was SOOO much better:

“My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.”

Is this the end of No Straight Child Left Behind, then?

“It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists.”

In other words, come and do our shit jobs, pay taxes, but don't expect to be represented or protected in any way at all.

“During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.
All these ideas are on the table. I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms.

In other words, let's assign Democratic names to the hard choices, and then offer nothing of our own.

”Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.“

Will you provide a guarantee that the money will not dwindle, George? If so, will you cover my investments in Enron and Worldcom, too? I mean, like, your Daddy did for S&Ls...

”Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.“

Coward. Say it. C'mon, say it! As Martin Luther once said, ”Sin bravely.“ C'mon, George. You're stuck, aren't you? Hate to say the word 'gay' because it gives the reality airtime, but then again, how can you really hate something unless you slap a label on it first? At least the crazy crackers of the religio-republican blogosphere boldly state their hate. Can you do any less?

”The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.“

Oh, Pinocchio...

”Because HIV/AIDS brings suffering and fear into so many lives, I ask you to reauthorize the Ryan White Act to encourage prevention, and provide care and treatment to the victims of that disease.
And as we update this important law, we must focus our efforts on fellow citizens with the highest rates of new cases, African-American men and women.“

Again, no gays? What are you really saying, George? That only white people deserve the luxury of the occasional D.L.?

”In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit, so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction.“

Translation: we kill people in TX and boy is there egg on our faces when we're wrong!

”The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life.“

Say it with me: Democracy for Islam!

”Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.“

...and democracies that are placed instead of gradually grown are so much easier to attach marionette strings to...

”Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.“

I always wondered what sound was made by that first shoe dropping.

”And the whole world now knows that a small group of extremists will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people.“

This one may come back to bite you on the ass, George.

”The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: to extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.“

Extending the promise of freedom, not freedom itself. And the check's in the mail. And I promise I won't come in your mouth.

•••

I grew up never understanding that saying what was on your mind was anything other than the default. I never really knew what it meant to be materially injured for having one belief or another (well, except for how the Catholics in my church and the Protestants elsewhere treated Madeleine Murray O'Hare). I credit the ideals of the United States for that. But in reality, it was a straight white suburban cocoon, sequestered away from the reality of living.

Being a gay white male gives one an interesting and rare perspective: the personal experience of having been on both sides of the straight-white-male privilege. Credible discrimination is something that straight white men have never understood, and virtual freedom from discrimination is something that the vast majority non-white and/or non-male persons cannot claim.

It's exactly why so many gays take so long to come out of the closet; it's exactly why virulently christian gay men will turn to snake oil for lube salvation.

That straight-white-male privilege knows no class or economic boundaries. Bubbamerica and Pacific Heights both enjoy it. Still-closeted gay men can see how gays are discriminated against through natural empathy and who the hell would want that?

George is one of those straight-white-men who will do as he pleases, not because he doesn't care that he's hurting so many of us, but because he can't possibly understand the kinds of hurt he dishes out.

He'll never know those who are not like him. He's a hunter. Other-than-hunter is just prey.

Posted by Jeff at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There is no law that requires the President of the United States to appear before a full congress, nor to do so annually, biannually or once a term.

The Constitution simply states that the President “shall from time to time, give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” That's it. Nothing more is said about it. In fact, because there is no law even requiring the President to walk into Congress to give an address, Congress is also not required to make accommodation to the President. Therefore, the President must be invited.

It's an interesting little tidbit, for the illustration of how it's often the case that tradition is a more natural, even more universal thing than law. Traditions—maybe because of built-in restrictions or maybe because they exist solely by fiat—tend to be immune to the interpretational whim of a changing culture.

Interesting then, that most political organizations these days—and by political organizations, I include corporations (politics of greed), governments (politics of society) and even religions (politics of the soul)—tend to drive any situation towards the letter of law, seemingly in order to remove interpretability.

But law will always be subject to interpretation, and traditions supposedly not. Look and see how the conservatives, who are supposed to be in favor of the smallest government possible, has no problem passing law after law that grows and grows the government to provide an umbrella over their supposedly strong morals, strong faith.

The strict father of government gets a bigger belt, a longer arm, a more powerful fist and far better eyesight. The Fatherland gets to take the locks off the children's doors, to chase after women who insist on the right to choose, to slap down weakness, where weakness is defined by Bubba America.

It's never strong to discuss, instead to dictate; never strong to recognize nuance, instead to broadside with simplistic pablum; never Athens, only Sparta.

Tradition isn't supposed to be fucked with; moralists always rely on tradition. Morals are relative, morals are subject to Time, morals are a personal matter. Say this to the intravenous aphorism junkies who mainline Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, and you'll be called a Liberal or a Traitor or you'll just have your mike cut off.

These are people with no respect for law, only tradition, even as they deconstruct tradition to suit their Ascendancy.

Posted by Jeff at 07:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, today's the day that George W. Bush comes out of his hole and we find out if there's going to be four more years of monocultural, pro-Christian, anti-everything-that-he-doesn't-like, just plain bad weather.

Or do I have my holidays mixed up?

Posted by Jeff at 01:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, Washington State 2004.

Iraq 2005?

I sure hope not. There are real lives in the balance for many who got out to vote.

Posted by Jeff at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Now, I'm no stranger to defending myself and my ideologies from the continued incursions of the faithful staging their little—and not so little—Crusades against us Infidels, but even I often make the mistake of giving the marching-ever-onward Christian Soldiers too much credit.

I give them credit for at least being true to their own sacredly-held Apothegms, even as I see these people.

But remember, while I was raised Catholic and I begrudge no one for that experience, I discovered a whole cosmos outside the Papal Walls of Truth at some point and life outside the VatiCan't suits me just fine. I know the truths held tight there, and I assume that most Christians hold those same values.

When you see Catholic boys, girls, men, women masquerading as calvinists, spouting things like “Feed a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime”, I get palpably upset.

Is this what's become of the parable of Jesus with the Loaves and the Fishes? Do these people really believe that if Jesus came back today, he'd be a neocon?

Sure, it's great to teach a man to fish, but he won't hear the lesson over the rumblings of an empty stomach.

Teaching is a terrific thing; but learning is even better. But now I'm veering dangerously close to being one of those intellectual-elite snobs, huh? I can understand how people can feel threatened by those who can speak better, who can think more comprehensively...but there are also plenty of us who are eager to be around people who can speak better and especially think more comprehensively, because those are the learning moments.

There's nothing better to an old intellectual snob like me than to be around smart people who are open to change. Improvement doesn't come from stasis. Only decay does.

Too bad there seems to be so many more people out there content to rot in the stink of their own self-satisfied dogma.

Posted by Jeff at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had considered “going dark” today, just like so many sites are, in protest of the Bush Inaugural. There's even a website with graphics stating why the website is dark—a paradox in and of itself—and I went so far as to change my index.html and had it displaying for all of 45 minutes late last night.

Why did I drop that and return the site to its usual content? To be honest, my heart wasn't really in the blackout. It's one of our Typicals, this protesting-if-it-doesn't-cost-us-much. This time around, Bush was elected, apparently by a wide-enough margin that no one is really contesting the victory. True, it's a victory based on lies, a victory based on a fraudulent election the first time around, a victory based almost single-handedly and single-mindedly on the Republicans' fear-peddling and strict-father-model dogma, but it was a victory as the system of election and government describes one.

I'm sitting this one out. Sitting out the Inaugural, too. It just makes me plain sick that he's still in office. Sick that so many Americans only care about revenge and nationalism instead of justice and patriotism. Sick that so many Americans don't even know the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

I love my country because of its ideals—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—not for what it is these days. I have no interest in preserving this way of life, I have an interest in improving the ways of life of every person on this planet.

You think the christians out there—the ones who so virulently and vituperatively supported Bush and the Republicans—would want the same thing.

They don't want you to be won over in your heart by Jesus; they just want to win.

Posted by Jeff at 09:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

Pat Robertson has the Ear of God. 'This is notable!' one might say. But plenty of people on the sunset-side of the American political day seem lay claim to God being on their side of the cosmic dodge ball team.

And God speaks back, apparently. But shhhhhh! It's a secret! Like the US getting messages to Iran through Jordan, or relying on the Swiss or the Canadians to pass notes around in class the world, apparently God won't just ring someone up on the phone to tell him. She, apparently, is a big fan of Pictionary, or even good old fashioned charades.

This is all well and good. Perhaps God's Direct Voice isn't bearable to human ears, like in Dogma when Alanis Morisette unhinges her jaw and the most torturesome sound comes out. [Word has it that that was Alanis' own unadulterated voice—Eds.] Maybe on the off^{1,000,000,000,000} chance that there is a god who takes precious time away from her cosmic badminton games to talk to her zoo creatures, maybe being so circumspect and introducing so many degrees of freedom in interpreting her words is her way of testing the good-faith of her followers.

So where is Pat Robertson when it comes to Phucket Island and the 25,000+ dead? Did god punish them for being non-christian? Or maybe the name of their island, like condoms, just encourages young people to fornicate?

And where is he on Reggie White's death? Punishment for saying awful, categorical things about his fellow human beings?

Say what you will about the capital-A Atheists (who, in my opinion, are just as crazy-dogmatic as their theist counterparts), but you won't find them doing any teleological finger-pointing.

Give the Ear back, Pat.

Posted by Jeff at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

You'll see all the Bushies out there screaming at us progressives when it comes to the military. You'll hear them tell you that us Liberals don't give a damn about American soldiers lives, but that's just a silly obstructionist tack.

It's like in that Stephen King movie, The Dead Zone, where Martin Sheen is up at a podium, stumping for his candidacy. He lifts a baby to kiss it (photo ops, y'know), when gunfire breaks out. Rather than protecting the baby or caring at all about anyone but himself, Sheen's character uses the infant as a shield to block any bullets fired his way.

The conservatives do this kind of thing all the time in politics. “For the children”, they say, when they can't defend their extremism. Nothing they do is for the children. They do it for themselves. They denounced Hillary Rodham Clinton's “It takes a village to raise a child” and turn around and attempt to force personal moralities into law just so they can be sure that the state educational system—and by extension, the state itself—instills their children with the proper values.

But I digress. For all their blathering about supporting the troops, for all the dogmatic bleating about valuing the sacrifices the young men and women of the armed forces have made, our own esteemed Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a man who has time to hunt and fish and read poetry, can't be bothered to put pen to paper to sign his own goddamned name to letters of condolence sent out to families of soldiers who have died in the service of their country.

Watch the crazy no-one-but-Republicans! crowd scramble to cover Rummy's ass on this one. Watch them go find a a handful of soldiers to give “informed” opinions on service being its own reward and then offer this up as proof-positive that Rummy's not so bad and the troops are so goddamned selfless.

Watch, as Bush's so-called political capital gets nickel-and-dimed to death by the administration's own selfishness and hubris.

Watch the baby get sprayed by bullets in order to save the President.

Just watch.

Posted by Jeff at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

Of course Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned: it was A.D. 64 and the violin didn't show up until about 1500 years later.

No, it's said he sang. Or played the lyre. No matter how he celebrated, he had his jubilee as he looked on at the destruction. I'm sure he had his reasons; maybe it was a nihil obstat preparing the way for his construction plans. Maybe he needed a 'fund raiser' for his campaign against the Christians. Or in a more philosophical mindset, he pondered that perhaps Rome was so far-gone that it needed a reboot.

For my part, in times like these, I think that if humans are involved, things always end in fire. And that they don't end.

One of the strengths of the human soul (I'm using the term as a generic collective term, you rascally theists out there) is its ability to abide and otherwise countenance internal inconsistency and even paradox. If humanity lived on logic and reason alone, they'd have foundered on the rocks of realism a long time ago and never bothered to reach for anything at all. As I said, this is a strength—up to a point.

Before it reaches said point, the human soul can ponder existence, ponder death, ponder beginnings without endings, and endings without beginnings. It can ponder that which lies beyond reach, beyond touch, beyond reason and still make its way back to a quotidian world where there must be bread on the table, a roof over one's head and money in one's account.

But that's a difficult thing to live with for some of us. For most of us, I might even say. How to reconcile an expansive, ultimately ununderstandable universe with hand-to-mouth biological need? For many, it seems they choose to forget—ahh, another of those strange paradoxes—the other while they're living inside the current one. A mental setting-aside of the infinite, or a physical setting-aside of the mundane in order to soar amongst finespun thoughts, depending.

Depending. Interesting term for a fundamental orthogonality. Yet another paradox. We do rack them up rather quickly, don't we?

Anyhow, it's all quite difficult when that threshold of irreconcilability is crossed—in either direction. Quite often we have—at least I do—a nasty crash into a bad spell of Existentialism. Why bother with the two? And if I am capable of holding both in my head, why bother with anything at all? Why bother?

That which had a beginning must suffer an inevitable end, right?

These plummets into existentialism (capitalize the 'e' if you choose) can bring abject disconsolateness that one may never return from—resulting from fear.

Ironically, it's a fear of never recovering that keeps most people from recovering from such a fall.

The natural response to fear is avoidance. The old fight or flight instinct. And after you've decided you can't win, flight is the only option. Like I said: avoidance.

Avoid the context switch from the ethereal (spirit) to the concrete (letter) or vice versa because that's where you get into trouble. Stay in one and never consider both. That's the safe course.

If you've chosen the spirit world, like the moralists in this country have, you avoid the context switch by remaking the concrete world in the image of your own god; if you're a letter-of-the-law kind of person, you wave Thor's hammer at heaven in an attempt to dissipate the godly fog.

If you choose the dominance of neither spirit nor letter, you must cope with the mind-body, wave-particle duality as a full-time gig. And as if life inside a brain so active isn't bad enough, the spiritists and the letterists, properly suspicious of you, add to the difficulty of your choice.

Moralists in aphorist clothing want to kick your legs out from under you and them blame you for not growing an angel's wings. Spoilers and other naysayers will clip your wings and claim you never had them in the first place.

Interestingly, however, there is a shortcut for a stalwart dualist, if you're willing to be clever about it. The key is labels.

Labels. Or rather, avoiding labels. The spiritists will want to pigeonhole you—the theists among them shove a square god into a round world with abandon all the time, and if they're willing to pigeonhole the infinite, why not do it to you, too? The letterists believe in nothing new under the sun, so how could you have a new point of view?

Fingers point, tendrils tangle, they line up on either side of you with weapons until they form a circle. Oh, they'll miss the mark, because you're simultaneously there and not there. You refuse to accept the bullets of realism and the raygun blasts of Jesus. The doggerel and obsequiousness set the world ablaze and there's nothing to stop it.

Weapons are discharged and the circle of fools will fall in fire. But if you realize that the fire is just part of the cycle of human affairs and not a punctuated ending, you can stand back and smile at the naturalness of it all.

And why the hell not pick up a fiddle to pass the time until the fire burns itself out?

Posted by Jeff at 01:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I have been told by people that don't know me, that because I am not Christian, that the Law is the only thing preventing me from stealing from others, or from killing others.

Yeah, in the absence of Christ's Love™, it seems, it's quite impossible to be possessed of decency or morals: only my mindless adherence to the letter of the U.S. Law is saving y'all from being killed and stolen from by me.

I suppose I should also be apologizing to Sam for asking him to believe that I love him, apologizing for my gender—for how can two men really love each other? Preposterous!—and making restitution for the false expectations I've given him. While I'm at it, I should apologize to Jesus, huh? Because I'm a radical who flouts the status quo in hopes of ushering in profound changes that lead to a better society.

In all seriousness, folks, I had no idea there were so many children, teens, college folks and supposedly fully-realized adults who were petty usurpers of decency, possessed of prehensile souls.

Posted by Jeff at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Dumb-ass theists attempting to argue science when it comes to evolution.

Dumber-ass Christians sticking their metaphorical dicks into gaping loopholes in their own dogma.

Right-Wing Catholics who think that they're thought of as Christians, too.

How did thinking and thoughtfulness come to mean effete? (Don't worry, folks, the morons out there don't know what 'effete' can mean) How did gravitas and genuineness get shrugged off so easily? If the martinets are at the front, that just means there's no leader.

Look at me, answering my own questions.

Posted by Jeff at 09:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Believe it or not, there is more to the congealed blog of conservatives than the sweeping vengeance of their hive-mind.

No, seriously. I mean it. There are christians who are Republicans who can't stand that the rest of us don't fall in line behind their dogma and accept jesus. There are nationalists who are Republicans who can't stand that there is a world outside of America that doesn't esteem our Great Nation as much as the they “should”. There are poor and middle-class people who are Republicans who have perverted the Great American Dream of Prosperity into a lottery ticket, throwing away good money on a bet with losing odds. There are gay people who are Republican who keep saving up their lunch money towards membership dues in Club Normal. Then there are just plain miserable people who are Republicans because the only way they know to close the gap between themselves and happy people is to contribute to the general misery of the world around them.

And they said multiculturalism is dead!

Posted by Jeff at 01:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you ever wondered how Germany came to despise the Jews so much in the first third of the 1900s? That's one of a whole quiver of questions that never got answered to my own satisfaction in my own education.

Was it just out of fear? Fear that a militant government would ascribe anything short of hating them to be treasonous?

Was it pent up rage on an individual level, where one could find an outlet in his own private anger against how the world treated him unfairly...by hating the Jews?

Was it simply the loss of one's own sense of joy, where despair had won and peopled settled for being not-as-bad-as instead of outright happy?

Was it nationalism that allowed acceptance of the elimination of Jews from the Fatherland on the basis of Germans Rightfully Possess Germany?

Were the Germans in need of a 'cure' from the multicultural urban reality?

Did the Germans need an Opposing Evil in order to accept the mantle of Good?

Was it really a drive to bring the entire populace into line with what was thought to be the purely-normal?

I know it didn't happen overnight, but I also know it happened fairly quickly. But how?

Where was the self-doubt? Was it first an attack on Germans themselves, instilling fear and subsequently punishing those who doubted themselves, doubted the rightness of the German Cause?

Was the tyranny of the German government simply the tyranny of the majority?

How does a country start the process of treating those who don't buy the party line as less than human? And does that process always end in 'cleansing'?

And weren't a lot of the Jews Germans themselves?

Posted by Jeff at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The US debt ceiling has been raised another $800 BILLION.

See, if the Republicans were in power, they'd never let those crazy Democrats spend like—oh, wait...

Anyhoo, the new borrowing cap will be $8.18 TRILLION.

Let's do some math here. $8.18T - $800B = $7.38T. We as a country are approaching a $7.4 TRILLION dollar deficit.

And President Bush wants to give tax cuts to the very rich. Sorry...tax relief.

Let's do some more math. This time it's a word problem:

Mr. & Mrs. Podunk Poorfolk pay taxes. Mr. & Mrs. GeorgeDick BushCheneyRichmotherfucker pay taxes. Mr. & Mr. Adam N. Steve live next door to Podunk and his Poorfolk brood. Our President and Congress are spending us all into a debt from which we will not recover from in a time considered short by mammals. If the BushCheneyRichmotherfucker's are paying less taxes, and the debt must still be spent down...

1. the Podunks will have to pay more
2. the Republicans can't do math
3. Who cares? We got faggots livin' next door!
4. All of the above.

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Poorfolk and the last stragglers of what's left of the American Middle Class who voted Republican this time around: when a Democrat or other Progressive President finally comes to the Whitehouse to clean up this unconscionable mess that the current batch of folks you voted into office have made, remember that it was your own fault.

Flaming faggot and liberal that I have been called, I won't even point at you and laugh at your destitution when that day arrives, even though your bankrupt finances will finally match your bankrupt ethics. I'll probably try to find ways to help you, to save our society, even from your own short-sighted, dogmatic insanity.

Posted by Jeff at 08:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Here it is, y'all.

1. Make shit up.
2. Get your toadies to repeat it without question.
3. Declare it a 'story'.
4. If dissenters get in on the game, alter their statements without notice.
5. Get your toadies' toadies to chime in with "it's everywhere, so it must be true!"
6. Force enemy to expend energy fending off mindless toadies and toadies' toadies.
7. Sit back and enjoy the mayhem, taking all credit and no blame.
8. Before mayhem is over, lather-rinse-repeat before people have time to notice what you've done. Again.

Republicans, FoxNews or Blogging Nematodes? You decide.

Posted by Jeff at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I learned a new thing today. I learned about the most successful Third Political Party in the USA ever—except, of course, for Lincoln's Republican Party (arguably, the Party of Lincoln no longer exists, just the name does): the Know-Nothings. It was a party established to champion the rights and values of White Protestant [male] voters who were feeling threatened in the face of immigrants who might overturn their comfortable applecart. Sound familiar?

Ok, and I learned a new thing yesterday: the word fideism. Dictionary.com's definition is tame enough, at first blush: "Reliance on faith alone rather than scientific reasoning or philosophy in questions of religion". Neat, tidy, and most importantly, well-applied solely to religion. Good so far.

You'll see around the web all this claptrap about the so-called Party of Lincoln. Back then it was about bringing freedom to those who didn't have it. It was about course-correcting the country in favor of the spirit of the United States Constitution so that later this revised, more splendid spirit could be codified into the letters of the document itself. The Republicans of that day were responsible for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which abolish slavery, guarantee civil rights and also suffrage, respectively. Nice job, guys.

And especially nice job, Mr. Lincoln. Which brings me back to the Know-Nothings. Of them, he wrote:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except Negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

This was written before the Civil War, mind you. This was President Lincoln's worldview—regardless of the law. There's an irony here, in that a certain Martin Luther said the exact same thing, only far more tersely: "Sin Bravely."

For you literalist, right-wing moonbats out there, of course the father of Protestantism wasn't advocating sinning. At the least, he was cautioning against claiming self-righteousness. At best, I like to think he was insisting that one not compound a sin by also refusing to take responsibility for the sin in the first place.

The Know-Nothings were not brave in their sinning. They hid behind a curtain of public fear; they undermined good will and individual security just to accomplish their fevered, self-involved goals.

Today's version of the Know-Nothings are, sadly, the Republicans. This is what has become of the Party of Lincoln.

The general populace who support the Republicans these days not only volunteer victimhood to the Republicans in power, they have become their footsoldiers. Look at the arguments those people have made for choosing ineptitude for four more years: "moral values", "I just know he's a good guy" and "he's one of us". All considerations that have nothing to do with, well, consideration. Or with thinking or with reasoning or even with philosophy. They are today's fideists.

They argue that their faith alone is valid to any argument. They don't argue, come to think of it, they merely state. And there is no disagreement, because there is nothing to agree with. You are simply wrong and they're right because Jesus told them so. Jesus also apparently has told President Bush he's doing good work. Hard work.

I cannot underestimate the damage that fideism can do once it has taken root in bureaucratic bodies. Even the Catholics understood this, still understand this:

Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other.

Example: witness Andrew Sullivan, a practicing Catholic, prattling about faith and Jesus being valid rhetorical method. He's basically saying that a person's faith is not to be discounted when having an argument (and here I take argument to mean 'a discourse intended to change the nature of a truth') about worldly things. Even the Catholics disagree with this kind of thing.

But if the Know-Nothings have their way this time around, the Catholics won't matter, either.

Posted by Jeff at 01:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (1)

Like a lot of things that the stolid, staid, "moral values" sheep voters find "icky", the concept of outing (as gay) has been taken from its original concept and perverted into something that serves both their xenophobia and their "compassionate" conservatism.

Michelangelo Signorile is largely—and rightly—credited with bringing the concept of outing into the mainstream. Since then, of course, the perception of what it is, what it was meant to be, has become something else. Something that has caused divisions even among gay people.

I think it's time again to remind people what outing is all about. In a world where we know too much about Britney's corroborative efforts towards straight marriage and see far too much of Tara Reid's plastic surgery scars and hear far too much of John Ashcroft's chanteusing, people still screed "respect their privacy!" when it comes to homosex.

And by 'people', I don't mean "also journalists", I mean especially journalists! This is exactly the beef that Mike Signorile had with the supposed objectivity of journalism and other news reporting: the double-standard when it came to homosexuality.

Anyone remember Malcolm Forbes? Anyone remember his place in the History of Outing? I'm not going to launch into an entire history here, because you can check that out in the bio at Mike's site. And while I have every confidence that Mike's take is accurate, go google it and read more. Here's a relevant quote:

Signorile contended throughout that time that the homosexuality of public figures -- and only public figures - should be reported on when relevant to a larger story (and only when relevant).

That's it, folks. That's what outing is all about. It's a call for journalistic integrity. It's about ethics. Many might consider integrity and ethics dead concepts, especially in the media and even moreso in the proliferation of Bread and Circuses blogs, but I don't. Even though ethics rarely wins over making a buck and even though integrity never makes the headlines, what do we have if we don't have those?

So in any case where a public person's sexuality is relevant to a story, that person's sexuality, priorly openly stated or not, should be reported. And if I have anything to say about it (and I do, from this modest-sized podium, at least), it will.

So when you hear of Congress members talking about abridging my rights, implying that I am less and that people like me are less because we're gay, well, how much more relevant can you get?

I welcome the return of outing. Thank you, Mike, for drawing that line in the sand 14 years ago.

Posted by Jeff at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Appeasement.

The other night on Real Time with Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan suggested—almost insisted!—that the "Hollywood left" are to blame for handing the election to the Right:

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Well, Bill, Bill, congratulations to you because you did your bit to help George Bush win the election. And so did the entire Hollywood left, who galvanized people in the middle of the country who are tired of being patronized, condescended to and demeaned. I mean, if you want—

As Sterling said in Jeffrey, "Ooooh! Get her!"

Naturally, it's not the fault of the Bush-approved messages that rained on Ohio, Pennsylvania and all those Crazy Swingers about the gore of a partial-birth abortion and of gay people bringing the hell-rains down on hopeful and decent society.

Nor is it the fault of the Republican machine that starts with a message-of-the-day and ends with the myriad voices of the rageful right aping the message without thought, without consideration and certainly without regard for decency, veracity or even plausibility.

No, Andrew, it's none of that. It is we; we who demean the christians and their unnatural lifestyle unprovokedly? We must agree to respect those who take comfort in irrefutable delusion; who imagine an Absentee Father in Heaven who's waiting for them after they've spent a lifetime in a lifestyle dedicated to bringing pain and disadvantage to those who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour (that spelling was for you, Andrew)?

SULLIVAN: --as people in Hollywood who demean people of religious faith. We’re getting into this cycle in which one side is continually polarizing the other until we have no discourse left at all.

Being the Thatcher-lover and Reagan-buttboy that he is, Mr. Sullivan seems to forget that it was the Reagan Right in the late 1980s who latched onto the word 'liberal' and turned it into 'Liberal', who convinced followers that a media that was increasingly being governed by large-corporate interests was actually a bunch of hippies, who convinced everyone that unchecked corporate and government aggression was the key to clean air and clean water, a full belly and a full wallet.

And Mr. Sullivan wonders why we associate being dogmatically and rabidly christian with being learning-impaired.

No, Mr. Sullivan, our salvation doesn't come from making sure they don't think we're hate them. They've already convinced themselves of that. Our salvation comes from making them grow up. Our salvation comes from making them aware of how much they have benefited and will continue to benefit from our efforts. Oh, we already know the good works they've done for all of us; their christian humility insists they let us know at every turn how full of grace and full of decency they are.

And they'll tell us when we aren't paying enough attention. Whether we are or not.

Those who can fabricate a Hand of God can fabricate just about anything.

Posted by Jeff at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I see what the Republicans don't like. They're happy to tell you what they don't like. They're happy when they're telling you what they don't like. They don't like John Kerry. They don't like Liberals (so much so, that they capitalize the word much of the time). They don't like anyone who enjoins. They don't like anyone who opposes. They don't like the world as it is. They don't like the world as it could be. They only like the past. And only a version of the past which never existed.

They don't accept that the past is changeable, even as they bend and warp it to support their own Rightness. They don't accept that contradiction, paradox, irony, inference and induction are valuable tools for expanding knowledge.

They can't tell you why they're right, because they only measure it by their perceived wrongness of others.

That's why Others are Always Bad. Always Wrong. Always Ridiculous. Always Credulous.

They believe in a government just small enough to fit inside your bedroom, just small enough to fit in what they insist is the empty headspace of the Others.

They imagine that there's nothing to imagine. They assume that their assumptions are rock solid. They insist that the borders they have mapped out map out all of existence. They don't allow for unprovable truths nor refutable falsehoods.

So when Others talk about a brighter future, or a nobler purpose, or a more companionable co-existence with other nations, they assign insanity to Us Others, because we're talking about things they Know to be impossible fancies. And they're Never Wrong.

So the next time your friendly neighborhood Republican starts telling you why John Kerry is either so weak-willed as to be dangerous, or so strong-willed as to be dangerous, ask him or her what their vision of the future is. And ask them directly what President George W. Bush offers to the world besides jingoism and plutocracy.

If they decide to honor your request, you'll be greeted with silence. It's the Right Answer.

Posted by Jeff at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)