The More Things Change...

I was reading the text of FDR's inaugural address today and because I'm a jerk, I was thinking how I could annotate the text with alternative contemporary statements by our leaders.

So I could take for example the "Only thing we have to fear " portion and contrast it with President Jesus' commercial for the bailout in which all he could do was try to terrify us into acting. Then when you read the less well known "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror... paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance" you might chuckle.

Or when you got to "Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment" I would embed a YouTubes of President Jesus and the Maverick saying the "fundamentals of the economy are strong, blah, blah, blah."

Maybe when we got to the part of the failed, incompetent, rulers abdicating, we might get wistful or nostalgic.

And if you could bear with it all the way to the discussion of using the Constitution to address the problems... well perhaps by then you're eyes would be too full of tears to read.

I should just let the speech speak for itself:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States—a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

What a nerd.

Someone's Trying to Lose His Job

"But I am interested in broadening the agenda of [evangelical] concerns. And I'm of the opinion that some people are going to vote Republican no matter what.... Party line voting in my opinion is unbiblical. It says you don't think. If you're simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you're not thinking. What I'm saying is that a lot of evangelicals don't think, sad to say."

Richard Cizik, chief Lobbyist NEA with beliefnet

He also mentions the racism of White Christians. Go figure.

White People Go to the Bathroom Like This...

There is a lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy way of doing sermons, self-help books, relational counseling, legislation, and who knows what else. It involves using facile and sloppy generalizations about categories of people to make facile and sloppy points that apply to no one anywhere but feed an abstract sense of identity that is irrelevant to actual people and so leads to their eager interest in more facile and sloppy sermons, self-help books, relational counseling, and legislation.

It happens to no end, especially in churches, in matters of men and women relating to each other.

Guys you know what I'm talking about, right? Right? And all the ladies are just looking at me, "What? What does he even mean?"

There are entire careers built on convincing men and women in relationships that women need someone to translate their words to men.

Ladies you say: I had a rough day with my boss today.
He hears: Tell me how to fix this problem I have.
The problem is, women are oriented about relationships whereas men, by their nature, need to fix things. He hears the world through his blue earphones.

I suppose, in the world of at leasts, it could be good for people who have submitted to a certain ideological conception of their existence to use the tools of their oppressors to build themselves some sense of relief. I guess if you're a man who has internalized the idea that men are universally barely more than retarded taciturn baboons, incapable of any kind of verbal expression, then it could be helpful if someone came along and offered you a means of communication as the imbecile you are.

I dunno. It seems like giving someone something to drink while they're hanging on a cross. Doesn't quite seem honest, and I'm not sure it's better than nothing. I think if I tried to relate to The Qweenbean as an abstract concept, or the idea of a woman, rather than who she is... well, that would be hell for both of us.

This would be a good intro to a skit about me relating to my wife that way, I would say, "I bet it would look a little something like this..." Then we would dissolve to some scene of domestic hilarity that skewers, skewers, I say, the ideas of men and women by applying the ideas to real situations.

And me, well I'm no better. We always carry some chains. I'm only different from, not necessarily better than, the mouth-breathing ape of a man that refuses to say "I love you". But that's only a bit here or there.

I'm convinced this is part of the reason THE CHURCH panics so much about teh Gay. We're not really interested in how people actually relate to each other- even in what we call heterosexuality. How could we possibly then address the actual complexity and diversity of human interactions that do not fit easily into our simplified categories? MAN and WOMAN as complementary binary already doesn't work, don't ask us to think about the possibility of gender as multiplicity even if that's what it really looks like in existence.

Anyway what got me thinking about this was a reference to research that shows men and women actually hold the remote about the same amount of time when watching TV.

So next time your pastor, family counsellor, camp speaker, or self-help guru says something about how men channel surf and women stay put, you'll know you're being lied to. Just like with that bit about men and women using a different average amount of words in a day. And isn't that what everyone wants?

I Love The Future

Another BBC News video to make you forget all about America's looming financial apocalypse.

Life Is Like Some Cheesy Japanese Movie Where The Hero Pulls On a Pair of Jet Pants and Flies Off The Balcony Like AstroBoy

Sorry it's from FOX News... Oh never mind. I do get the video from the BBC site.. Let's go there instead.

-ed. Note how even with the non-political, FOX distorts the truth. There's nothing "Rocket" about this pack at all. It's a jet. Dummies

This Is How They Win

I didn't sell out, I bought in.

The Silver Lining

As funny as these are, they only go to demonstrate more what a crank I am.

The Bailout as SPAM

"Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson"

And government for the people

Both via BOING

No War But Class War

This post is not for babies

There.

In a previous post I made passing mention that we are the kind of people that would be up in arms (figuratively) if half of the money used to kill Iraqis were offered as reparations or used to build Iraqi infrastructure (legitimately and competently). I think a similar phenomenon is at work with the presently debated Wall Street hand out.

So there's some debate about compensation limits, the degree and nature of oversight, how or whether to address housing issues, and just how we will own what we are about to own. But that's it. We have, "Give us a blank check," on one side, and, "No, no blank check for you," on the other. For many of us, these are legitimate points of debate. This is what we must hammer out in order to pass this legislation. They are legitimate points of debate because we are idiots.

You've probably heard the $700 billion price tag- that's an imaginary number. Imaginary because it's 700,000,000,000 but also because it's only meant to address the outstanding moneys owed at a single time- ("The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time") It is not how much this will all cost us in total related expenditures. That limit is fixed (on paper anyway) in the trillions. But let's pretend that is the number. Let's pretend that $700,000,000,000 is how much money we will ultimately shell out, give or take a million. That's how much we say would give to these companies, and when I say companies I mean the people that created these "hybrid instruments" and insurance schemes that deliberately and predictably orchestrated this meltdown.

You've got that, right? This wasn't an accident.

This was not the result of Free Market capitalism. You must put out of your head the idea that anything called "The Market" exists anywhere but in high school economics texts. This was the result of actual people seeking the legal allowances and avenues for systems of mergers and lending machinations to make themselves and their cronies very rich. There is nothing "Free Market" about lending out $1000 when you only have $10 in hand. That is an artifice, it is a created possibility. We built the world that allowed this to happen.

And we say we don't believe in magic anymore. Pfft.

And now? Now we are willing to give at least hundreds of billions of dollars to this "emergency".

This should echo. We should have in our memories the USA PATRIOT Act and the congressional authorization to wage a war on terror. Both were legislative moves we had to make else we would meet certain ruin. Both were sold as necessary for our protection, necessary for our safety- just like the notmurder and nottorture done for our protection.

So we will let it happen. We want it to happen. And it says a lot about who and what we are.

Idiots.

Just as we'd be upset if we considered giving $250,000,000,000 to Iraq to rebuild their country, I'm sure we would consider it out of the question to devote even half of the proposed bail out one time limit ($350,000,000,000 to give it a name) to a single payer health care system, as an investment in educational infrastructure and resources, as a housing subsidy disbursement, or to even fix our screwed-up roads.

But this is happening. It will happen. We can efficiently and quickly create the means for a successful and well orchestrated bail out. Rich people, you don't know, are too rich to be left hanging. But people you do know with medical debts, people you know who are a paycheck away from foreclosure, people you know who are squeezed out of the housing market, people you know that have to forego college?

Fuck them. Perhaps you should tell your neighbor next time you see them.

I'm sure we could cynically say, "This is simply the nature of power, and there it goes looking out for itself." Or we could look at our national financial priorities and rationalize it as a matter of "personal responsibility" that we don't take care of each other. Sometimes we get a glimpse behind the veil and see someone's turning the screws. That's an eye-opening moment, and we feel our cynicism is justified. But this isn't that. There's also nothing exceptionally revelatory to say we don't care much for poor people however we rationalize it. No, here we are confronted with something far worse than those things; here we realize we have been cowed into participating in our own destruction. I'm sure we call it something else, though.

Our hands are not clean in this. We are not ignorant. We see exactly what's happening. We're eager for it to happen, to borrow a metaphor, like asses in heat, sniffing the wind. We are damned idiots. Really idiots; it's strong enough and perfectly appropriate.

Look it up.

Anyway...

Goddamn #1:
Pretty much all of Section 2, b. but especially:
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

Goddamn #2:
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.
[I'm sure this is put here as a joke at our expense]

Goddamn #3:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
[This makes actions outside of the law within the law. That's magic for you- the kind of magic that makes torture nottorture. Hooray.]

Hopeless.
These are the strangers we love.
It's after them we will go.

You could call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to contact your representatives, but what could you say about this? I guess you could at least ask them to [redacted 'cos I'm a baby too sometimes] and say your name before it's over.

So what's the phenomenon at work? I think we call it freedom.

Sighs all around.

Solitude

"Whoever takes up the subject of theology discovers himself immediately, recurrently, and inevitably banished into a strange and notoriously oppressive solitude. In our old church hymnal we used to sing with emotion a song by Novalis containing the line, 'Be content to let others wander in their broad, resplendent teeming, streets.' These words might sound very appropriate as a slogan for theology; however, they would not be altogether honest, for who at bottom would not really like to be an individual in a greater crowd? Who, as long as he is not the oddest of odd fellows, would not like to have his work supported by the direct or at least indirect acknowledgment and participation of the general public, and understood by all men or at least as many as possible? As a rule, the theologian will have to put up with pursuing his subject in a certain isolation, not only in the so-called 'world,' but also in the Church... This isolation must be endured and borne, and it cannot always be easily borne with dignity and cheerfulness."

Karl Barth Evangelical Theology

It Just Makes Sense

I've heard that having a child and buying a home are two things that tend to make a person more politically conservative.* I don't know about the latter, but having a child has certainly made me more fond of the idea of traditional marriage. Of course by traditional marriage I don't mean the modern conception of marriage with which we are all familiar. That's the result of militant feminism and the homosexual agenda-** hardly traditional in the big picture and largely worthless to me given my present needs.

Obviously by traditional I mean the Judeo-Christian tradition (and don't give me any nonsense about Jews and Christians by virtue of their being Jews or Christians not sharing a tradition). I mean the tradition one finds in the Bible, and not the Jew Bible, which isn't a Bible, I mean the tradition found in Jesus' Bible, that Judeo-Christian tradition.

So I'm making dinner last night and it occurs to me, "I'm making dinner a lot these days." I like to cook and I do it pretty well, but lately I have to make dinner and I think "I don't want to have to make dinner." And then I think, "I'm a man, should I be making dinner... ever?"*** No. That's what a woman does. It's what she's supposed to do, it's what she's good at. Nature itself shows us women are food providers- they have boobs.

So I wonder, "How do we fix this?" "This" being the problem that I have to cook. And I say to myself, "I dunno, but it sure would be nice to take a break." And then I realize, "Hey, what if I just make my wife do it?" And that makes sense to me.

It's a lot of work of course and I don't know exactly how a woman is supposed to get everything done, I mean feed me and the baby along with everything else- it's something to do with her ovaries, or uterus, or her smaller brain I'm sure. The point is: a woman is supposed to cook. That's what she does, that's what she likes to do. It's what ought to happen.

But then I'm confronted with reality.

There's just not enough time in a day for a woman to take care of my baby and me. But then I realize there's an answer as plain as anything.

Obviously, a day is just as long as God made it. That's not the problem. My taking on the roles of a woman by cooking is clearly wrong. A man cooking for his family is probably an abomination; that's no good, I gotta stop that. The solution, as always, is returning to a sense of tradition, in this case traditional marriage. Adding another wife to the mix would solve a lot of problems. It's brilliant- but it's probably not necessary to say that. It's God's way after all.

If I had an additional wife, she could do the cooking and I could spend my day among the elders at the city gate, just like I'm supposed to.

And then the sex. If I may be vulnerable here for a moment. We still really like the idea of sex, but who has the time or energy when there's a baby around? How does anyone get around to making more than one baby? Fill the earth and subdue it, indeed. How can I when I only have one wife? Nature seems to require that I have more than one wife. Obviously by nature I mean, my wanting to have sex and our need for more babies.

With at least one more wife around, the opportunity for sex increases as does the chance for making more babies. And it also allows them to share responsibilities. I get to act like a man again, and their womanly jobs are spread among more workers. It seems like the perfect solution because it is.

So to these people invading our churches with their "think of the children", "save civilization," arguments about traditional marriage I say, "One man and one woman, indeed." Where do you get that from? Certainly not the Bible, certainly not from nature or what is practical. If we're not going to base our reasoning and decisions on what's in the Bible, what nature requires, and on plain old just what works, then what do we have? I'll tell you what, this topsy turvy world where I'm stuck cooking dinner all the time.

So in conclusion... in conclusion have more wives. That's all.

* That, and depriving the brain oxygen.
** Actually, it was largely borne by the rise of capitalism and urbanization. Still, not traditional if one wants traditional to mean "authoritative by virtue of its affirming what I like". But, whatever.
*** Granted I make a good dinner. I made a variation of pasta caprisi (with homegrown tomatoes), garlic and rosemary (which I grew) potatoes, sauteed mushrooms and spinach salad with a home made balsamic dressing. The Qweenbean is so lazy these days we'd probably eat macaroni and cheese or hot dogs every night if it was up to her. G'uh.

Neither Here Nor There

But fun nonetheless
CNN

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, [yes, of those Rothschilds] a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election, [when not otherwise occupied making fur coats from Dalmation skins]” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee. [And please note, she is the kind of person who makes announcements via news conference on Capitol Hill to simply state one's opinion.]

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama [while soaking in a champagne filled bathtub] in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him. [I generally only trust people after I've had the opportunity to bond with them summering on the Adriatic.]”

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York [where she has a swimming pool filled with gold coins].

NEW CONTEST NEW CONTEST

Long time readers of my globe spanning net diary are probably mushy about the middle but also likely know that I have contests- real contests with real prizes. Here's another:

Craft a more empty applause line than the following:
"But I can't wait to introduce her to Washington DC, when the big spenders and the old boy network, the pork barrelers, the earmarkers, the business as usual, the country-second, me first bureaucrats in Washington and the special interest, she'll take them on like she did in Alaska and we'll return this government back to the people of this country."

It has everything:* grammatical errors, empty symbols, ironic self-reference/glaring self-"un"awareness. How can you beat that? I don't know, but you can try.

Of course you can be petty and pick an Obama line, but that's not crafting one of your own, so I'd have to send Obama the prize if he wins. And unlike politicians, their speechwriters, or production interns tasked with finding images of Walter Reed to go with their convention, I know how to use the Googles.

I've already got a prize in mind for this one, and, boy, is it great.

Submit your entry in the comments. Winners of previous contests are perfectly free to win again.

* Wow, so many colons so close to each other. Is that too graphic?

Is There a Three-Eyed Fish We Can Offer John McCain?

Here's a fun quiz. Guess who said each below: C. Montgomery Burns or John McCain.

Answers in comments.

1.) We're gonna send a message to those bureaucrats down there in the capital!

2.) If I'm elected, I will lower taxes whether those bureaucrats in the capital like it or not!

3.) And I want to warn them- I want to warn them- every single one of them, stand by because change is coming... We're gonna shake things up.

4.) Some voters respond to my integrity, others are more impressed with my incorruptibility. Still others buy my determination to lower taxes. And the bureaucrats in the capital can put that in their pipes and smoke it!

5.) I've fought big spenders who waste your money on things you neither need nor want.

6.) This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

7.) At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.

If you didn't do so well, you can review most of the material. First, watch the episode of The Simpsons wherein Burns runs for governor. Then watch the video of McCain speaking in Lebanonn, OH, here, starting at the 15 minute mark. Then try again.

ed.- References to state or federal office have been edited for the sake of the quiz.

Indian-White argument over genitals leaves three killed

Three men were shot dead and two left injured after an argument between a group of Indian and white visitors to a bar here, allegedly over the size of genitals.

NRI News

I bet there was an easier way to resolve this argument.

Ridiculously Good Looking

-You've said that church can't be something we just do on Sundays
-I know, isn't that mind-blowing?
-Okay. I was wondering what you mean by that. Can you share an idea of what you say church is?
-Okay, an idea, all right, now imagine, and this is just off the top of my head remember, okay, we've got football season, now think of all those people who go to football games, or sit at home and watch football games instead of going to church. Can you picture them?
-Sure
-How many do you think there are?
-Oh I don't know... thousands?
-Hundreds of thousands- maybe even millions- literally millions of unreached people coming together every Sunday waiting for the good news- now what if we, what if instead of sitting in our churches, what if we were to go to them. What if we had- we could call it Tailgate Church, and what if we, before games, we shared the good news of Jesus with them, had a time of worship for these people- we meet them where they are and then we all go to the football game. The fans are the congregation, the game is our place of fellowship.
-That doesn't sound anything like religion described in the Bible.
-I know. Well, I am a visionary. I really think it's my job to cast a vision for what's possible- to think "outside of the box", if you will. Did you get that? Could you be sure to put that I did the quotes around "outside of the box"?
But we need to think of the possibilities, where are the people we need to reach with this message? Where are the people where we aren't? Instead of waiting or hoping they came come to us- or even leaving behind these church growth philosophies that say we need to be attractive and "seeker sensitive"- see that model assumes people are seeking. -But fish don't go leaping out of the water into your boat, you need to go to the fish, you need to attract and catch the fish, we don't sit in our churches- even with the best bait- waiting for someone to show up. Here, and I think this is what is different and visionary about this model- we go to them, and it's not like street preaching where we make a spectacle of ourselves just to alienate people. This is showing people we are with them, but more importantly that Jesus is with them in everything they do.
-Doesn't that make it seem like anyone anywhere doing anything is a disciple of Jesus? All you need-
-Exactly. It's taking- Wait, remember how Jesus said it's not about religion it's about a relationship with God?
-No
-Well, that's what it's about. It's about bringing your relationship to God with you into your workplace, into your school, your family, wherever you go and whatever you do. What we need to do is make it possible for people to see that. They can have Jesus, they need to have Jesus right there with them while they're cheering on their team. Jesus is with them and cheering them on, he loves to see that.
-Wow.
-I know- wow

The Only Thing We Have Is Fear Itself

Do y'all 'member that study by the high falutin' Rand Corporation that was publicized a bit ago explaining to us how some 600 plus terr'ist groups they studied were not overcome through military action? They said 'twere like using an axe to kill fleas on your hound dog; the fleas get away and your hound dog either bites you or dies.

(I'm trying to be folksy here, people, I've learned it's the only thing people listen to).

I can't think of anything my mama used to say about this so I guess I'll give up small towny talk.

The gist of the report was that terrorism was best addressed as a criminal or political activity. That is, it took the same kind of investigation and prosecution one uses on criminal activities to stop it or that violent groups eventually burned out and were absorbed in to political processes when allowed. We must love us some war quite a bit to give up the possibility of a Law & Order: Freedom Lovers Unit or CSI: Kabul to go for a Global War On Terror the way we do. I think the theme for CSI: Kabul would be I Can't Explain.

They also added that it was stupid to call "it" a "war" on terror because it legitimizes (and I guess valorizes) people and groups that use terrorism as a method and frames the matter in such a way that we are encouraged to misapply our resources- like failing to kill fleas with an ax and so assuming one ought to buy a bigger ax. Clearly, a more reasonable policy would be more oriented about warrants, investigations, and trials than territory occupied and body counts.

But reasonable shmeasonable, am I right? And obviously, by shmeasonable I mean, "fails to account for the meaning and identity we find in the idea of war". Forget about the insidious fascism and war profiteering for a moment; that's just gravy. What we really love about it and get from it is this horrible infantilism where we simultaneously live in fear and project the idea of strength. It allows us to surrender any sense of accountability, see everything as a threat, and submit to a rigid paternalism that can do no wrong in a "my dad can beat up your dad, especially when he's drunk, so I love it when he's drunk" kind of ethos. It's an infantilism that precludes everything but the most oblique criticism. These colors don't run, freedom isn't free, never forget, united we stand are not merely slogans- they are firm stakes laying out our impenetrable but fragile boundaries. Threatened by even their own emptiness they require the most rigid foundation. That just feeds the fascism and profiteering- bonus for The Man.

This isn't partisan. Of course Republicans own Iraq and seem especially adept at mongering fear, but Afghanistan seems to be the country where Democrats want to prove they can pee standing up, too. It's what we're asking for. We're dumb. We want to see who can yell, "I smash good" most loudly.

Fitting I suppose, lately I can't seem to say more than, "Ugh."

I'm Busy Remembering Today
Your Redneck Past- Ben Folds Five
Suzie- Boy Kill Boy
Manic Depression- Jimi Hendrix
Stairway to Heaven- Led Zeppelin
Broken Face- Pixies
Nic Fit- Sonic Youth

What I Meant Was, "I Hate People That Work Towards the Kingdom of God"

See, people less jerky than I think Sarah Palin is a punk for what she said...

From beliefnet:

Community organizers are now most focused in the faith community, working with tens of thousands of pastors and laypeople in thousands of congregations around the country. Faith-based organizing is the critical factor in many low-income communities in the country's poorest urban and rural areas, and church leaders are often the biggest supporters of community organizers. And many of them felt deeply offended by Palin's remarks. Here are a few of their reposnses

"As a lifelong Republican, the comments I heard last night about community organizing crossed the line. It is one thing to question someone's experience, another to demean the work of millions of hardworking Americans who take time to get involved in their communities. When people come together in my church hall to improve our community, they're building the Kingdom of God in San Diego. We see the fruits of community organizing in safer streets, new parks, and new affordable housing. It's the spirit of democracy for people to have a say and we need more of it,"

said Bishop Roy Dixon, prelate of the Southern California 4th ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church of God in Christ, member of the San Diego Organizing Project and former board chair of PICO National Network.  

They have also pointed out how the most important victories for social justice have come more from community organizers than elected officials.

"We can thank community organizing for the weekend, the eight-hour day, integrated swimming pools, public transportation, health care for children and safe neighborhoods.  Community organizing is behind most of the family-oriented initiatives we benefit from every day. I am proud to work for change in my country, my state, and my city as a community organizer, following the great traditions of Dr. Martin Luther King,"

said Laura Barrett, national policy director of Gamaliel/Transportation Equity Network (TEN).

So there you go. Sarah Palin thinks Martin Luther King was a time wasting dummy.

Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran Hooray

So Obama is hardly the pacifist I would like as a president (in my humanity I know that is not possible, but in my hopefulness, well I hope) and on that mark may only be better than John McCain because he doesn't incessantly joke about killing people. Seriously, Barack, I know you read this, escalation in Afghanistan and occupation are not the answer, but thank you for not constantly making light of the deaths of others.

Anyway we already know my thoughts on the war hero trope/tripe and tonight's speech sold more of the same but what really got me was the crowd's reaction when John McCain said he was a warrior who hated war so knew what to do to keep the peace.

That was an applause line, folks.

Granted, it wasn't a crickets chirping moment, but they cheered more for lower taxes.

That was troubling. The 13 year old curators of the YouTube haven't put that bit up yet- so if you missed it, you missed a lot.

This is a segue.

Soon after the CA Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to prevent same sex couples from marrying, our Yearly Meeting/Annual Conference/Equipping Center sent out reminders of what our Faith and Practice said about marriage and teh Gay. The reminders also included some "resources" one could consult on the legal and pastoral issues. I asked if these resources reflected our interpretation of Faith and Practice. Of course the response was that they were simply resources while F&P remained F&P. When I asked why we did not include a broader scope of resources or let F&P speak for itself... well there was no answer to that.

I would wager there are not many same sex couples sitting in our YM simply waiting for the state go ahead to get married. There are a few gay people that lurk about the periphery of our congregations, but hardly in numbers that would seem to warrant a Yearly Meeting-wide memo. Strange... no not strange... what's the word I'm looking for? Oh it'll come to me soon, but let's say strange for now. Strange that we would need to provide resources and reminders for an issue that really isn't a concern of ours. I mean it doesn't require that we address who we are, how we sin, where we struggle in any significant way to say "Gay, Boooooo!".

Memos about divorce, okay. Reminders about honest economics, sure, that makes sense. Advice about the need and how to forgive, I could see that as mattering to us. But harping on teh Gay is about as meaningful as taking a position on handicraft workers operating without the authority of the guild.

Similarly, when Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, there were no Yearly Meeting announcements. When we actually started dropping bombs, we had nothing to say. It was that way for recent other "conflicts" as well. It's been that way.

Strange... No. Dangit, what's the word I'm thinking of?

That crowd and the lukewarm applause at the idea of "Not War" disturbed me. We are, thank God, not that crowd so I am not making the case that is exactly how we would respond (I am so praying we would not respond that way). But it did show how easy it is for death-mongering to be a default position; the idea of Not War is foreign and confusing. You don't applaud the idea of Not War. But that's the world, isn't it? It takes something transcendent, something divinely other to convince us that it need not be the case, to convince us, as the gentlemen said to McCain (and Obama should remember) "You can't win an occupation". I'd add, no one wins wars. But to the previous, add our reluctance to be confronted with actual sin (that which we actually do to participate in and legitimize death, injustice, and destruction) and you've got quite a recipe for, well, death, injustice, and destruction.

We're not that crowd, sure. But we are no more eager than they to confront how we participate in death, especially if it requires confession. Why should we be when there are GAYS somewhere that need to be told what we think of them?

Faithless. That's the word.
The Title of This Should've Been the Scene from Holy Grail Wherein Lancelot Butchers a Wedding Party
Hail to the thief (softly)- Radiohead

Deconstructing the Nature of Authority (In a Nutshell)

Link

Good Lord

Ugh. I know symbols are substance in our political world. I mean we generally don't care about the actual policies and records of politicians as much as we care about their symbolic resonance with what we claim to believe, but c'mon.

I won't say here that I don't think the Bible affirms the conventional claim that life begins at conception or that even if it is implied, that the life that has begun is worth the same as that of the born, born men that is. I could and it's an argument worth making, but that's not necessarily here or there at the moment. What is here and there is the proposition that Sarah Palin is pro-life. I guess I should say Pro-Life... No. PRO-LIFE.

Right- so I get that what we're supposed to see the symbolic value of Sarah Palin having a vagina, saying "Life Begins at Conception," and submit to the meme that at 40-some years of age she knew she would be having a child with Down's Syndrome (never mind that the latter seems to make manifest the idea that the decision to have a child is not a concern for the state and so is a point for the CHOICE side if those sides are really a matter of sides and points.) I get it. And because I get it, I know we're supposed to ignore that Sarah Palin as a matter of policy chose to reduce the spending Alaska's state legislature recommended for a program that assisted unwed teen mothers. So she opposes successful programs for teaching teenage girls how to not get pregnant, doesn't believe there may ever be a reason to terminate those pregnancies, and then reduces the money for those programs specifically addressing the consequences of those policies. None of that matters because she's PRO-LIFE, and like many who say they are PRO-LIFE, we needn't see what she actually does as a result of that. She supports life in the abstract. Just like she rejects CHOICE in the abstract, though in the particulars it's the very thing she endorses for her own daughter (and on the state's dime I might add).

I know I know, it's easier to think of a Pro-Choice position as a Let's Murder Babies position, but remember, at it's core it is about personally wrestling with the matter, just as Bristol Palin did, to come to a decision privately. And that fact seems to fit perfectly with the intense dissonance of sense and symbolism of Palin as an artifact and in the content of her acceptance speech that goes beyond this issue of LIFE.

Symbols are substance, and yikes to that. I don't mean we can reject the substance of symbols, I mean yikes to what she symbolizes. The fear and venom of last night's speeches was nuts. Especially from her. She represented and used the same condescending cynicism and dismissive arrogance that saw Purple Heart Band-Aids and Flip-Flops at the last RNC. Of course this time it's in a cuter package.

If one of the DNC points is believed, "John McCain cares, he just doesn't get it," then the contempt and hatred she has for the democratic movement (deliberately little D) and enthusiasm that may be as much a response against the last eight years as they are a response to Obama's symbolic candidacy, illustrate that as a Romanticized "small towner", Sarah Palin gets it, she just doesn't care. She understands the concerns of average Americans, she just looks down on them when they organize to address those concerns. She understands that her own daughter, facing a teenage pregnancy confronts a challenging personal choice, but others are not afforded the same grace. She says, as a good conservative, that personal decisions require personal responsibility and we don't bear each others' burdens, making the actual existence of her and her family the very embodiment of IGMFY. Which I suppose is worse than not caring, it's contempt.

I recognize that I'm out there. I mean, I know thinking John McCain is not a hero because he dropped bombs on civilians is not something normal people think. The symbol of the war hero is important to us (except, as I mentioned, at the last RNC). So is what Palin might represent: small-towniness, straight-shooterism, the virtue of the average. But behind that, in her actual policies and her role as the voice for this contempt, is fear and war, and not a fear of the strangers "over there" against whom we must wage war. I mean she represents and talked about, as did the other speakers, a fear and war against the very people whose identity she claims.

Her role is that of a giant middle finger. If we don't see that, yeesh. Good luck.