What Should I Ask For Next?

So reader paddy o. offered me this in response to the last post. What have the rest of you done?!

Editor's Note- Ahh, who am I kidding? There is no "the rest of you."

Pat "The Weatherman" Robertson

Trust me, that name works on many levels

Now that I have cable I have access to more craziness than I ever did before. To wit, yesterday Pat Robertson made an appearance on a 700 Club spinoff show called Living the Life. It's supposed to offer women's perspectives on the same issues the 700 Club covers. This means it's hosted by Pat's 700 Club, female cohost, they have a living room styled set rather than the pretend newsroom that the 700 Club has, their titles are done in a soft white script, and they do more interview style productions than "news" and analysis because women care more about relationships and don't understand hard facts. Am I right, or am I right, ladies?

So like I said, Pat Robertson was on the show. He told us how he was able to send a hurricane back where it came from. Really, he literally said he rebuked a hurricane and made it change course. (No transcript, but this gives you the gist of the show.) I guess he's actually done this a couple of times (see the link in the title). It seems irresponsible to not do it all the time, but whatever, it's still a pretty cool power. But if I got to choose, I would want Spider Man's powers. Or if I didn't have to remain in that context I would want to be able to manipulate matter at the molecular level so I could "fly," throw things threw the air, lift heavy stuff, and blow things up. For flying I would really just propel myself forward by creating a series of high and low pressure pockets around me, but still that would be cool. I would also be able to make a bad guy's gun too heavy to hold or I could create localized atomic chain reactions so I could do the Hadouken thing- stuff like that. Oh and I would be a monk or overtly religious like Nightcrawler. When I was a kid my powers would have accidentally killed my parents and siblings so I would be left in the care of Franciscans (naturally) who would have developed in my moral sense a deep affinity with nature as well as my dictum that I not kill. You know, with all that guilt about having killed my family and what not I would want to avoid it. That, and just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean you should. Those would be the words of my dead Franciscan Brother mentor. He was killed by... a police sniper. Yeah, he stepped into the line of fire trying to resolve a hostage situation without anyone dying... But why would he be involved in a hostage situation? I don't know, but I wouldn't kill. That would be my gimmick. Micro-waving bad guys' eyeballs in their skulls would be okay though. Oh maybe it was a high school shooting situation... He was a monk-teacher at a private school. But then I guess we would more likely be Jesuits. I guess we could be Franciscans at an urban mission and it was gangsta's taking hostages. No, there are Franciscan High Schools. Whatever, it's my backstory.

Oh but I was writing about Pat's Storm-like powers. So anyway he saved Virginia from a hurricane. But if you have that power why don't you make the hurricane disappear all together rather than send it off to developing nations that lack the infrastructure to handle the death and destruction you are certainly sending their way or into other states where they will certainly cause damage? Like, if I had my atomic power and you were about to be crushed by parts of a building that some bad guy's explosion sent cascading down to the street, I wouldn't just stop the huge chunks of concrete, steel, and glass and then throw them to crush a daycare center or a school bus. (I never understood why Superman gets away with that- he seems to cause as much or more damage to life and public and private property in his fights with bad guys than he's trying to prevent. Moral residue indeed.) I would stop the rubble from crushing you by atomically pulverizing it so you would just get real dirty instead of dead. Or if somehow the exothermic reaction wouldn't burn you and everything else up, I would turn it all into a gaseous or liquid state and send it away from you. Oh, and my weakness would still be bees... and people who said "nukular."

So Pat has this power over weather and he uses it to destroy the Caribbean. What a jerk. He's a supervillian. If because of nothing else, can we now agree that he's a bad guy? And like all really good bad guys, he may be morally complex but he's still bad. His moral certitude and passion are in one sense noble and admirable, but ultimately deadly and tragic because he's bent on crafting a world in his image. But people don't see that. They're attracted to the power and certainty so they get wrapped up in his evil and call it good. So he and his minions sit around a giant table, in front of an enormous view screen, in his lair housed in a volcano... in Virginia. And they plot the death of Hugo Chavez, how to introduce a blood clot into Ariel Sharon's head, or the destruction of Philadelphia and then broadcast their plots and ultimatums to the world and people send them money.

So to wrap up, Pat is a comic villain who sends hurricanes to kill poor Latin Americans or North Carolingians because he can...

Oh maybe all that's not fair. I guess another way to look at it is, if you can move the hurricane but you can't stop it you should send it to kill people you don't know, because then you're only kind of sad and can turn off the TV if you don't want to see what happened. Or, if the hurricane has to kill someone, better brown people than mostly white people. Or you can say, "Now, Latin America or North Carolina, I'm just sending a hurricane your way, but if you get hurt it's your own fault." Or maybe Bermuda deserves to be hit by a hurricane more than Virginia does. I don't know.

I do know, if I had Photoshop I would've wasted even more time today putting a Super Villain Mask on a picture of Pat Robertson.

Super Soundtrack
Jamming- Bob Marley
Sir Duke- Stevie Wonder
Silverf***- Smashing Pumpkins
I Say a Little Prayer- Burt Bacharach
Ain't It The Truth- The Briefs
Stepping Into Tomorrow- Madlib
A Night In Tunisia- Dizzy Gillespie
Light & Day/Reach for the Sun- Polyphonic Spree
Pulled Up- Talking Heads
Cancer For The Cure- The Eels
Ohio- CSN & Y

Get Your Kicks

I tried to kill someone. This isn't just the killing I do everyday by being against the US invasion of Iraq- I mean Liberation. Sorry, I got bad grades in Newspeak. So in addition to emboldening the Baathist insurgency and comforting them through their last throes by being a dissenting American, I really almost killed someone with an improvised projectile on the highway. Wait, is it Batthist dead-enders or Al Qaeda that I comfort and encourage? I forget. I failed that part of my re-education. Anyway I almost killed someone on the road today. Not just any road either- I almost killed someone on historic Route 66. How about that? How many people can you say you killed... or almost killed on or around historic US landmarks?

I had a 1 liter (is that un-American?) bottle of water unsecurely placed in my bag o' tricks and it flew out on the road on my way to school. It was an accident. I thought the water bottle would make it safely to school but I was wrong. Normally I am much more careful and wouldn't think of throwing something heavy off the back of my motorcycle into traffic.
I tell you this because it is out of the ordinary. I do not actually try to kill someone everyday and the fact that I might have done so, even accidentally, is troubling to me. So because of this I thought it necessary to explain myself. That and it's a polemic set up. It's a true story, but still a set up.

We find it necessary to explain what is unusual for us. I don't try to kill people everyday so since I did, I should explain myself. Maybe my explanation isn't any good- I thought I did a good job of packing my bag. I guess I didn't. That's a worthless excuse.

Now here's the jump.

At one point in the church's history, it was necessary to justify war. Contrary to what you may have heard, there is not a single "Just War" theory. There are a number of theories, though Aquinas' pretty much sets the standard. And, contrary to what you may have thought, a "Just War" theory does not make war right. It was a way for the church to say "War is wrong, 'political leader So and So,' so you should avoid it, and when you can't you should meet these basic limiting criteria." So justify here does not mean "make right," it means something more like, "You better have a good reason for throwing that bag of kittens in the lake, mister!" And they say, "Well of course I do." So you say, "Okay then."

Yeah- it seems like a pretty low bar to me too. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore- at least not here. No one expects war to be justified now. It doesn't need to be. It is now the default position. I mean, really who are the moon-bats, the "Pray for the Troopsies" or "The Pray for Peaceniks?" Although that suggests a dichotomy I don't think is necessary. The point being, valuing peace is suspect.

Maybe that's just as well. Maybe that most clearly highlights the difference between remaining in the powers of the world versus living by the power of the Holy Spirit. But then again, maybe not.

And maybe someone else looks around and sees the hippies destroying America. I don't know. I do know that this rant is inspired by an experience that I had this weekend. I'll spare you the details but it involved someone drinking too much, starting conversations they don't really want to have, and sticking their hand in my face.

So war is our default polity and Jerry Springer is our default discourse setting. Hooray.

Untitled Disturbing Post

I came across a link to this site during my daily time wasting. Turns out I live pretty much next door to a child molester. You might too.

I don't have children and I know I would be pretty disturbed to know what goes on in the brains of a random sampling of the people I come across everyday but, still there is something deeply disturbing to me about this. What I mean by that is the pictures of the offenders along with their crime and where they live makes this seem way too ubiquitous. We are really really creepy things.

And still... I'm debating whether to say this. It seems contrived, but it is where my thought went. Okay, I'll say it and risk seeming cheap- So I am grossed out by the pictures of men arrested for various crimes against children and I eventually think, "God loves him." Ugh- that seems so bumper stickery. I know it, and I know that in my own life I am thankful for grace and continue to grow more sensitive to how I have and continue to change. But... I don't know... I have a sense of how destructive my sin was/is but I am struck with this dissonance. It's almost like I don't want to have thought that because of what it means to someone else. I think when someone is truly changed- which, my saying, by the way means I believe people can change- it's because the self being confronted by God is both devastating and life giving. I know that- I love that. I don't want to qualify it, but what does that mean to someone for whom that means nothing?

I don't know that I have said anything clearly yet. What I mean is, Jesus really is the mediator between me and God. Despite my sin, I can be in communion with God because of Jesus. For me, this isn't casual knowledge and it comes with the knowledge of what my sin really is. I imagine this would be the case for anyone, but I don't know that it is the case for everyone. So say a child molester really comes to terms with their sin and the reality of God. If it means for them what it means for me, confronting that would be horrible. But beyond that what does it mean for their victims or their families? I look at the picture of, literally, my neighbor who is a child molester and think that God loves him but then think of someone else and I don't know how I would express that.

Hmm... so I've said nothing... but if you use the links above you may find you are surrounded by more sex offenders than Starbucks. So... you know... that's something.

Do Me On That Rainbow

WARNING: Things get sexy to make what I think is an important point. Really, I'm warning you, I may be more graphic than you are comfortable with. Don't keep reading if you're a baby or squeamish. Also, it's a really long post, so you know- you're warned about that too.

I sat on a pee covered toilet seat yesterday. See. And that's just a sample- you've been warned.

So we saw Brokeback Mountain this weekend. I know the conventional wisdom is, as a Christian, I'm not supposed to like it or have seen it because it "promotes gay." Well I saw it, but before you have me killed- I didn't like it. Not because I might have gotten gay on me, but because I'm not a big fan of the contemporary idea of romance. I didn't like Titanic, I didn't like The Horse Whisperer, I didn't like The Bridges of Madison County, I didn't like Grease- I pretty much don't like any of those movies that portray love as some wild force that possesses you to surrender everything that matters to you, to abandon your children, to kill someone, to pay the popular girl to be your pretend girlfriend, to not go to college, to leave your spouse, whatever. So I add Brokeback Mountain to the list of those movies that depict romance as some irresistible spirit that makes you flee one unhappy existence to another that is just as unhappy but unhappy in a new and exciting way. Whatever.

Maybe I'm just a big baby about this because my dad cheated on my mom and it was something that "just happened." It was new and exciting I'm sure but it's crap. But it's a crap we hope for. It's a crap we want to smear all over our selves. It's a crap that is gross and stinks but we're convinced is the greatest thing we can know as humans. I don't just mean we confuse the fun of sex for love. I guess that's part of it, but I also think we really imagine ourselves to be in control of things so that when something kind of inexplicable comes along and sex is part of the deal, we go nuts for it.

We see ourselves as truly having mastered everything there is that could be mastered and so if something comes along that seems beyond control and there's the possibility of sex with it, well then, it's more real than anything else and we should ride that pony. Isn't that kind of the romance formula? Someone seems to have it all but there is a dissatisfied undercurrent. Along comes some other person that represents an animalistic but innocent, unbridled, free, force of nature. They're earthy and real. It's not just a "grass is greener" set up, although the grass being greener is a convenient image- the romantic device works if this new person somehow connects the protagonist to some deep-rooted primal or "natural" reality. The protagonist spends a little time too close to them and that's all it takes. You can't be around that kind of natural power without giving in to it and before you know it they're doing it in soft-focus or in a learning how to dance, or a riding horses through the countryside, or a trying on different hats montage with some cheesy crescendo-heavy song setting the mood. Anything to show us that they've recovered something they lost. Where was I even headed? Oh right, we think we're in control and have it all but that's disconnected us form our natural selves so we want romance to come along and break down our walls to make us real. Right, so what fits that formula better than cowboys falling in love? How much more romantic can you get? It's what Jane Austen would compose if she wasn't busy decomposing. The walls of economic class and social standing have been knocked down, the walls of national origin are gone, ethnicity isn't a barrier anymore so what can we use to represent the primal outsider, other than a giant ape that is? I'm not saying we should put those barriers back up, I'm saying a.) romance isn't love and b.) it's stupid to think we have it all under control.

Brokeback Mountain is just an expression of our conception of romantic love that is incapable of actual existence. I do think love is transcendent and exciting, but in a real way. Romantic love is a reified ideal that cannot exist with an actual other person. Why do you think someone has to die or move away in romantic movies? Why don't we see the week after they get together and the credits role? Why is romantic sex idealized and really more about imagined sex than actual sex? Really, the more graphic a depiction of sex is, the less romantic it is right? The small of the back, bare, softly lit by candle light with a hand caressing it is romantic. Actually seeing a penis in a vagina is pornographic or clinical.

I like sex a lot, but not because I buy into some romanticized, soft-focused, candle lit, tight shots on various body parts, overlapping transitions, dreamy soundtrack, kind of sex. Sex is gross. It's messy and slurpy. It's sometimes clumsy. Body parts touch and go together in ways that are pretty weird and somebody's got to clean up afterwards. Even kissing is weird. But, boy, do I like it; still though, it's just sex. Why did I start in with sex? Oh right, I was contrasting idealized romantic sex with real sex.

So, I can't completely explain what keeps two people together but I know it's not sex- and it's definitely not romance. Just like it's not doing the dishes, or randomly giving gifts, or leaving notes that say I love you, or replacing toilet paper. Sex is great; it's fun and feels good but that's not all there is to it. There is the sticking together through it and after it. (I absolutely meant that- I am hilarious). It binds me to my wife beyond the good and happy feelings. It binds me to her through the awkwardness and vulnerability. She stays with me, in part because she sees me naked but also despite it. That's not romance.

So there's the "a" - romance isn't love. As for the "b" - we don't have things under control. I know, I know, I can flip a switch and on come the lights. Poo goes far far away from me. Whitey's on the moon. We can blow people up and give 90 year old men erections. But really, we don't have the control we think we do, and that thinking we have control is a bit of a problem, in addition to an illusion.

Maybe because we spend so much time pretending we have it all figured out, when something "wild" but stupid comes along we go for it. It's like saying the Holy Spirit is just for making you lift your hands, roll in the aisles, talk crazy talk, and pass out; not the Matthew 5 stuff which is just as inexplicable. We need quick answers and down to earth explanations of spirituality in X number of steps on one hand and emotionally high, spirit-charged worship experiences on the other. We lose sight of the reality that every mundane moment is uncharted territory wherein the Spirit does anything it wants, you have no good explanation why anything should be as it is, and everything might collapse in a moment. That's hard to negotiate day to day isn't it? Isn't it just easier to pretend there's a simple formula for life and then when I need a romantic fling just raise my hands and jump around on a Sunday? I mean if I'm a Christian- if I'm not, or if the jumping around gets old, I'll have sex with a stranger.

Maybe this is a good example of that.

Man, this is a crazy rant. See what happens when I get wrapped up in other stuff for a week? Really, this is just more of my modernity bashing claptrap. But I'm okay with that, modernity needs to be bashed.

Hmm, I'll Have a Salisbury Steak, Freedom Fries, and a Rose of the Prophet Muhammad, To Go

Do you remember eating Salisbury Steak in school lunches? Do you remember wondering why it was called Salisbury Steak even though it seemed to just be a hamburger patty immersed in gravy?
Well, it was just a hamburger covered in gravy. How about that?

Happy Valentine's Day

You didn't think I would let Valentine's Day come and go without some type of post did you? Well here you go:

Send Valentine's Greetings, Love, Threats, Condolences, Restraining Orders, Warnings, The Gay Agenda, or whatever else you'd like with this. I made mine.

Free Personals Profile

I know the title could be more clever, but I'm looking for some more random Google hits.

If my life were a Nora Ephron screenplay, this would be the point where the protagonists go back and forth about what makes people get together and why relationships succeed or fail. Everyone else would see that they were going to end up together but they would be clueless; so they engage in some matchmaking schemes for someone else and after two acts they wind up together. Cyndi and I are matchmaking each other.

We know a few people who have met others or married people through eHarmony. I know some people think that's weird, it may be weird in some respects, but mostly, it's just new. Two hundred years ago meeting someone and marrying them without some type of familial network and approval would seem weird. Marrying someone for love would seem weird. Marrying outside of your class or background would be unheard of. Even now, I think randomly approaching someone simply because you think they are attractive and asking them to spend time with you is weird. You're all a bunch of freaks. If I were rambling down a less lighthearted trail right now, this would be the perfect time to explain how the contemporary Evangelical vision of traditional marriage is anything but. But that's not where we are right now.

We saw an ad for free compatibility profiling on eHarmony, so we are going to see if we are compatible. I am filling out the profile as her and she is going to fill it out as me. So in a sense it is like setting someone else up. What we'll really be seeing, though, is if the person we think the other is, is compatible with how we see ourselves. For example, I've already done Cyndi's. This is what she's looking for:

Some of your ideal mate's strongest personality characteristics are:
He tends to be caring compassionate and sensitive towards the needs of others.
Nope
His friends consider him someone who can be trusted and relied upon.
Never
He generally does his best to be honest in all situations, even when it can be difficult.
Yeah Right
He has a very good sense of right and wrong, and almost always tries to be the best person he can.
Maybe If I Were a Girl
Some important qualities that your ideal partner brings to the relationship are:
He is usually open-minded and flexible.
Not For a While Now
He tends to be generous and supportive of his friends.
On My Good Days
Like you, he has lighthearted moments that help him see and share the positive side of life.
Not even A Little Bit
Most of his friends and acquaintances consider him a happy and energetic person.
Not Me
Important goals and values for your ideal mate in a relationship are:
It is very important to him to be part of a religious community.
Only So I Can Subvert It
He needs to be able to share his spiritual beliefs with his partner.
To Be Bossy
He occasionally enjoys spending time with children.
So They Can Get Me Beers and Make Me Sandwiches
There are some trends and fads he doesn't agree with.
Because I Fear Change

So depending on what she discovers about me, I may get a goat.

Your Music Is Weird- What Are You Talking About?! These Songs Rule- NOT A MATCH
River Euphrates- The Pixies
Brick Is Red- The Pixies
Nature Boy- David Bowie
A Day In The Life- The Beatles
One Hundred Thousand Indi- Hieroglyphics
I've been Tired- The Pixies
The Wizard- Black Sabbath
Tangled Up In Blue- Bob Dylan
One Way Ticket to Pluto- Dead Kennedys

It gets worse.

Here Is Something You Can't Understand

Have you ever been really frustrated or overwhelmed by one thing but rather than address the issue you target someone or something completely unrelated-like being frustrated with your wife and kicking the dog or getting a speeding ticket and stabbing someone? It's called displacement. It doesn't really help, actually, it typically makes things worse.
So, dear readers, I encourage you to deal with your problems before they get out of hand or you do something you regret.
See, I care. I want you to live well. I'm a giver.

Completely Unrelated Stories
Big Time's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, is now saying his superiors authorized him to leak classified information to reporters.

Big Time shot somebody. Really, the vice-president shot somebody.

If they traced the robots here, they may have learned who they sold them to, and that would lead them back...home!

Skybalon's Wife- We should go see a movie right now.
Skybalon- What do you want to see?
Skybalon's Wife- Brokeback Mountain
Skybalon- Really? I really want to see it.
Skybalon's Wife- Yeah, me too.
Skybalon- Does that make us gay?
Skybalon's Wife- Well, one of us.
Skybalon- That's going on the blog

Misdirection

So as can be expected, people are asking about my dinner with Osama.

Here's how that happened:

FOIA Release 2243OBL-06 TRANSCRIPT SESSIONS 4A-33 MARKED, 4A-40, 4A-42, 4A-45,4C- 51, 4C-54, 4C-61, X70, X73, 4C-76

"Hi it's Osama, just seeing what you're doing this Saturday. Give me a call if you want to get together- Oh I'll be in town for a few days if Saturday doesn't work. I gotta' catch an Exxon shareholders meeting next week but other than that I'm free. All right I'll talk to you later Inshah All-" **BEEEEP**

"Hey it's me again- I think I got cut off last time- I don't know if you got my last message- I'll be in town for a while starting tomorrow. I'll be at the Econo Lodge- you know low profile ha ha Anyway uhhh, let me know if you want to get together tomorrow, I can send a car round to pick you up. Just give me a call... All right catch you later." **BEEEEP**

"Waazzuuuuup!? Ha ha ha- Hey I wanna see "Cheeper By The Dozen 2" before I go back. Have you seen it? Give me a call if you want to go. Or, you know, we can do whatever. All right talk to you later."

"Hello- it's me... Osama, seeing what you got going on tonight. Give me a call." **BEEEEP**

"Hello?... Are you there... Okay I'll try your cell." **BEEEEP**

"Hey- it's me... Econo Lodge's got a pool and a hot tub if you wanna just relax or something... I've got cable here... Oh I love Sean Hannity, okay, give me a call." **MESSAGE DELETED**

"So... uh I guess you're busy. Okay, uh... I'll call you tomorrow." **BEEEEP**

"***" CLICK/ BEEEEP

"***(inaudible)***" CLICK/ BEEEEP

Osama-"Hi... seeing if you have lunch plans. I'm gonna do some shopping and then go" -
Skybalon- "Hold On- Hello-"
Osama- "Oh hey- how's it going- Man you've been busy- or is it caller ID? ha ha..."
Skybalon- "Ha ha- yeah I've been pretty busy..."

Arlen Specter Hates America

After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mails, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the operation.

WASHINGTON- Associated Press

I know! I am as surprised as you by that headline.

But it's true. Even though it makes us less safe that we know about the NSA domestic spying program, even though anyone that would challenge executive authority by citing the Constitution doesn't realize freedom isn't free, even though we are in a practically interminable war against evil, Republican Senator Arlen Specter has said he is drafting legislation to subject the executive program to a judicial review.


INTERIOR/ POORLY LIT, SMOKE-FILLED SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAMBER. WINDOWS ARE COVERED WITH TIE-DYED SHEETS AND VARIOUS REVOLUTIONARY SLOGANS PAINTED ON THE WALLS AND ON BANNERS ARE VISIBLE. STRAWBERRY ALARM CLOCK PLAYS IN THE BACKGROUND

OPEN TIGHT ON A SKULL/ PULL OUT TO WIDE- REVEALING SKULL TO BE A LARGE CERAMIC BONG THAT SPECTER IS SMOKING FROM

Feinstein and Sessions are making out on the floor while Grassley creepily watches from a distance. In one corner of the room, De Wine is tying off Hatch's arm while Durbin cooks heroine for them. Specter takes a hit from the bong, then holding in the smoke, he pulls Kennedy's head to his and exhales into Kennedy's mouth.

FEINGOLD (entering room, waving a handful of pages)
I don't see how you think they'll go for this

KENNEDY (coughing)
Errr ahh they don't have to go for it, if Bush vetoes it he looks like he has something to hide, if he doesn't he's right where we want him. Either way he falls.

FEINGOLD
No. It's too much too soon, he's been playing brilliantly so far, if we strike now we risk everything we worked for. We need more time to get everything in place

SPECTER
We've been biding our time long enough. We're gonna bring the pigs down from the inside and use their own Constitution to do it.

FEINGOLD
Do you know how long I've been working to build confidence and coalitions? Reaching out through divisions-

SPECTER (interrupting)
This isn't about you or me- this about the Revolution

FEINGOLD
No, Arlen, this legislation is too bold, Bush is too cagey to fall for your moves

SPECTER (rising)
It's time to be bold, we've waited long enough - You and your calls for bipartisan ethics and campaign reform... What do you believe in?- Look around you, man. We rule now- History is ending, and you're trying to keep it alive

BIDEN
I think I smell bacon

GRAHAM
Yeaah!

FEINGOLD
Shut up (dismissively- then to SPECTER) I believe in finishing what we started. I believe in bringing in the New Order-

SPECTER
This is Wonderland, Russ! There is no order- I think you need to remember that!

BIDEN and GRAHAM seize FEINGOLD by the arms. SPECTER grabs a syringe from the table.

GRAHAM (hissing)
How about a little truth, Russ?

SPECTER plunges the syringe into FEINGOLD's neck and releases its contents. FEINGOLD's eyes immediately roll back and he slumps, held up by GRAHAM and BIDEN.

SPECTER
Dump him in Chevy Chase and arrange a press conference.

FADE OUT



So I'm a screenplay writer now.

Keepin' It Real... Maybe?

So I just became very conscious of my self as the author of this blog. As I wonder if there are things that I won't write I realize this isn't really a journal. Or at least, it's not what I thought a journal should be. I used to have journals that I would write all kinds of nonsense in. I told people close to me that I wanted them destroyed when I died. I imagined that gave me a freedom to write whatever I wanted; I thought that's what a journal should be. But this isn't that. Not only because I censor myself, but because you're reading it. But then if nobody ever read those journals then they still aren't much more than my thoughts.

Some people seem to think that blogging is democratized self-expression in that it gives anyone with a computer and internet access the ability to express who they are or what they think for whatever reason they might have for that. I did/do it for entirely selfish reasons. I want to rant to the ether. But I don't know if I am. I mean am I really doing the talking? And the me you read is only kind of me. So who are we in the blogging? Is there even a we, or is it just me over here and you over there?

"What are you talking about, you're just you, I'm just me." Well of course you are, who else could you be? But I mean the me that's writing this right now, I am aware of as a me that might be a little different from the I that is the subject of this sentence. Well, here I'll make it clearer. I write this blog. I am the subject and the blog is the object that receives my action. "I" needs some type of predicate, not only grammatically, but actually. I write. Otherwise there is just some "I" that does nothing- and even doing nothing is something. I mean you can't have an I without some type of expression that is predicated upon that subject. Without the predicate you just have "I" and that doesn't make sense. That says a little bit more. I write and in that a little something is known about the subject. But what do I write? I write this blog and in so doing reveal more about the subject. I, as a subject, am dependent upon my blog, and in turn the object, my blog, is dependent upon me. This is how the subject is known- through its relationship to the object.

So though they are different things, the I and the blog, they are dependent things- though the blog is more dependent on me than vice versa. In general, I am dependent on a predicate. In this instance, I know myself to be an object as much as a subject. That is, I know that I write this blog, so the process of relating myself to an object is also an object of something else. Wait, what? Okay, the whole paragraph above reveals that I am not only known, in this particular instance, through my writing, that is in the relation of the subject to object, but I am aware of that relation.

And then there's you- or your "I." You say, "I read this blog (though maybe not for much longer)." You're the subject of that and the blog is the object that gets read. But in addition to that you are reading about me. So like above, there is an I that is an object to you- the I that you imagine to be me in reading.

So there is an objective me for both of us- that would be Skybalon. The me you know, or the me that you think is the subject "I," depends upon what is expressed in the blog. So from your perspective, if you think of me at all, you think of the "I" that is revealed in my writing. We both think of the I that writes but also of the I that is revealed by what I write. But then there's a bit of a filter to what I write. So the me that is an objective me created in the writing is only kind of me because I can't or won't express everything that is internal to me either practically or intentionally

So on the one hand it's kind of false because it's not all of me that's thrown out there into the ether, or to you. On the other hand it's all that you can know of me so in that way it really is who I am. As far as that goes anyway.

So where are we in that? I think there is only a we insofar as we relate to Skybalon as an "object," but I don't think there is a we in the same way there might be if we actually interacted in a more "subjective" way. Like "We play soccer." Maybe that's the point of blogging, or maybe that's my point. It's a distant intimacy. I'm not saying that I am intentionally deceiving you. But I guess, in addition to whatever barriers I would place by choosing what to say, there is a limit to the "knowing" words themselves allow.

Sorry- I guess I'm not keeping it real. But don't worry, I'm narcissistic enough to keep it up.

An Actual Playlist
Kid A- Radiohead
The Inlaw Josie Wales- Phish
South Bound Suarez- Led Zeppelin
River Euphrates- The Pixies
Leaving Babylon- Bad Brains
Golden Slumbers- The Beatles
The Acid Queen- The Who
Beautiful World- Devo
Underdog- Butthole Surfers (Butthole is a funny word)
Murray- Pete Yorn
Didn't It Rain- Mahalia Jackson
Freddie Freeloader- Miles Davis

Defenestration Is a Funny Word

Do I have to give the obligatory not all Muslims are violent fundamentalists qualifier? If so that was it.

So a long time ago I mentioned the coming global conflict between what can be broadly and not entirely inaccurately described as Islam and what can be as inaccurately described as the "West." The thing is it will be pretty lame if it's historically remembered as having started over cartoons. Oh well.

Rather than offer any kind of cogent and lucid analysis of the racism, political power, and economic disparity that couples with particular textual and theological traditions to create a dynamic with lots of explosive potential, I'll use this space for a petty dig.

I know Pat Robertson and other of our Christian leaders looks at the global situation with sadness, but the sadness is not that children loved by God kill each other. The sadness is that brothers and sisters are complacent. The sadness is there is no passion. I mean there's Pat for example, doing what he can to keep his title "radical cleric" and the best he and his consorts can muster are boycotts. It's not like he hasn't wished anyone dead or told people to expect punishment from God- but nothing. Aside from church burnings, murdered doctors, bombed buildings, assaults against gay people, and a pervasive subtle ethnocentrism that excuses all kinds of injustice- our religious kooks can't pull much together. Where's the organized mayhem? Where's the passion?

We've gotten soft. Our... well I guess your Puritan forebears had no qualms about calling for and following through with the organized murder of Quakers and Pequots. That's boldness. And my forebears, boy, they knew how to please Jesus with burnings, brandings, and murders. Even my ancestors who didn't know Jesus at least had an idea that God would be happy with cutting out and eating the hearts of virgins.

But what do we have now? Subtle systemic violence inscribed with religious language and imagery- how weak is that? Tom Delay saying sweat shops in the Marianas , where imported girls live in concentration camp conditions, forced abortions are commonplace, and labor laws are unheard of are God's blessing and our Divine Right. We no longer boldly come right out and say God wants us to kill. We discreetly valorize war with pictures of uniformed service people kneeling in the desert. Our warriors don't wear cross covered tunics into battle, boldly saying, "I'm killing for Jesus." We hide our divinely imperial designs in tiny lapel pins. What are we? Babies, cowards, craven poltroons.

That's all. I like that word- poltroon. I came across it in a white supremacist sermon. Crazy huh?

Back In The Swing
Radiohead Playlist

My Dinner With Osama

White House spokesman Trent Duffy on Friday, speaking to reporters from the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, echoed previous comments from the administration, saying that terrorists want to strike again and leaks put America in danger.

"The fact is that Al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on page one. And when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy said.

Fox News

Meanwhile
Skybalon- Hey c'mon, you're taking all the prosciutto- you don't even eat pork
Osama- Well we're splitting the dinner I should get half of it
Skybalon- Yeah but I gave you all of the chicken
Osama- I didn't tell you to
Skybalon- Yeah but you don't even eat pork
Osama- Eh well
Skybalon- ...
Osama- ...
Skybalon- Well then we're not splitting this evenly
Osama- Splitting what?
Skybalon- The bill- we're not splitting it, the ham cost like... 4 times as much as the chicken.
Osama- No. We shared a dinner that means we split the bill
Skybalon- No, not if you take all of that
Osama- Yes! We are sharing- we will share the bill. It is not right that you pay less if we share the same meal
Skybalon- Well you're taking more than your "share," plus aren't you like a bazillionaire?
Osama- Aah Akbah sehrit!
Skybalon- Whatever, jerk, I'm not paying the same... Geez I bet you insist that DHS pays half your phone bills
Osama- ... What?
Skybalon- I bet you make Homeland Security pay half of your phone bills
Osama- I don't understand
Skybalon- What? What don't you get?
Osama- Is that a joke or- I don't know what you mean. Why would I want Homeland Security to pay for my phone?
Skybalon- Because you're cheap! Because of the phone taps- Because they listen in on your conversations
Osama- ...
Skybalon- What- you mean you didn't know you're phones were being tapped?
Osama- ...
Skybalon- C'mon, really? How could you not know? I mean... c'mon they recorded Martin Luther King having sex. How could they not want to listen to what you all are up to?
Osama- ... I do live in a cave.
Skybalon- Well it seems like you should've known
Osama- ...
Skybalon- I'm sorry... You can have the prosciutto
Osama- No... you take it.
Skybalon- Okay

Herb Kohl Is a Senator from Wisconsin; His Last Name Means Cabbage

While my computer was gone I had to:
a.) Use computer labs at school.
b.) Actually write (as opposed to type) all the wacky ideas that came to me.
c.) Do schoolwork instead of searching the internet for stupid this or that.

Here's a peek at the kind of stuff I would've posted:


So I finally got my computer back. (Jon, I have your screws). If you were a faithful reader and wondered that maybe I had been detained by DHS, I'm sorry to have concerned you. But I'm here, so is great TV.

We have cable TV now. Remember the whole DSL-I'm-Being-Surveilled-Why-Doesn't-My-Phone-Work Problem I was having? Well, we have a cable connection and cable TV now. We haven't had it very long but Cyndi already has a favorite channel: Animal Planet. It's her favorite to the degree that there are already shows she has seen more than once. And I was cautious at first, but now who cares? If I feel like watching five minutes of basketball right now- I can. How about coverage of week 25 of Premiere League results with actual moving images? I have that. House of Commons debate- absolutely making me pine for articulate leaders able to engage each other in conversation. And plenty of scintillating CSPAN.

So while I have other things I want to write and need quickly get back to my homework, I want to be the first to say that according to Attorney General Gonzales, George Washington ordered electronic surveillance during wartime. Weird huh?
But weird or not, in response to a softball lobbed from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Alberto listed a number of presidents who used electronic surveillance during wartime. George Washington was on that list. That's what he said, ELECTRONIC surveillance.

I don't know if that's true though. Alberto was not under oath when he said that. In fact, there was a long discussion before his "testimony" as to whether he should be under oath. It was deemed by the Chair to be unnecessary so now we can't know that George Washington used electronic surveillance with any kind of assurance. But I guess that's the case with any of the testimony.

It would seem that anytime you are writing or speaking about anything of substance you would choose your words willy nilly- no wait carefully, I mean you would choose your words carefully.

Oh, and did you also know that if you think it's a bit of an executive overreach to bypass both the legislative and judicial branches of government in surveilling us you want Al Qaeda to attack the US again? That's what Grassley and Gonzales decided. So if you think the Constitution, its amendments and subsequent decisions prevent any government agent from listening in on your phone conversations without a court order you want us all to die . Why would you want that? Why do you hate America so much? You're a jerk.

Just so you know, jerk, the Congressional authorization to use any necessary and appropriate force to catch Al Qaeda means the President and any executive representative can do whatever the President wants to catch terr'ists. That includes the use of wire taps without a court order (even though some have said it doesn't). That means spying on Quakers. That means... I guess whatever anybody wants it to mean. And who cares- I can see Law and Order or CSI at almost any time of the day on almost any day of the week. If it means someone else watches me so I can watch the attempted comeback of O-Town heart throb Ashley Parker, that seems a fair trade off. The country's in great hands so take it easy hippies and get cable.