Thursday, October 16, 2008

What Are You Gonna Do, Vote for Someone Else?


I know people, dyed in the wool, Limbaugh-loving, don't care about policy just the R after the name, if the GOP says "up is down" then up is down, Republican people, who despite their ideological loyalty still have to exist, and in their existence have had to face choices that McCain dismissed last night with scorn and air quotes.

Maybe I can assume they are no longer watching debates, but if they were, I wonder how this played.

Oh, and eloquence is a bad thing?

If You Watch This, You're a Terrorist




Until we have a gigantic- GIGANTIC- meteor hurtling toward earth, or spaceships hovering over DC, or a nuclear suitcase bomb hidden somewhere in the country, I remain unconvinced.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Build Zion With Blood and Jerusalem With Wrong


Last night at our Quaker Peace Fellowship meeting we watched Taxi to the Dark Side.

Infuriating.

But as I was preparing for it, writing up the curriculum, as it were, I was struck by the difficulty of describing a dependence on torture as anything other than a kind of faith.

I offered this as part of the discussion material:
Relying on or accepting torture requires a kind of faith- a trust in something unprovable and unknowable and often contrary to given evidence: that torture will provide useful information. It becomes a system that takes human life in the name of that faith making that human life a sacrifice. In Christian theological terms this is idolatry....


The issue of faith goes further. It preserves our way of life. It keeps us safe. It is ultimately a good. That all seems to be part of the faith and hope in a system that uses torture (even as it wants to call it something else). Torture becomes an act of devotion to the god of that system. I could really drag out the metaphor, only I don't think it's a metaphor.

In any case, faith or hope seem like the wrong word, but in their inappropriateness, each seems like the perfect word. Others may want to call it something else. A negative faith. Sin. Despair.

Sure.

But I think faith has to be the first word to use so there is some dissonance, so we are confronted with our idolatrous relation to a system. (That is, if we are a people who have a sense of what faith might be.) If we have a misplaced faith, it ought to be called out as such. Only after we see that it is possible for it to be misplaced faith could something like sin or despair make sense. No?

The Times They Are a'Changin'
Well, Replace "Times" with "Old Racists" and "a'Changin'" With "a'Thankfully Dyin'-Off"


Or it could alternately be called

How Cute


“I’ve always been against the blacks,” said Mr. Rowell, who is in his 70s, recalling how he was arrested for throwing firecrackers in the black section of town. But now that he has three biracial grandchildren — “it was really rough on me” — he said he had “found out they were human beings, too.”

Same NY Times article.

If only we could get every white supremacist to become the grandparent of a biracial child. The world could be a better place.

Impenetrability! That's What I Say


“I would think of him as I would of another of mixed race,” said Glenn Reynolds, 74, a retired textile worker in Martinsville, Va., and a former supervisor at a Goodyear plant. “God taught the children of Israel not to intermarry. You should be proud of what you are, and not intermarry.”

Mr. Reynolds, standing outside a Kroger grocery store, described Mr. Obama as a “real charismatic person, in that he’s the type of person you can’t really hate, but you don’t really trust.”

NY Times

This is just how THE LIBERAL MEDIA work... works? That's a tough one. Media is plural, but I think when it's used in that ideological sense it should become singular. Right. Like Jews as actual people is a plural, but THE JEWS would be a single mass, so singular...

Anyway. This is how it is done. You go to some Wal-Mart parking lot in Mobile, Alabama and let people talk about their insane racial prejudices just so you can make it look like people in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Mobile, Alabama have insane racial prejudices.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA. Hmph.

This is just like their making a big deal about the McPalin supporters who yell out "Kill him!" and "Terrorist*", or carry an Obama monkey at campaign rallies but no mention is made of how people call the president a war criminal.

Sure, the president did actually authorize war crimes, but hey, that's his right as MY PRESIDENT.

And I'd bet there are a number of Obama supporters who would yell out nasty things at an Obama rally- I've heard "boos" in fact.

I'd even bet, if asked "Do you think someone who bombs civilians could be considered a terrorist?" Obama supporters might say "Yes." There. See? They'd call John McCain a terrorist.

Are you hearing about that? No. Oh, but some random people in Alabama say Obama's another breed of human, or “He’s going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch,” and it's front page news. Well, not literally front page. But it's news.

And we keep hearing about how Palin keeps saying Obama pals around with terrorists and that he's too different to be the president of REAL AMERICA, and McCain keeps suggesting Obama is too mysterious, too unknown and it's all portrayed as racist nationalism and jingoism just because people are receiving it as racist nationalism and jingoism.

Where's the balance?

* I actually have a hard time getting upset about that one. It reminds me so much of GOB it makes me laugh.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

This Makes Sense



Where Would You Even Begin?


"If Obama were a white Democratic nominee named Barry O'Malley, the GOP would be going after him twice as hard. But many liberals would still caterwaul about fomenting hatred and racism, because that's what they always do."

LA Times

Hey... I'm an idiot, too. Why don't I have an LA Times column?

We Could Just Leave


"With time running out for the conclusion of an agreement governing American forces in Iraq, nervous negotiators have begun examining alternatives that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials."

Washington Post

So do we say nothing, apply no pressure, because this has no impact on our 401(K)s? Except that it does. Do we remain silent on this because there are people in love that want to marry against your wishes and you have to devote energy to that? Overall, you're not sure what to say or do because this somehow makes you free?

A house guest that acted like us would clearly be seen as the boorish ass they were. You don't want to be a boorish ass.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Why Doesn't He Just Start His Own Church?


"A week ago, Father Geoffrey Farrow stood before his Roman Catholic parishioners in Fresno and delivered a sermon that placed him squarely at odds with his church over gay marriage.

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break 'a numbing silence' about church prejudice against homosexuals."

LA Times

First we should say, "What a fool, putting his livelihood on the line for the sake of conscience?"

That's the think thing about being Catholic, you kinda' have to live as if your theological convictions matter.

Crazy, no?

Also kind of sits in a weird opposition to the previous post.

ed.-Idiot. Thing! Thing!

Whether It's Hindu, Buddha, Allah


Just so you know, God, uh Hindu, has been saying some pretty crazy stuff about you.
Hindu.
No, Hindu, you know... the god with the dancey arms and the elephant head.
Oh.
Really? I always thought his name was Hindu.
Okay.
Well you know he's pulling for Obama and if he wins, well, I don't know if I should repeat what he's been saying, but it's not pretty...



I had a refreshingly honest conversation with someone this past weekend. Come to think of it, I had two refreshingly honest conversations with someone in the past week. But this post will be only about one of them.

Someone was telling me that he basically couldn't stand John McCain, was beating himself up for having to vote for him, didn't look forward to it, but because he was a Republican he was going to support his guy and vote Republican. It's just what he had to do.

For him, it was a matter of commitments and loyalty. There was no special anointing on John McCain, he didn't pretend John McCain is "such a Godly man" and so deserves his vote, he didn't try to fit McCain's narrative into a consistent type of conservatism, nor did he pretend that a McCain presidency would be best for his class interests. It was all about labels and he said so. It was a kind of reluctant critical consciousness. "Ugh, I'm so attached to labels- why am I so attached to labels?"

He was willing to talk and think through his actions and commitments to the point of revealing why he did what he did- or to see what his actions said about his commitments and loyalties.

Say what you will about "I'm a Republican so I have to vote Republican" ultimately being a shallow reason then watch that video above again.

Anyway. I suppose one could say that there is a scriptural warrant for this type of conversation with God- "God, if you don't want to look bad, you'd better help out your people."

So, there you go. Here we have a latter day Moses, asking God, on our behalf, to stick with the program, do what he said he was going to do, be the better God and show those foreigners- their Gods... sorry- gods, show those foreign gods who's boss.

It's baloney, but it is nonetheless important. Maybe all the more important. I can never get that right. Whatever the case, it is an honest articulation of the faith inherent in one's presuppositions and loyalties, and as such, when starkly stated mostly laughable.

Take this one as another example:
According to this neo-liberal logic, the pursuit of self-interest of the market would be the best and most efficient way to generate the common good; and in this way the contradiction between self-interest and common good would be solved... The best way to live the love for one's neighbor, the poor, would be to overcome the temptation to do good and continue being selfish in the market, seeking one's self-interest in a more efficient way. This way, conquering the temptation to do good through economic and social policies turns out to be the main spiritual task in the social field."

Ha ha. Get it?

Anyway, back to Moses Come-Lately. I guess we could say that making John McCain president is part of the same redeeming history. In that case, bugging God in this way makes sense. An Obama presidency would be like dying in the wilderness and God shouldn't let that happen so... We could say that, and if we say that, I guess this fits.

But it sounds like this guy is saying something different. I think this guy thinks God is an idiot and is trying to talk "him" into a fight: I don't know if you realize this God, but those other Gods are trying to make you look like a chump.

It's easy to mock it (see above), but it is very revealing. What we say and do reveals underlying spiritual commitments. It doesn't get much clearer than this. Now I don't know that he speaks for anyone other than himself in this, but how many of us, when we get down to it think in these terms?

That's all. Anything more would be getting preachy.

And the Lord repented of the evil which he though to do to his people.
Go to the Mirror Boy- The Who
Rhiannon- Fleetwood mac
Uncle John's Band- Grateful Dead
Intergalactic- Beastie Boys
Watch That Man- David Bowie
Nowhere at All - Lou Reed

Friday, October 10, 2008

History Is Caged*


A completely irrelevant man once said:

"Is this true Christian religion to see so much preaching, praying, sermons, lectures and to see so many blind and lame, poor men and women, and children up and down the streets, and at the steeple-house doors, is not this an ill savour among you and in you, and the high profession ye profess? "

George Fox, in To All The Magistrates in London

*Ugh- what a downer title. What happened to the light-hearted references to movie titles, dialogue, and song lyrics

It's About Heritage, Not Hate


So some students at a Quaker university in Oregon hung an image of Barack Obama from a tree. Really. I know that sounds bad on the surface but we should remember that hanging a black man from a tree is an age-old form of American protest.

And if you look at the situation in context you can understand the act. There was a note attached indicating that the demonstrators were protesting a university outreach program targeting minorities. From what I hear, a good number of the kids at George Fox had their Harvard and Yale spots taken from them by less qualified minority students. So, you know.

A Quaker school. In Oregon.

Anybody want to talk me down?

So How Do We Tell If She's Made of Wood?


I get it.

I just want to put that out there at the beginning so that if, when reading this, you think, "You just don't get it," you will know that I, in fact, do get it.

The McCain-Palin campaign can't possibly believe that the intense fear and white resentment they are stoking will not hit a ceiling. Granted, Republicanism of the past 40 years or so has been very successful in its adroit use of fear and racism, but everything has a shelf-life, no? No. Maybe?

Who knows?

Anyway, this intense push to identify Obama as the embodiment of terrorism, a different America, the scary "other" we don't know, could work, but if it does, it won't work in the way it has in the past.

Background please- Okay, when Bush I used racial fear and resentment against Michael Dukakis, the people you feared remained a faceless swarthy mass. Scary to be sure, but scary without a body or name. Scary because it was without a body and name. It wasn't the black kid behind the counter at McDonald's. You like him. And it wasn't the Mexicans mowing your lawn (probably Guatemalan, actually, but brown south of the border is all Mexican, right? ). Those guys are okay. Quiet, unassuming, hard-working, deferent. You weren't scared of them, but that wasn't the object of your fear. You were scared of the composite sketch, the unidentified welfare queen, the Latino male 17-23 y.o. with a slight build. Eesh, that is scary. That's the Southern strategy and it worked, especially as a form of white on white violence.

It got all kinds of people to forget about politics as it actually affects their lives as humans and worry about matters of identity wrapped up in things like Flags, Gods, and Sex, so they became perfectly willing to wage war against themselves.

Whatever.

But Barack Obama has a face. His face. He's got a name. Sure it's a weird name, but you see him and you're not actually afraid. You realize he's not so bad. Sure you still hate BLACK PEOPLE, but Barack isn't BLACK PEOPLE. He's Barack. He's like the Mexican that married your daughter versus the ILLEGAL ALIENS that are stealing your country. The faceless other can't be faceless when it actually has a face.

So it won't work like that, but like I said, it could work.

Intensifying the fear and anger will do just that- intensify the fear and anger. And even though it won't break through the lunatic 20-30% that you can see on the YouTubes, it will give that minority a momentum disproportionate to its mass.

Only lunatics were calling Bill Clinton a terrorist or radical leftist, but the fear and resentment of that era sprung up in a federal building in Oklahoma City. Now, our mainstream candidates are only steps away from calling the opposition a terrorist. (That's mainstream, folks... Volks.)

If McCain and Palin were not the Republican ticket, they could probably still fill beer halls by offering the rhetoric that they have resorted to. It wouldn't be hard to find plenty of people "mad as hell" or a bunch of frustrated white guys who are desperate for someone to affirm their belief that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. We would probably be able to see it for what it is though- crazy.

But maybe that crazy will strike fear into enough people that they don't want to risk an Obama presidency, not because of Obama, but because of the crazies who could not accept their secret Muslim, radical Christian, gangster elitist, terrorist president.

It is perhaps a much more brilliant ploy than it appears on the surface. Or maybe it's the only thing McCain has left since he's faced with the unsavory prospect of running as a Republican in a post Atwater-Rovian context.

Whatever the case, 30% could sometimes be enough. Historically, 40% has been*.

It may actually be a fear of white people that keeps Obama from the presidency. Ironic, no?

*This line is a cray historical allusion. You can disregard it.

Irony Can Be So Ironic
Wishlist- Pearl Jam
Come as You Are- Nirvana
86- Green Day
Soozy- The Briefs
America Is- Violent Femmes
Lover Man- Sarah Vaughan
The Function- Talib Kweli
3 Speed- Eels

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Laugh Now Cry Later


skybalon- Hey look what finally came-
Qweenbean- What?
skybalon- My Obama buttons
Qweenbean- Ooohhhh, those are gonna be worth a lot of money when he's assassinated.


Too soon?

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Jesus, In Your Heart You Know He's Right


We, like many other congregations, have a sign on our church property that offers passersby some clever church saying or other. Right now it says something like "Real Change Comes From Jesus". Although on one side of it there is a "typo". A couple of character tiles were left up so it says "Real Change Comes From Jesus N,?"

Really.

I think to demonstrate how well tapped into the zeitgeist Glendora Friends is, our next sign ought to say: "Jesus; The Real Maverick".

I'm avoiding grading papers.

Wait a Second!


I just realized something. If Barack Obama becomes president, then that means we've opened the door to all kinds of people being president.

Now I get what people are so worried about.

See, The System Works


For the first time, a federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, ordering 17 Chinese Muslims to be brought to his courtroom on Friday.

LA Times

Take that, hippies.

Six years later, four years after being cleared of any wrong-doing, these 17 prisoners have been ordered released. Of course they haven't been released yet, and if the DOJ has its way, they won't be, but that misses the point- the The System works.
They have been ordered freed. We can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our business, get things back to normal, as if nothing ever happened because they are free.

Well, Now I'm Convinced


Space Rock Found on Collision Course With Earth
ABC News

There you go.

Alien invasion, an asteroid hitting the earth, zombies, or some other apocalyptic scenario requires we have a black president.

Monday, October 06, 2008

True Dat


This is presently my favorite line in the world...

The Republican Party used to specialize in gimlet-eyed, steel-rim, crepe-soled common sense and then it was taken over by crooked preachers who demand Americans trust them because they're packing a Bible and God sent them on a mission to enact lower taxes, less government. Except when things crash, and then government has to pick up the pieces.


I hear it as a sermon.

ed.- I forgot this. It's Garrison Keillor.

Friday, October 03, 2008

And a Pony


So The Blonde Buddha feels pretty confident that Obama is going to be the next president. Polls are putting him in the 50% neighborhood right now but to my mind that's evidence of why he could very well not be. That anywhere around 40% of polled voters could have been paying any kind of attention, I mean any kind, even the most accidental glance at a local news teaser, and still support the intemperate, erratic, incoherent McCain (let alone McCain-Palin) speaks volumes. If it's not closer to 70-30 in the next week, I will remain unconvinced about Obama's prospects.

Call me cynical, or aware of the intense racial bigotry, fear, and political machinations that rule, I just don't think such a small margin indicates a victory for Obama. Oh sure, if all you white devils want to surprise me, I'll take it. But it will be a surprise.

That said, if Obama is the next president it will symbolize quite a victory and milestone for the US but that should in no way let anyone feel like they are off the hook. Especially don't feel that Obama is a liberal in any significant sense of the term, or that his election will be the dawn of the worker's paradise. He seems a good, willing to listen to smart people, judicious, and fair-minded guy but he's no leftist and the people that got him here (and maybe there) will have to push for at least five things in an Obama presidency. (Five possible things- not like "everyone gets jetpants!" or"nationalize the oil companies"). In no particular order:
With the bailout passing, the next administration will have its economic work cut out for it to address the mortgage issues this bill (and administration) doesn't.
Take advantage of the opening in a health care discussion to push hard to bypass insurance companies and stop employers from being responsible for providing coverage,
Withdraw from Iraq without a stopover in Afghanistan (this really should be number 1, but I said in no particular order, didn't I?)
Stop torture. Plain as that. (and kudos to McCain for being willing to utter the word at the debate).
Get a Federal energy plan with thresholds and goals at least as good as California's (at least)

That's not that tall an order. And it is an order.

The Difference Between A Pitbull and a Hackey Mom


Okay I'm a big lame so more debate stuff.

Watching the DNC, I was taken by Joe Biden's biography.* So again, last night, when Biden peeled back a layer of sexism and retold how his experience and concerns as someone who has lost loved ones and as a single parent are no less real because he has a penis, I was again struck by the story and moved by his connecting it to matters of policy.

Of course it could be boiler plate. Maybe it is a go-to line for him and people who know him better see right through it. It's not like I don't know people who make up for any lack of substance by pretending to tear up when speaking. But it seemed relevant and sincere last night and not at all like a canned line to mention his wife and child's deaths.

G'uh, I guess 'cos my wife and baby make me a baby- just thinking about his experience makes me all babified again. But maybe with time, if it turns out Joe Biden mentions his dead wife and kid as a catchall response- "Hey, Joe, how many houses do you have?" "However many it is, my dead wife doesn't get to share any of them with me"- something like that- it'll make me angry rather than empathize.

So, that said, I believed his hesitation and emotion in the answer was real, it seemed like one of those deep moments wherein personal experience/pathos is confronted with the broader world and makes one feel with and for other people. It's good that there are politicians who can do that. But it was an awful moment on the C-Span split screen, just awful. Ronald McDonald couldn't respond at all like a human. That's the "real" people are attracted to? Your wife died, but John McCain's a maverick.

At least she didn't say John McCain was a POW.

Okay, so maybe she was overcoached and couldn't get over the need to stay on message. Maybe her journalistic background took over- just look at the camera and smile. Maybe she didn't hear anything anyone said all night, she just knew to go to the cards. Those may be good excuses for seeming cold and uncaring. They don't bode well for arguing that she's a competent leader.

* Please note- That doesn't mean I think he is a Regular Joe. No one in the Senate is. (Except for Russ Feingold, PBUH.) It simply means I'm human- not "the boy who couldn't cry".

ed.- I couldn't find the split-screen version... but I guess I didn't look too hard for a C-Span take on the moment. Trust me, it's worse when you see her grinning through the whole thing and then jumping right into her Maverick notes.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

When Students Do It It's Called Cheating


Did you know that Augustine's thoughts on sexuality were nuts? No? That's okay, a lot of people don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. Even a lot of Christians, who assume certain things about the history of their tradition don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. That's not a big deal, why should they know?

I mean I could think of good reasons to know what Augustine wrote- actual good theological reasons to be familiar with his writings. Even though he said stuff like an erection "rises up against the soul's decision in disorderly and ugly movements," and that men and women cannot have sex without lust (therefore sin) entering the picture, stuff that just doesn't make sense, his work as a testimony of the transformative power of God in a person's actual existence is amazing. The submission of his intellect to the Word (not word) of God is humbling and inspiring. His intense personal struggle to conform his life to what he understood as a divine measure is beyond... Well it's just beyond.

His disregard for women and sex is a problem but whatever, he was a 4th century Western man, give him a break.

You know what doesn't deserve a break? Our misappropriating his work. How dare we take what he said and use it as an ideological club? Who do we think we are? I mean pretending we can universally apply his historically localized and specific thoughts, that's absurd.

Ah- I'm just kidding, that's what his work is for. I mean what else would we do with it? And so it's perfect that we don't familiarize ourselves with what he actually wrote. It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place.

It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place... ?

I just blew my mind man.

Of course it doesn't really make sense to take some 4th century North African Latin dude's thoughts and pretend that they exist as a matter of fact or universal application. I mean that would be like finding the rules to Hungry Hungry Hippos and imagining you could use them to understand and play some other game you came across.

It doesn't make sense but let's do it anyway. And again, when we do it, let's not do it in a well-informed manner. Let's try to be mostly ignorant of what he, and others, let's include others too, let's be mostly ignorant of what they all said and wrote, but pretend it's all part of some cohesive whole, so that when we try to craft some statement about this or that, we can invoke their names, and since their real old, it'll carry their weight.

Maybe.

During my Recording process I suggested that our Faith & Practice's counsel on the issue of sexuality left a lot to be desired. It is generally unclear and buys into some categories and concepts that I think we ought not buy into if we are the people we like to say we are- namely the church.

I still think it is problematic, but at least, it was our statement. I mean, as unclear as it is, one can make the case that it came from our Yearly Meeting, so even if it is unclear and mistaken- it is our lack of clarity and mistake to own. I'm only being a little silly with that last bit. It really is a good thing to make your own mistakes.

But, now we might as well be a subsidiary of the Family Research Council or Exodus International. I mean, judging by the information that keeps finding its way to my inbox and the Gay Panic I've seen, I'd put money on the next F&P counsel on sexuality ('cos I'm sure we'll insist it be there) being a copy and paste job from some Focus on the Family pamphlets.

Is there a "World of At Leasts" part of this? No, or it's hard to see it right now if there is. I mean, I've recently had people try to toss Augustine in my face as a demonstration of the church's consistent teaching on the Dos and Do Not Dos of sex, and I've been told Exodus International is a ministerial resource we ought to use... like it's all one big pile of proof or authority.

I guess I'd just like us to be faithful enough to make our own mistakes.

Or Sometimes Pretending To Be Prepared
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Gigantic- Pixies
Army of Me- Bjork
All I Ever Wanted- POE Soundtrack
La Danza De Los Viejitos- Mariachi Folklorico
Pure Denizen of the Citizens Band- Frank Black
La Costilla Michoacana- Mariachi Nuevo de Mexico
Won't Get Fooled Again- The Who
Mean Mr. Mustard- The Beatles
This Is The New Shit- Marilyn Manson

M'eh


Fine, everyone gets to be middle class.

Government is the problem so we'll address it with more oversight... so Main Street doesn't hurt Wall Street... and we're a team of mavericks

It would be four more years of "nukular", folks. Just saying.

And Great. Because it wasn't a repeat of her Couric performance, I'm going to have to listen to people who suddenly feel justified in their still irrational adoration of Ronald McDonald. Ah who am I kidding? Her irrational supporters didn't watch this.

But in all, here's what matters: I got something in my eye and I had a burrito.

Duty Indeed


Oh except for that last one, okay, that can't stand. Paying taxes isn't a matter of duty or patriotism? Going for the ownership society, this time with healthcare? The present financing crisis is a result of that "ownership society".

She's essentially saying we're a bunch of rubes and morons that can't run a country, remember how we screw things up? Doncha' hate the Federal government? But vote for us so you can keep yer money 'cos we don't ask anything of you- except to send your children to kill and die in the Middle East.

Lay it out- your benefits will be taxed so you can pay for your health insurance, though there's no guarantee that you can get coverage, and there's no cap as to how much insurance will cost, and if you were John McCain with all those health conditions, you could not get coverage in your own plan (you should've added that last one)

Oh Bridge to Nowhere- zing-

Ugh


So John Mccain meant the fundamentals of the economy are the American workers... Hmmm do we address the high unemployment or the high worker productivity rewarded with lower wages and income disparity. That's strong?

Hey... Don't live outside your means. That actually is good advice- any time, not just tough times. That's the advice Carter gave the country and Reagan said "Screw That, we're America, no one tells us there's a limit to our freedom to have stuff." And we said "USA USA USA"

I wonder how it'll play coming from Ronald McDonald.

Hey mean man, don't challenge her with facts or "actual events in history."

All right. This is enough hipness for me.

I'm going to listen to the debate like a boring old adult. No more Live-Blogging! for me.

You Betcha!


So it makes sense that Joe would be able to talk about regulation... (Big Government Demeecrat that he is)

Ah shucks... Golly...

She's looking down and blinking a lot isn't she?

Well I'm glad somebody explained what John McCain meant about the fundamentals of the economy being strong.

Hi, Gwen


What would an untoward outburst be?
"Sarah, tell me about dinosaurs and cave men."

She asked, "Can I call you Joe?" That sounds like some sort of vooddoo secret. Don't let her do it Joe, she knows spiritual warfare techniques.

Democracy


Did you know that the debate is in St. Louis because Aunheiser-Busch (sp) are/is a huge donor to the Commisison on Presidential Debates? True.
And they decide with the candidates in secret the format of the debates.

LiveBlogging Rulz!!!


The back of Gwen Ifill's head...

That's funny. When I picture Gwen Ifill in my head, she's wearing blue.

C-Span it's like you exist to make our government lame.

Yo, Kidz This is Straight Up Sick


So I listened to the presidential debate on the radio, to fully swing the pendulum, and make voting and a type of politcal awareness hip, I will be watching the vice-presidential debate on the computer through C-span.

Hmm... Maybe I shouldn't have written C-Span if I want to be hip...

Seriously? 90 second answers? This should be great

I am totally liveblogging, dudes.

The Invisible Hand is Strangling You


How do you determine the value of something for which there is no market?

What are you, some kind of jerk? Why would you even think a question like that in this day and age?

Stop thinking like that and think like this:
There could be anything in this envelope- winning scratch-off lottery tickets, a lovely bit of string, the pink slip to a broken car, art work, keys to a safe deposit box, cash, an IOU for a large sum of money, RAM, cigarettes, the deed to a house, nothing. Who knows?

I know, but other than me who knows? Point is, you don't know, but that shouldn't stop you from offering me money for it. Offer me something reasonable. $100. And don't think of your offer as a purchase, rather think of it as an investment. Invest $100 in this mystery envelope. Now it doesn't matter what is in the envelope because it is worth at least $100 once you give me $100 for it- but wait, in that instant that you gave me $100, you took the first step in this envelope's potentially infinite increase in value. If you're willing to give me $100, how much more would the next person be willing to give you? We don't know. So you just got this envelope for a steal. This envelope could go for $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000,000- whatever. You got it for $100?! You're a financial genius.

Now I feel a little bad for letting it go for $100, but I am a man of my word. It's yours for $100.

Hey, Kool-Aid


As pathetic and difficult to watch as Sarah Palin's public performances have been since the convention (since she's had to rely on her own words rather than read someone else's crafted zingers), I think she's doing exactly what she's supposed to do.

I was reading an article that is essentially a collection of quotes from Sarah Palin supporters explaining why they are Sarah Palin supporters.

"'She's real. Everyone can identify with her,' said Karen Rinehart, from Pinkerton, a suburb of Columbus, who praised her clarity. 'She has five kids. I have six.'"

"'She came from a middle-class family. She did it with conviction and grit,' Plessinger concluded. 'God's in charge. I'm voting for God first.'"

"'It's her integrity,' Smalley said, 'what she has done for her state, and yet she is able to have a family, a career, a husband. It just gives woman hope that we can do it. She is sassy and we like sassy.'"

Seriously?

Yes.

Whatever.

I really can see why people like her.
She's a bit of a hole. People can project whatever they want on to her and support her for that.
She is the perfect American candidate, she feeds our narcissism that requires our leaders be some type of "just like us" though there is no single "us" and the "us" that Palin is is actually a small minority of the country. It's the next manifestation of "who would you rather have a beer with?" That is completely irrelevant, but that's how enough of us think.
She's a religious nut of the type that thinks there is an essential value to being that type of religious nut that overrides any other concern. Believing the Flinstones is plausible history is a good thing. Trying to find out how to ban books with the word "Gay" in the title is exactly what she should be doing.

In fact, I think the worse she does in the public eye, the more REAL AMERICANS will support her. She's that perfect naught or place holder for a people terrified of the necessary difference and messiness of democracy.* Whatever you feel you are up against, Sarah's going to overcome it, and since she's just like you, you are going to overcome it. Take that Elitists, and that Liberal Media, here's a poke in the eye Evolutionists, knee to the groin for you Secular Humanism, Economic Insecurity, Swarthy Masses, Condoms in School...

But that's for our imbecilic selves. I think she also has a very important ideological role. I mean she doesn't just exist because of our insipid narcissism, she also serves the destroyer.

She's Ronald McDonald.

She is a mascot, a clown meant to make it easier for us to swallow poison, to want the poison. That's exactly what she was at the RNC, a good-looking package communicating someone else's words to make venom palatable. Read about what she's done to Wasilla. Don't think of how little experience she has or what she hasn't done. Think of what she did do, what she would want to do. Imagine her ideology writ large in the US.

If you're not scared of that... Well... I'd say turn off the TV and go read a book but you'd probably pick your Bible (Oh snap!)

*Isn't it ironic how the idea of REAL AMERICANS is incredibly Anti-American, if America is an ongoing democratic experiment that is. Don't ya' think?

Monday, September 29, 2008

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.

Friday, September 26, 2008

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

Monday, September 22, 2008

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.

Friday, September 19, 2008

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

Thursday, September 18, 2008

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.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

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].

Saturday, September 13, 2008

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.

Friday, September 12, 2008

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

Thursday, September 11, 2008

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

Friday, September 05, 2008

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.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

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.