Aureantes' Realm -- Paranoid Gold in a Gilt-Plastic World .....

Online Blackout Day [SOPA STRIKE]

2012-01-18T01:19:00.000-06:00

.

Don't Let U.S. Media Megacorporations
(or Government)
Kill Online Freedom of Speech

This is the only public post that will be visible on my Facebook or blog pages for Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012, in protest of unconstitutional online domain-blocking/censorship legislation. If you have not already seen and signed the petition linked above, please read and consider it now - and/or contact your Congressperson via this link here - because the Internet that you are used to seeing in all its activity here and elsewhere will not exist if either SOPA or PIPA pass into law as massive media conglomerates are pressuring.

I have studied arts/entertainment law - "anti-piracy" being the supposed basis for this legislation - and this law (under either docket name) has no teeth to curb /actual/ IP piracy/theft on a global scale (since it is focused on "U.S. aimed" websites), but a good deal of threat to harass and quash all manner of nonprofit fair-use: demo covers and karaoke videos, fan and tribute videos, socially-shared news articles/excerpts, fan fiction, obscure films/clips that are out of commercial distribution - and practically any material, be it entertainment or factual information, that either media companies or governmental entities do not want distributed to the general American public. It denies due process absolutely, indefinitely, and without recourse for injury; it claims the right to punish entire domains (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, etc.) for even single "alleged" user infractions of copyright/IP law by blocking them, rerouting their online traffic, and freezing their financial transactions - and this controversy is being swept under the carpet by the mainstream and primetime broadcast media whose parent companies are behind the proposed legislation.

These media megacorporations are counting on people's loyalty and ignorance to maintain their commercial profits (and increase their gain from legal settlements) despite this gross betrayal and evasion of public dialogue. Ultimately it is a stupid attempt to kill the very goose that lays their golden eggs in this peer-to-peer and intentionally-communal online age....even assuming a short-term gain in profits due to scaring away all non-profit usage/sharing of material, the forecast is that - as people are (hopefully) not idiots, they will eventually refrain from consuming for-profit-only entertainment as they realize that it has treated them all as potential criminals rather than as loyal or supportive audiences at all.

I believe in the right of all artists to be duly recognized and earn compensation for their creative work. I do /not/ believe in the right of corporations or government entities to censor creative or political expression merely because it does not give them instant money and/or support them unconditionally. The "marketplace of ideas," ironically, is one of the least-free and least-respected aspects of civilization in this capitalist society, because of the modern demand that all activity be directly translatable into financial gain or loss as a "property" - a concept which in itself goes against the grain of both nature and the entire course of pre-Industrial creative and technological history. These present demands of entrenched media-monopolists go too far, and what is at stake is freedom of speech itself - political /and/ creative; entrepreneurial, educational, and social. And that is a fundamental freedom that we as a nation and as humans cannot afford to lose, regardless of anyone's profit-driven paranoia.

_

Stockupocalyptic musings and the fall of civilization (*already in progress)

2011-08-04T02:44:00.000-05:00

[Original private blogpost dated 8/3/11 at 2:51 am]

I don't think I've ever in this life had a more existentially, cosmically depressing experience as shopping at Borders this past Saturday - the same store that I'd been so glad about when it opened in my hometown, so close and convenient and comprehensive in its offerings and possibilities, now with its shelves and bins being picked over and falling into disorder, no point seen in reorganizing them or even putting things back in their stated category for the benefit of other scavengers. Not quite anarchy overall, but something slower and sadder and less energetic - picking through the carcass for what is worth buying at last, for the last. One sees how others value things - or not: the clearance prices placed, the discounts announced on the signage on the gradually-entropic shelves, what is ransacked or decimated and what still remains to be chosen or left, to survive or be "liquidated." Which, at this moment of writing, strikes me as a hint of Arrakis...except that that fictional culture has far more of a sense of its own values and priorities than this one does.

The music bins - no point in looking thoroughly for anything by alphabet or genre...the space where the soundtracks A through L might generally be is filled with random DVDs, and the letters are scattered here and there amidst the other side of that shelving. I'm slightly curious about a few things, perhaps - hmm, Season 4 music of Doctor Who? - Season Two of Merlin on DVD? - but as an investment for which one must yet pay? The ends of the sections are the most stable, I suppose - I see Tom Waits maintaining his place in what would be the W-to-Zs - but the system is breaking down inexorably, the cafe closed forever, no raison d'etre for the polite unspoken rituals of browsing, and long-gone as well, it seems, are the old headphones by which one might aurally sample and taste before committing oneself to buy. I cannot guess at music at a time like this - not even certain of the John Rutter w/ Cambridge Singers CD in the "Christmas in July" bins. At a buck apiece or less (1.00/CDs, 0.50/audiocassettes) in the backroom of the local thrift store, I may indulge in all sort of eclectic acquisitions, but this is serious commerce still, even in its downfall.

One sees in the DVDs how some relative value is still imposed despite the general discount: the archaic, truly-obscure or market-oversaturated ones are at 9.99, those with slightly more prestige (ah, but I already own The Prestige since the local Blockbuster's clearance sale earlier this year, and got it for 5.99...) are at 14.99, and those which are generally-renowned "classics" or popular newer releases are as high as 26.99 listed - that for Doctor Zhivago, though I believe The King's Speech is 5.00 more because it is both a Best Picture and of recent make (and thus current popularity for its cast).

I peruse them, murmuring to myself, and select a few: ones that make sense for now, ones that I know will be good whether I've seen them before or know them only by clips and/or repute. It takes me a minute or so of slightly invective-laced self-debate before I finally add on one of the two remaining copies of what I tend to refer to as "the most depressing movie ever made" - which I haven't actually ever yet seen in full...previously to this, for the record, The Hunger was holder of that particular title, and is still at least the runner-up for its scenes of inexorable and graphic decay. I think that decay is a theme. It is also an enemy.

And this is a scene of war. People may or may not recognize it as such, as they move through the stacks, if they even come. I remember the midnight release party here for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - yes, I came to that; I even came in costume, and had preordered my copy online. Contents and circumstances: the one a celebration of anticipation and shared sense of community, and this an apologetic funeral, without positive outlooks or even community to bind to. This could have been a center of intelligent life in my hometown still - it could have stayed relevant, it could have made itself more vital, more connected. Is it the fault of bad business planning alone that sunk it? - or the inexpensive ease of buying online and going right to what one wants and/or the search engine suggests, without the niggling hand of regional taxation demanding an automatic share? - or the migration of some critical mass of readers to e-books as the next big thing, however sparse in their selection compared to the total realm of publishing? Physical publishing will suffer as a species - that much has been written on the wall, because without a certain preponderance of physical places to browse and select what might catch one's fancy, paper-publishing houses will bet only on the most sure horses when it comes to stocking shelves. Print-on-demand and self-publishing, although still a definite sector, will be driven almost entirely through social media, even if the traditional book tours and signings still happen in actual physical bookstores. Brick-and-mortar music stores no longer stand on their own recognizance - book sections in larger stores, as we know, are restricted by what the retailer approves of. Specialty books are likely to retreat to specialty stores for their guaranteed effective niches, though accessibility and cultural demographics are likely to be problematic. The one thing that that large and comprehensive bookstores have, which social media assiduously prevents and libraries possess only by virtue of community tolerance and valuation, is the possibility of encountering and tasting - without searching specifically for it - material that challenges and opens one's existing experience and worldview. The element of chance, of change, of random (or serendipitous) exploration. A bookstore that serves only the already-likeminded is no different than a Facebook feed showing only the posts and the ads that you and your 'friends' like - homogeneity breeds homogeneity. 'People who bought this book also tended to buy these books'...peer recommendations, in the absence of being able to randomly dowse and scan through books unprohibitedly on one's own. Does it make any difference to you? - that completely depends on what kind of a reader and what kind of a person you are. If you don't appreciate that experience in the first place, then you're probably not going to miss it. But the most intelligent and thoughtful readers are those who are open to exploration, and it is the breadth of content available for exploration that tends to breed and sustain that kind of circumspection and discerning openmindedness. Just as with the deliberate reduction of language and therefore the available range/nuance of thought and emotion in Orwell's 1984, the deliberate or inadvertant narrowing of ambient exposure to literature (as with all media) inevitably has an effect upon one's mentality and the possible range of acceptable truths - whether factual or fictional in vehicle. Is this a covert strategy to heighten the inertia of intolerant and/or ignorant minds? - are there darker currents at play here? I would tend not to doubt it - but then, I am a pattern-seer and analytical by nature, and therefore I do see more possible meanings than most people will allow themselves to entertain without linking themselves to a single diehard theory. Afterall, there can be many meanings happening at once, all of them concurrently valid and bundled in a running braid.

Does that mean that all of my purchases were ultra-deep and pointedly intellectual? Not by half, actually, though all of them have their 'investment value' in my eyes. I already have a sizeable library amassed when it comes to significant literature, and copious quantities also of literature that others might not find quite so significant. But I collect on the basis of what I myself find, not what others think of it. "Browsing and dowsing" is my way of finding new books, along with following the trails of homage and reference and themes between otherwise-separate works and authors and genres and disciplines. Search engines can only assist one so far in that - the process with me is necessarily both active and intuitive, as opposed to the encouraged/enabled trend to be a passive recipient of technically-targeted in-network advertising based on one's gathered preferences, with deliberate searching for an already-known object or keyword being the most consciously active task. Mental self-reinforcement is not just a base psychological tendency or defense-reaction, but the way that commerce and consumption are increasingly engineered, to deliver advertising as effectively as possible to those apparently primed to accept it. Be a sheep to any sector or demographic profile and you'll have your comfy reassuring niche of community and concerns; be diverse, unpredictable and irreducible, on the other hand, and you'll have no stable place to lay your head...not that I'd entrust my head to an ad-generator anyhow, mind you...

But this is the future that I see, increasingly bereft of the elements of actual mental stimulation, as niche marketing - with or without a popular mainstream of "bestsellers" to refer to - erases the field of recreational literary exploration for all but actively intrepid readers. Genres will become closed enclaves unto themselves again without aisles to wander and real books to peruse as one chooses - eventually, the very concept of a "bestseller" is likely to become irrelevant to the general population, for good or ill, and mainstream popular fame to be found only once a book or story reaches the point of film production or television series, at which point its advertising exposure just might take it out of target-demographic categories...then again, that depends on the TV/cable stations and their angles, and on the targeting of in-theatre (or not) film trailers to likely audiences, and on the insularity of social networks, and all the other such factors of calculation and closed community.

But what does it matter to a civilization anyhow, whether its structures of shared communication, mental language and cultural self-reference break apart into Balkanized factions serviced by all the obliging and dedicated mechanisms of post-physical self-segregation? What does it matter whether we have have any shared cultural watershed at all, so long as each "community" can have what it wants and only what it wants automatically delivered to its members' eyes and ears and minds? Debates over what can be said and taught in public schools will go on; the much-feared exposure of young minds to diverse points of view will go on, at least in such colleges that offer the so-called "liberal arts" (so called because they used to be areas of study deemed useful and necessary to free persons - those not enslaved or indentured/apprenticed to a limited trade or menial role in life)...but outside of those places and wherever they can be avoided, the terminal specialization and decentralization of modern culture goes on, even with the illusions of greater "community" granted by nominally being on the same social networks, video-sharing sites and other online mega-applications. We are all more connected than ever, but we are more deeply separated; we are globally visible and yet unseen unless sought for.

As with books, films, music, art - creative releases of any kind - so with us, each in our own shelves and categories as they all move farther and farther apart...and who will come to look for us (for any good reason) or follow our trails of connection and theme, except for the purpose of trying to sell us something? This, to borrow words I've found (also by roaming serendipity) and found useful, is a war between curiosity and ignorance - and those who are not curious will be aided and abetted in their ignorance, be it innocent or willful, even if all things and all knowledge are available at one's fingertips.

It is also and at the same time a war between meaningful structure and anarchic chaos, with the seeming paradox of being rooted in the most complex structures and algorithms imaginable - so much in the way of technical order and calculations that there is no meaning left between the lines - even with the recent effort to restore some sense of context to otherwise-literal Boolean search engines. "The center cannot hold" - there is no center, there is no meaning or consensus to appeal to, no heart or other vital center of debate and hammering out of truth by common understandings and foundations. The town square, as some call it, does not exist in any functional sense online, no matter how many comment threads and online petitions and polls one may take part in. Even with factual news and Snopes at hand, online truth is a highly relativistic concept. Meaning, there is no generally-accepted meaning - and nowhere that it can be argued to general resolution.

The idea of "agreeing to disagree," one might say, is a rule that has been so far enforced upon the very workings of the Internet, since it provides only the framework for others to add both content and their own self-designated centers of interaction. And the only alterations from that are hardly in the direction of facilitating greater confrontation but rather that of quashing dissent and/or blocking out controversial matter. Rather like large-chain bookstores/retailers stocking only books that agree with their own ideological or social slant - not that Borders has been immune to that, as in the post-9/11 leadup to war it took public pressure and actual customer ordering of copies to get them (locally at least) to stock Iraq Under Siege as any hint of balance to the flagwaving, warmongering and military idol-worship of other books prominently displayed en masse in their stores.

This self-segregation cannot be wholly undone, nor would it be wise to break all online barriers of intentional community indiscriminately. Those who do wish to subvert it with any effectiveness must pick their battles and tactics carefully, rather than just coming in as partycrashers, which is bound to bolster defensiveness and rouse claims of victimhood from their adversaries. Just as all social media is a tool to find those who are likeminded to one's interests and views, it can also be used to preserve connections with whose who are just in moderate disagreement, so that there is at least the chance for conversation and some degree of focused argument on issues that arise. In the greater picture, though, I see the widening divisions of worldview as being too great to overcome by rational online discourse - that is, ideological perspectives will tend to remain self-insulated and always have a safe place to reinforce themselves, both online and off, until direct confrontation is inevitable in the physical realm of actual consequences. And for some, I think it will be a relief to come to that point of open conflict...there's something like a longing for Armageddon there, to finally, finally have it out, knowing completely who stands for what and having the battle-lines completely drawn - and not just have it be the proverbial tempest in a teacup of forum/comment-thread argument. All this self-specialization is fermenting the extremes, making opinions more diehard, facts more malleable to desires, reality more than ever a social construct and arguably quite often a shared delusion in whole or in part. But whose interpretation is actually "the truth" - or even which delusions are simply more true than others - is something that cannot and will not be played out until this ferment of self-segregation has reached a breaking point in offline reality - when the social fabric is too frayed, the feelings too strong, the chasms too wide for us to co-exist without conflict's revelation.

Not that all this fatalistic train of thought is passing through my mind as I browse and ponder and select...mainly just the melancholy, the sense of mourning - feeling the loss of the real connections, whether or not they'd been well-used while we had them in their heyday. It will be a bit harder from now on for us to discover what we need - even though it has never been easier to find what we want.

I scan through world history and snap up a book on Greek explorations and wanderings of the Homeric hero-era; skim an ancient biography that catches my eye but by both certain passages and its original date of publication is both incomprehensive and prejudiced...still somewhat intrigued - we'll see if it's still there when I go back for one last foray. "Once more unto the breach"- a little short of sacking cities, and a mercy to take what one can. The libraries and what they hold must be valued now - they are the best place to find without seeking, and their sharing nature itself is a challenge and a goad to this jealous, proprietary, multi-insular world. And without the flood of variety in physical book-publishing to choose from, selection and retention in public library collections is likely to become a more pointed and contentious issue. How do we choose what is worth having on hand? -how do we choose what we will support and will even endorse as truth or as creative treasure? These are the decisions we're faced with more acutely now, with unprecedented profusion of works and yet so little means to gather and hold them, and so much implicit pressure to pare everything down. My private library's like an ark and always has been - always this sense of gathering against some coming tide of knowledge's devaluation, preparing for needs not yet fully understood, trying to understand as deeply as possible all the best and the worst within humanity - and the possibilities to which it may be and has been led. Classics and popular fiction, fantasy and fact and lore, all having in them something worthwhile or else I would not keep them by me...and even some of my own ideological adversaries' "scriptures," acquired in one way or another without direct contact or purchase, because one must know one's enemies rather than ignoring them, even though it is so easy to ignore many sides of reality if one wishes. Spiritual positivists, for example, often exhort one to avoid negativity in all possible forms and media, as if it were some kind of a mental toxin...perhaps it may be, to some, but this is also the excuse for their own kind of cultural self-insulation - the idea that willful ignorance/avoidance of all negativity or conflict is bliss. It's not just crooked wingnuts who censor and skew their awareness of reality...

There are 2012 calendars for sale already - why am I surprised at this when I notice them on hand? Everything seasonal is produced at least half a year early now - just like the bins of Christmas music and holiday-themed DVDs, these must have been moved in out of the wings when the dissolution was announced. I fall into a veritable daze of deliberation as I peruse them, flipping through them and debating what is the best choice for me, the right imagery and focus for my surroundings and my framing of longterm time - which is, after all, why I keep a wall calendar in my bedroom. There is no perfect choice: I vacillate between several in my short list, but none of them combine enough of what I want in aesthetic effect with enough absence of what tends to irk me in the way of perceivable slant or didactic pressure. The one I consider longest, though, is a quasi-apocalyptic Christo-Pagan calendar with Celtic-style illuminations and a pointed emphasis on protecting and reconnecting with the Earth for the sake of our own survival through these times. The main reason that I leave it unbought (by myself, though I do think it a good idea) is that it is a bit heavy-handed in both messages and artwork...as well as that I have several of my own calendar ideas that need to be put out into reality themselves. I'm a creator by nature, not just a consumer - whatever I take in from the rest of the world always spurs me to make more of what is mine in vision. I select a leatherbound 2012 dayplanner instead; the wall calendar question is put off so far as purchasing goes, and I make a mental note to get started designing (and carry through firmly) the projects I already have in mind.

The magazine section has the most frenetic sense of being timebound and urgent, as well as the most friction of disparate subjects - Renaissance Fairs, Gothic style, health and fitness, motorcycles, tattoos (and scantily-clad pinups therewith), writers' resources and advice. Since I hardly ever buy magazines at newsstand prices, the only reason I'd buy one at the moment would be for current professional usefulness or for some collectible value...neither purpose finds fit material though, despite my wandering the few rows of the section with what would otherwise - i.e., without the rather-transparent distress were I not wearing sunglasses - be my typical "wonders of modern civilization" look, which probably gets its best cinematic demonstration from Gerard Butler in Dracula 2000. As it is, this would be my "horrors of post-modern civilization (or what passes for it)" look, newly discovered for the occasion and in evidence more-or-less since I arrived, though at its peak of intensity both here and previously while noting the disarray of the music section. I skim quickly through a horror film mag, gleaning what is worth gleaning from its interviews...if there were something in this transient genre that showed some lasting worth, perhaps I'd bite, but I feel no sufficient impulse to take any one of these home. There's nothing I need here - the prices are too high for what value I place on them right now. And so this process of evaluation, its episodes laid out in rambling order, draws to its close.

At least for now, as I leave with several heavy-laden bags and this continuing strange sense of existential shock throughout the day's remainder. I do intend to return and see what's left before the close, what better deals I might find to justify a few more acquisitions. We are all scavengers, though some of us scavenge with more of a conscious purpose here - acutely conscious, on my part. I think too much: it's the one complaint that others most tend to have against me, that I am always thinking, always analyzing, never content to just sit back and enjoy a mindless entertainment mindlessly. But there is quite enough to think about in this situation, and around it and after the fact of the experience, and with all that's been said and being said now - no, this is not just all in my head.

_

Who stands on the moral high ground now?

2008-11-19T01:41:00.004-06:00

-
Just a word meanwhile, to everyone who voted for Proposition 8 and and all its sibling ballot measures without being confused by the legal wording:

Shame on you. Shame on you .

You may feel that you don't deserve that term -- but you do. You may think that you were doing God's work (or something of the sort) -- but you weren't. You may think that you were defending society, but you were only helping in the attempt to drag it backwards, to make it less fair and not more -- less virtuous and not more. Resting on the laurels of your heterosexuality (for honestly, what self-respecting queers would vote against the happiness and wellbeing of those like themselves?), you thought yourselves entitled to pass judgement against the rights of others.

Now, in a courtroom trial it requires a unanimous vote to convict for a crime, and in an impeachment it takes two-thirds of the Senate to get a President out of office. But in California you dare to think that a simple and deliberately-misinformed majority represents the will of the people in curtailing the advancement of rights for an entire swath of citizens?

Shame. You have earned it. Let it sink in a bit -- you have been the agents, the pawns at best, of hate and fear and intolerance against people who have done you no harm, posed you no threat. The government was never going to force gay weddings into your churches (separation of church and state, remember that?), or take away any legal right you ever possessed, or even say that you weren't still "normal" and the cultural default way of living that most people assume. You were never at any risk of losing anything, yet you claimed the tenuous right to take away the short-lived rights of others, who are different from you in no other way but the composition of their relationships. How dare you argue that your prejudices are not prejudices, that your bigotry is not really bigotry, and that you shouldn't be socially criticised or thought "uncool" for taking action that deprives others of rights that you yourselves take for granted. Beliefs and personal dislikes and squidginesses are one thing, people -- but to vote your prejudices into law over others' lives?

You are wrong and you were wrong. You are bigots, regardless of all claimed shades of gray, to the extent that you cast your vote against another's domestic happiness and stability, another's well-being, another's dignity which they had fully earned on their own account, owing nothing to your good will or mere toleration of their existence.

You may have done it out of ingrained ignorance, or fear of some inevitable progression of moral decay, or some personal experience that made you willing to condemn all similar people for the actions of one person. Or maybe you're just old and set in your ways as to what the world ought to be like, and no one can budge you from claiming to know what's best for everyone. You may have done it because your pastor told you to, or because of those nice wholesome television commercials that only spoke of "defending" marriage, rather than defensively and selfishly withholding it -- which is all that this was ever intended to accomplish. You have done nothing praiseworthy, nothing honourable, nothing deserving of respect; rather, you have set your actions down on the dark side of history. And you deserve to feel guilty about it.

You could have kept your opinions in the realm of opinion, your social attitudes in the realm of agreement to disagree, behaving like decent mature people who can tolerate the existence of things in the world that you don't necessarily support or feel comfortable with. After all, you yourselves may very well be merely civilly tolerated by others who disagree with you. But when some smooth-talking, God-&-tradition-invoking PACs came your way telling you that it was okay to be prejudiced, that you shouldn't feel ashamed of wanting other people kept away from what you have -- why did you believe them, unless you had the sin of bigotry inside of you already?

Yes, the sin of it, and perhaps even the awareness of that sin. Knowing that what you felt did not deserve the dignity of being made into law, but still longing to be reassured, coddled, pandered to, made to feel comfortably righteous in your self-righteousness...afterall, it's never morally abhorrent to judge any minority's rights, because if they were really justified then they'd have the majority on their side already. Wouldn't they? Shouldn't everyone have to wait for their equal treatment under the law until it can no longer disturb popular sensibilities?

Now try applying that to some minority situation that doesn't conveniently have sexuality involved to make social puritanism sound so appealing. Where do you think you land on that one, except right on your own doorstep with some zealot claiming that the law of the land ought to uphold his personal discomfort with your existence or presence in society?

See, people, this is why your so-called moral victory is a stinking offense against every ideal that this nation was formally built upon, and a crime against humanity itself. Were it not for the enabling anonymity of the modern ballot, you would be laid visibly open to the social criticism and moral disgust that your actions warrant. You cannot hide in your slim majority and consider it to be justification of your narrowmindedness.

If you think you were acting to the glory of God -- think again: after all, are we not judged as we judge others? Are we not to be known by the fruit of our actions? And, if indeed believing in the reality of Jesus Christ, do we not encounter him, as he said himself, in the least -- and the least-accepted -- of our fellow humans?

We are morally defined by how we deal with those we do not choose to encounter or live among: "your neighbour" is the 'other,' whether stranger or familiar and close, who tests the reality of so-called "Christian charity." And those who deserve the highest respect in this debacle are the people who, regardless of what personal reservations they themselves might hold inside, nonetheless chose the moral high ground -- the path of enlarging others' legal and social rights -- because they know it is the right thing to do. Not because it is comfortable, not because they have anything to gain or defend for their own worldly benefit, but because it is virtuous to want our civil rights to be equal for all citizens, with no preemptive discrimination, no categorical prejudice to sully the honour of society itself.

As a nation, we have been struggling over the past two centuries and more to confirm, as best we can in every era and social consciousness, a more-perfect union, a more noble and comprehensive demonstration of the founding proposition of the United States: that all of us are created equal. Not some of us; not just landowners, or white males, or the male half of the population, or those who can afford to pay a poll tax -- and not just the majority, however vast they may be in number, who happen to be oriented to mate and form romantic attachments with the opposite sex. Gender-conforming heterosexuals are not the only ones who can sire or bear children; they are not the only ones who can raise children responsibly; they are also far more likely to abuse, neglect or molest their children than those for whom parenting is a conscious choice rather than taking procreation for granted as the natural way of things. And, lest it be conveniently forgotten or glossed over by any calculating con-artists ever again, they are not the only ones who can love sincerely, selflessly and "'til death do you part."

[Additional scriptural thought for those, religiously-motivated or not, who rely on the majority opinion of society as if it were some royal or divine vindication/mandate for themselves...]

So you've done something wrong in the belief that it was something right. Assuming that you haven't yet gotten outraged by my presumptuous invective and decided to comment-spam me with religious tracts...what are you supposed to do now, seeing as the the ballots have been counted and the results assumed (for the time being) as legally-binding? Can you undo the harm that you've done to others by your intolerance?

To which my answer is "yes -- but not in secret." This ballot issue was not just some online survey, after all: it had real results to real people, and no one can simply recant their actions in private when those actions have made for the perpetuation of public injustice. The lies that have been told and believed about gsy marriage need to be debunked and defused; the fear that has been exploited in people's hearts needs to be quelled and rejected. If you have been part of the misinformation campaign against marriage equality, dig deep and wide for the truth and take the risk of speaking out against the lies. If you have taught your children that homosexuals are living immorally and don't deserve any civility or respect in society, or that it's right that they be prevented from marrying and having families, then at very least have the decency to admit that you've spoken without really knowing what you're talking about, and that you might be wrong in judging others' personal lives. And if you have friends, family, acquaintances -- your neighbours, in short -- who are distanced from you (politely or not and knowingly or not) because you voted against them.....ask them for forgiveness. Have the courage to admit that you were wrong, and try to find the paths to work for what's right.

-

More on the idea of legally abolishing "marriage"

2008-11-18T07:23:00.006-06:00

-
Or, "How to Content a Bigot"....

Thread:

(Comment: "A secular marriage ceremony followed by a religious one, if desired, would not upset me. However, it should be called "marriage" regardless of the gender of the partners. [...]")

Date: November 17th, 2008 09:58 pm (local)

Thank you. I am so bloody tired of people thinking that all the problems of this area will be solved by removing the word "marriage" from civil law and leaving it to the churches -- we have civil marriage as an option anyhow, and it is currently under no religion's dictates just because it uses the word "marriage."

There's apparently a lot of people who don't understand the distinction between "secular" and "religious"....that in itself could use a good deal more public clarification.

(Comment from OP of entry (not same as above): "You'd be surprised. In discussion, I have found some hard core bigots to be quite content with this solution. I've also found zealots to be happy, too. I am not saying their reaction is typical because I haven't talked to enough of them but don't assume.")

Date: November 18th, 2008 07:20 am (local)

In which case they're content because they're still keeping "marriage" publically away from somebody else -- afterall, they can still use the term among themselves as much as they want, since they get both levels according to both (their) church and state. Not that I care overly to please them, of course, when they're not even an injured/oppressed party in the least.

The only way in which default civil unions could ever work out as an equitable solution is if enough openminded faiths and philosophical denominations (of all kinds, especially non-traditional and pagan and even atheist) got into the "marriage business" enough to make the distinction a moot point (as it really should be) so far as social interaction -- thereby reinstating the understanding of civil marriage by default, and taking away the assumed superiority of the religious interpretation. But then, why take so long to arrive at the same place in terms of implicit communication?

As I've said, most heterosexual people (and people in general) just understand "marriage" as being exactly what it looks like, and "gay marriage" as being the logical expansion of "(regular) marriage." They may have a problem with that or not, but I'm pretty sure that they would have a hard time with the linguistics of getting civil-unionated, civilly unionized, civilly united (as opposed to uncivilly?), or whatever else they've have to call it without having the option of (religiously defined) marriage as well to define themselves. If they didn't have that to fall back on, you can bet they'd be hopping mad at all the bending over backwards just to avoid saying "marriage." (And so should anyone be, to have that dangled on a string above their heads.)

These people you've talked to just haven't actually had to look at the situation from the other side where they didn't have an upper hand to pride themselves on. Kinda ignoring that whole supposed 'Golden Rule' thing, you know.

(Comment: "In which case they're content because they're still keeping "marriage" publically away from somebody else."
Yup. They are happy because their church would forbid it and they like that. However, there are plenty of churches which don't forbid it, which they don't seem to mind so much.

Don't forget that extreme dominionists are torn. They want to take over the government and, at the same time, have the government out of their lives. The idea of the government getting out of church matters is something that appeals to them, when it suits.

And to me. I don't think the government should be recognizing marriages in the first place, as I do see it as a church institution.

Again, I can't speak statistically from my few conversations but from what I've seen, I would say you are going to have to wait for a whole generation to die off before you will successfully get the majority of society to accept same-sex marriage recognized by the government.

It's the old who keep being the most stubborn. They will never get beyond "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Those I've talked to are not smart, they are not sophisticated, they are not tolerant, they cannot reason why this should be other than "It's always been that way." Don't bother to quote history; they don't read beyond ten word bullet lines. Don't bother to bring up our Constitution; they don't understand it in the first place.

I have tried every line of reasoning, argument, and emotional appeal that I can think of or have ever heard of. They just keep repeating, like parrots, "It's always been that way." So, IMHO, there needs to be a different solution; this one seems to work for most people and it satisfies me because it does grant equal rights from the government. Working on further progress would not need to stop but it would be a huge step in the right direction.)

Date: November 19th, 2008 03:42 am (local)

Yes, old people are stubborn, and hardening of the brain in any case is not favourable to the progress of civil rights. I hope that a lot of those stubborn old people die off, leave the voting population, 'meet their Maker,' and have a chance to realize just how wrong they've been.

Seeing as I know that marriage is not primarily a religious institution, though, I really don't see any reason to cobble a compromise by eliminating the (existing) institution of civil marriage. Not only because it's giving the ignorantly stubborn what they want, but because it is a step backwards in terminology that will be cited as a precedent to block -- not continue -- the progress of recognizing marriage on an equal footing for all. "Marriage" will continue to be a term of contention in common language until it is made quite clear in the most-public spheres of discourse that marriage did not begin under the aegis of religion, and that no religion has the right to control it in the secular/civil sphere. Religions may formalize the compatibility or recognition of marriages (whether voluntary or arranged), but only among the Moonies and the Mormons, I think, has religion ever been used as the primary motivation for marriage in general. And the functional purposes that marriage serves -- formalization of an intimate sexual/emotional connection, mutual support through life and the potential rearing of children -- are neither religious in their inherent nature nor limited in their validity to heterosexual couples. As for property rights and the transfer of wealth, that's socioeconomic; the imperative to have children and continue the family (species), that's instinctual and animal. Won't get me any points from Creationists, but (to quote Galileo) "it still moves."

Which is why I don't, can't and won't buy the argument that "marriage" should be left to the various religions to define -- they don't own it in the first place, any of them or all of them; they just happen to have built up a lot of rules and rituals and mythology and cultural assumptions about it and around it. Accept theological claims to own marriage as literally valid, and we're forced to either play by religious rules or jump out of their way and make an anything-but-"marriage" detour -- but they're wrong, is the thing, and I'm not going to support letting them define any of the terms unilaterally when they are not actually entitled to.

As it's said, "He who defines the terms wins the argument" -- which means that the only way to make same-sex marriage legally recognized and fully accepted in general society is by the pro-equality side successfully reframing and clarifying what exactly "marriage" actually means and doesn't mean for civilization. We won't win over everyone through logic, of course, but as long as enough people can be persuaded by the unrelenting barragement of non-paranoid truth and reason, I don't give a hang about conciliating the diehard bigots. Sooner or later, they'll have to suck it up and deal with reality.

__________________________________

If this particular thread continues any further, I'll add on the rest of it here (as I have been doing), as it's an interesting sociological topic. If it doesn't, then no matter -- I'm sure that any real live bigot who wanders by this blog -- it's happened before -- will give me some entertainment by vomiting up some verbose allcaps-laden religious tractage, or (if slightly less fanatical and more rational) a foundationless appeal to sheer tradition and/or biology as sufficient reason to petrify and/or regress the status quo.

Yes, I actually do know I'm right on this. My mind is not going to change or capitulate away from demanding marriage equality by name, because that would be going backwards, and backwards is the wrong way to go. Which isn't to say that people aren't free to argue with me nonetheless -- it just means I'm just not going to give in to them.

_

Marriage equality and the betterment of society

2008-11-18T04:12:00.012-06:00

_
To preface this rather long collection, I suppose I should say where I've been posting all this stuff. Two online "communities" are foremost -- AlterNet and Dark Christianity -- though that's by volume rather than by catalyst, seeing as there's been a great deal of personal posting going on about Proposition 8+ and the possible solutions to the same-sex marriage issue, and my stance has been the same throughout and before this season of issue campaigning .

One opinion that I keep seeing around in progressive and secularist circles is that "government ought to get out of the 'marriage' business" -- either completely or partially (leaving "civil union" as the universal default in that case) -- and therefore the legal church vs. state issue will be solved.

AS IF that weren't capitulating to the religious right-to-centrist claim that "marriage" is primarily a "sacred" religious institution (as is only evidenced by traditional religious ceremonial texts, of course...) and that same-sex couples have no basis on which to approach its awesome dignity or claim its majestic automatically-revered social status.

Personally I am dismayed to see how many otherwise-rational people are, in this case, too-rational to see how such a withdrawal would be taken and used as justification for the cultural conservative position, whether in just letting the term "marriage" be reserved for heterosexual couples only or in abolishing the governmental recognition of "marriage" by name entirely.

Below are some of my comments on recent online entries/articles regarding the entire subject.
___________________________________________________________

Regarding the suggestion of "civil unions" as the sole legal contract, leaving "marriage" to the province of religious/optional ceremony:

Date: November 17th, 2008 12:00 am (local)
I'm against all terminological capitulation -- marriage = marriage, whatever its composition

If they want "matrimony" to themselves they can have it, but "marriage" is too apt and comprehensive a word to be disbarred from describing all relationships of its type.

I have come across this argument time and time again as if it were the solution to the same-sex marriage issue, but it in no way redresses the persistent lack of legal or social equality between heterosexual and homosexual marriages -- by reserving the term "marriage" only to religiously-sanctioned unions, the social segregation of privilege is preserved with or without direct governmental interference.

We have had the secular institution of civil marriage for a long time now as an alternative to religiously-formal marriage (as they also have in Europe as you cite, though they treat it as the default there), and it is specifically civil marriage that should continue to be progressively enlarged (as it has been) under that name, rather than allow religions to define "marriage" by their terms only.

It must also be understood and vocally stated against all allegations (since this was an exploited point of paranoia), that even if same-sex marriage is legalized, the state will never force a religion to perform weddings that are in violation of its own code of morality.

The crux of the matter is, no religion or consortium of religions should have the power to keep civil marriage narrowed to their preferred requirements. They have always seen it as inferior to religiously-solemnized marriage anyhow, so they are in no position to be defending its allegedly-sacred status now just to keep it out of others' hands.
_________

(A comment that there are churches that do perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, and that they are not all against an equal definition of marriage)

November 18th, 2008 01:14 am (local)

While that is always good to know, the fact is that the culturally-conservative sects will consider it a victory for them personally -- and a cultural mandate against further legitimization/"normalization" of homosexuality -- if the use of the word "marriage" falls into the category of religious usage. And I'm not in favour of letting them have any victory without an actual and accurate fight on the matter.

(.....even though at the same time, they will also see it as a threat by the government against societal respect/favour for religious tradition, if the government formally eliminates "marriages" in favour of universal "civil unions." Anti-equality apologists do want "marriage" to be respected as an institution within society overall -- but they also want to constrain it to their own definitions only. By the essence of church-state separation, they logically can't have their cake and eat it too -- but they are certainly filled with passionate intensity in the attempt.)
_____________

(A comment that the "civil unions only" idea is intended to "take the terminology out of the realm of public policy" and instead let people decide what "marriage" means to them personally.)

Date: November 17th, 2008 09:52 pm (local)

My point is that marriage as a social (not religious) concept is so deeply ingrained into peoples' awareness that it is precisely what they respect as the manifestation of a committed relationship -- and anything that is denoted as "other" or "less" than that simply does not get the basic civic respect and recognition. That's the way that most people think, when they're not the sort of people who think about these issues a lot.

Civil marriage is under no obligation to be in compliance with specifically religious laws. Religious institutions are under no obligation to celebrate weddings according to any/all civil marriage statutes. So my stance is and will continue to be that cultural conservatives seeking to disallow civil marriage to same-sex couples have no excuse, since they are under no threat whatsoever of having their marriages affected. But if all marriages are converted into default civil unions, than that is a direct threat to the concept of marriage, and one that will be reacted to with far more substantiation than the current paranoia that allowing civil marriages to gays will force recognition of any/all possible sexual unions onto religious institutions that resist them on moral grounds.

There's no need to turn the language into pretzels to remove/avoid the "M-word" in civil law -- the most important thing is to publically debunk and fight the outright lies that have been spread by the anti-equality front.
______________________

(A comment that people will tend to refer to themselves as "married" regardless of the legal terminology of their mutually-committed status)

Date: November 18th, 2008 03:26 am (local)

I think that committed same-sex couples should refer to themselves as married in every social venue and situation, regardless of their legal status, until the word itself ceases to shock as an item of contention. If there is such thing as "common-law marriage" for heterosexual couples, just imagine how broad that application ought to be, even without any benefit of ceremony.

Of course it will shock some people for a while because they haven't had any real exposure to the concept being demonstrated casually, but that, imo, is as much of a growing pain as with learning to ride a bicycle or swim (or deal civilly with strangers, for that matter). All things that can be learned once the process is initiated...the obstacle in a lot of places is that they've never had even that first shock of "damn, gays are human beings minding their own business, and they ain't out to get us after all!"

The terms "marriage" and "husband"/"wife" have been kept tactfully off the table for a long time in favour of "domestic partnership," "civil union" and "partner" -- and I think that that kind of legalistic forbearance and self-restraint on the part of gays and lesbians has been ill-repaid by society at large: people have been allowed to live largely in ignorance of the reality of (essentially) marriages and families that are just as intrinsically valid as their own -- the only difference being that they haven't been legally recognized as such. Society hasn't been challenged enough, in short, and it does need to be challenged and pushed off from the pool-edge of its own assumptions, before it will ever be reasonably "comfortable" with the idea of civil marriage equality.

We've all had shocks and reluctancies in our lives that we've had to get over. People will survive having their social assumptions dismantled...but it has to be done articulately, logically and casually, not tiptoed around as if gay couples deserved to be pushed back into the conspicuous linguistic closet.

___________________________________

Regarding "Why the Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ban Won" (The Nation, via AlterNet):

(Another comment -- as if it were a new idea -- suggesting universal "civil union" as avoidance of the "marriage" controversy in secular law....actually, this is the first comment I responded to out of this whole slew, with a reply slightly elaborated from one I'd made on a friend's LJ when he brought up the suggestion.....which sums up my position in general fairly comprehensively.)

It's not that new, and it capitulates too much...
Posted on Nov 12, 2008 11:59 PM

I've heard that argument many times before from the progressive side of things -- but how do you explain it to the rest of the world to whom "marriage" is considered an all-round concept entitlement that cannot be taken away from them?

We have had had the concept of civil marriage for decades now, in which time it has constantly been looked down upon as inadequate and unsanctified compared to a "church marriage" (that is, a proper wedding ceremony in any established tradition). And now all of a sudden it's civil marriage that has to be protected and set on a pedestal?

No (I say) -- traditional religions have had their way already and will continue to have it insofar as judging who can or cannot have a 'church wedding' according to their own rules, but that does not mean that they get to claim exclusive common right to the word "marriage" itself -- nor should they be capitulated to by avoiding the word in civil and legal usage. "Civil union" is a sterile and bloodless term, that I can't imagine satisfying anyone who enters into a relationship for the sake of human intimacy and emotional connection.

For those of us who aren't hung up on their religions as perfect and absolute, it is understood relatively well that marriage is not a religious institution atall but a social concept, and that there is a cachet to it, a status that "civil union," "domestic partnership," etc. simply cannot achieve because they so scrupulously omit the central notion that it is a romantic union, an intimate and personal (not a business) partnership -- i.e., what can only be best described as marriage.

That's why (apart from the 1000+ federal rights still being withheld to any same-sex marriages in the United States...) this is a situation fully warranting the debunking of all "separate but equal" claims: nothing but marriage receives the social status or even basic civil courtesy as marriage...therefore, regardless of the self-satisfaction some legislators may feel in balancing tolerance with tradition, refusing use of the legal term "marriage" to committed same-sex couples is a tacit permission for society to continue discrimination against them -- to consider them and their real & existing families to be in a state of comparative illegitimacy despite the legal tightrope created for them to exist on.

The law cannot mandate full acceptance of same-sex marriages in peoples' hearts and minds, but it has a constitutionally-implicit responsibility to prevent categorical injustice and discrimination from being perpetuated. And that's what this basically is about, seeing as "gay marriage" can in no way be counted as a "threat" to the stability or "sanctity" of anyone's heterosexual marriage. Sanctity of marriage (or the lack thereof) is a matter of each marriage in its own right, and depends entirely upon the sincerity and merit of the partners involved.

So.......no, I am not in favour of conceding the word "marriage" to the cultural-conservative religions who have the narrowest view of it. People with heterosexual marriages to "protect" should just take care of what they have, instead of trying to keep it away from others. They don't deserve to get a veto over others' personal lives -- even just in the use of language, let alone to be enshrined in law.

_____________________

(A comment that the author does not want his children to be taught that homosexuality is normal and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, nor for traditional (heterosexual) marriage to cease being normative.)

So you're worried about not being "normal"...?
Posted by on Nov 13, 2008 12:59 AM

Okay, that right there in itself bespeaks some serious insecurity.

People who know already that they're not normative don't waste their time and energy trying to define others as the deviant ones.

If your main concern is that your children might learn that heterosexual marriage is not the only one true way, then I say you're obsessed with holding onto the privilege that you enjoy by virtue (okay, there's actually no "virtue" required in this...) of being born as a member of the majority sexual orientation. You are not going to cease being the majority in that, and you are in no personal danger whatsoever from the existence of same-sex marriages in the same world as yours, but nonetheless you feel compelled to defend your majority privilege by the paranoid method of trying to deny other people the same rights that you enjoy -- the pursuit of this happiness: to have a marriage and raise a family (or not) with a person with whom you are emotionally and sexually compatible and share mutual affection. Anything else would be either false pretense or coercion (thus grounds for invalidating the marriage contract) -- which is why saying that gays already have all the marriage rights they need or deserve is a total crock.

Life may not be fair, but those who refuse to try to make it more fair are on the side of unfairness -- never as blameless and neutral as they like to believe.
____________________________

(Comment: I support civil unions but not marriage
"I believe gays should be treated like human beings and with full rights. I do have a problem calling it marriage. Call me old fashion but I and many others who are not bigots just old fashion. I and many others would support gays having rights and obligations of a marriage contract if they would give up the marriage word.")

Okay, I'm calling you old-fashioned and enabling /of/ bigots, then...
Posted on Nov 13, 2008 12:38 AM

I myself (and many others) have a problem with people calling it "Please-anything-but-marriage." Marriage is a contract that has far more to do with social definition (i.e., two people having made a lasting romantic commitment to each other, with or without raising children) than it does with any form of religious affiliation.

To say that gay people are permitted to have their private lives but not an accurate way to describe their most sacred personal commitments is a hollow tolerance, because it scrupulously avoids the emotional reality of their relationships and families.

The vast majority of people do not instinctively understand "partner" or "civil union" as having the same weight or emotional content as "husband," "wife, "spouse" or "marriage." They are bloodless and sexuality-drained terms, made to appease and tiptoe around people like you who are, so to speak, 'moderately prejudiced.'

And that deliberate avoidance of traditional terminology means that there's a mental loophole where people can say, "Well, these two gays may be having some sort of longterm relationship-thing, but since it isn't really marriage, I don't have to treat it with any real civility or seriousness" -- and some employers have already said, "Well, since 'civil union' isn't federally recognized, I don't even have to give these people any marriage-&-family-type employment benefits if I can weasel out of it legally myself."

My point is, you may think that you're being fair and equitable in tolerating gays their humanity but demanding a distinction of language -- but language makes a real difference in how people are treated in everyday society, and even a 'separate but equal' attitude like yours still enables discrimination and prejudice against gay couples, retaining the assumption of illegitimacy over both them and any children they may have or be raising from previous marriage. It lets people keep their prejudices intact, even though they may grudgingly accept the letter of the law when required to.

For a certain kind of interpersonal relationship that is emotionally intense, intimate and intended to last through storms and strife as best it can, the only right and fitting term is marriage. And it belongs, in my view, to anyone of sound mind, free will and legal majority who has the guts to vow their love and commitment and honour it truthfully. "Calling it marriage" doesn't grant it some dignity or reality that it lacked before, but rather recognizes what is already there. To categorically deny that recognition of reality is inherently unjust...and it does nothing to preserve the dignity or assumed sanctity of "traditional" marriage either.

__________________
__________________

And yes, I am of course aware that the man whom I voted for, and who is now thankfully our President-Elect, happens to make that very same distinction of supporting marriage equality in everything but name. While I know that he spoke out against Proposition 8, and that he is definitely not a person who will as President stand against the legislative progression of GLBT rights, I would still prefer to have him fully and completely on the bright side of history, rather than condoning discrimination of any degree or denotation under the guise of tradition.

If he seriously does believe that there is something inherently sacred in heterosexual marriage to which nothing else can compare and therefore cannot deserve the same name, then he's wrong -- simple as that, though for many reasons -- and I think that every civil and respectful effort should be made to communicate to him how important it is that he not continue to sit on that particular fence once in office -- that, despite the understood need for him not to be pushing for social legislation from above like his predecessor (and grassroots are essential to social legitimacy, I know), he not equivocate on the need for marriage equality itself, without any linguistic compromise or moral assumption that he would not accept for himself over his own marriage and family.

And so should any legislator, judge and public official carefully consider whether they themselves could live under the same restrictions that they would enact or even passively allow over others' lives -- in the absence of any wrongdoing, harm or actual crime, for which we have laws and statutes enough.

I understand that the struggle for equality belongs to those who want the victory to have and to hold and to live by -- but all allies are valuable and should not be categorically alienated (or alienate themselves) on account of not being directly in the line of fire. A progressive social consensus must be built that broadens people's minds instead of merely berating them for their ignorance -- and "faith-based initiatives" can and should be a great part of this, to reclaim the moral language for the moral high ground instead of chaining it to the forces of social repression. In this struggle, the "Religious Left" cannot be neutral and equivocational, much less consider marriage equality and GLBT human rights to be a relative non-issue. These are issues that are intimately tied to the problems of poverty, addiction, crime, despair and abuse. The ways that one is criticized and pressured and abused and held down and rulebound specifically on account of one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity can make all the difference between a productive and fulfilling life and a frustrated and wasted existence. And that, overall, should be a matter of national concern on the secular level as well, as much so as any localized regional or industrial affliction of economic deprivation and blocked opportunity.

If there is one thing that this new administration promises, it is the opportunity for Americans to get past their differences and work together -- and never before so openly -- for the common good and the general welfare of this nation. I believe that marriage equality is a greater good than marriage restriction, and even without any personal stake in the matter at all, I would argue that it is good because it gives people more ways to participate fully in society, more hope to better their lives and live productively, and more positive motivation to see themselves as connected to the rest of the communities in which they live. It is good because the happiness and self-respect that it gives far outweighs any imaginable harm or even emotional injury that it does to anyone else. And it is right because it redresses centuries of insult and injury (whipping, imprisonment, mutilation, execution...) that have been done to people who but for their intrinsic sexual differences could have been fully-respected members of their societies.

I think that most of this country understands by now that "gays" cannot be simply 'treated' or 'mainstreamed' or 'assimilated' out of visibility anymore (much as some might still devoutly wish it...). Differences between persons are not going to just disappear to make some people less uncomfortable with them. The next step forward, though, is recognizing there is no "straight vs,. gay" difference between people's emotional needs and capabilities -- to love, to marry, to be faithful and devoted, to have and/or raise children with the same affection and responsibility and attention to the examples that they set. We already have the reality being lived out every day -- all it needs is the social and legal realization.

_

And here's the payoff....

2008-11-14T03:36:00.001-06:00

November 4th, 2008
Election '08 final results
11/4/08 10:16 pm CST

YES!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!!

Tags: election 2008, obama, victory

:
:
:
:
:

Just sharing my Election Night reactions about....(recent comment)
11/5/08 04:51 am

[In response to L--- :]

Yes, god yes.....I was watching the Indecision 2008 coverage w/ Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and when they suddenly flashed to a full-screen "President-Elect" photo of Obama I thought for a second that they might be joking despite the already-established lead, just jumping the gun as a tweak to Stephen's wounded-conservative act -- and then clicked back to the broadcast stations and saw that Obama had clinched it, absolutely clinched it in real life, and that all this was really happening here and now.

Yeah, I teared up too....after all this sh** and stealing and obstructionism and outright lies, finally the best man won -- and with a clear Congressional majority, moreover, so that there's no one left to blame for blocking the legislation that will take us forward as a nation -- or to use as an excuse for not daring to put it wholeheartedly forward (Barney Frank, I'm lookin' at you...).

Some of my flisters online voted for third-party candidates (there's only one that I know voted for McCain), and to them with all their doubts of the major parties I can just say this, but firmly and certainly: this is the end of the federal two-party duopoly, because there's no longer going to be the oppressive GOP ruling party and the compromised Dem opposition party forced into bed together. Having a Democratic federal majority opens up the field to demand more of governmental representation, and to let more players and parties have their say. The main needful thing, as I've been saying all along, was to first break the back of the arrogant incumbency and get some rational feet in the door. This victory may have come under the Democratic Party's banner, but it is above all a victory of the people, by the people and for the people, formed of a communicative coalition rather than a mouthpiece-monolith.

So even for those who didn't vote for Obama 'cause he wasn't progressive enough -- this is what we have been needing to change the tide of our times.

Much-belated reply.....(in response to a comment on this post)
11/14/08 01:45 am (local)

I'm not saying that the nominal duopoly is going to go away, but that the party system is going to be much shaken and ripped loose of the traditional assumptions. Republicans are going to have to find a way to make themselves popularly relevant (and honest) enough to gain national power again, now that their major demagogic tactics are being been exposed and broadcasted so widely -- and Democrats are going to have to define themselves proactively instead of reactively, seeing as they now bear the unstrangleheld responsibility of being the party in power. There is going to have to be a lot more "reaching across the aisle" by Republicans if they want to have their concerns taken seriously, instead of just being able to block-by-monolithic-bloc the legislation that they don't agree with, and that means that previously-assumed agendas are going to face a greater challenge of communication and consensus-building.

I think that this will lead to a lot more identification around issues rather than on the basis of parties per se, and that this identification around articulate issues will definitely open the door to more third- (and fourth-, and fifth-...) party political involvement at the higher levels of government. I think it's clear, watching the political re-landscaping of Obama's campaign, that the dominant theme of his administration is not going to be party loyalty (and stirring up resentment against the opposition) but actual meritocracy and intelligent qualification for one's position and/or authority. And that does mean a fairer playing-field being made for all politicians who have heretofore been shut out of the federal tier of activity due to the bipartisan feud.
_

Election '08: The final countdown

2008-11-14T03:13:00.003-06:00

November 4, 2008
AAAAAAGH!!!! VOTE FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!
11/4/08 02:39 am

Okay, this is rather funny......my current status message on Facebook, as of last night, is as follows:

Kagen is hoping that civilization will prevail over lies and humanity move forward tomorrow -- voting for Obama as if my future depended on it. (10 hours ago)

I had no idea whatsoever until I heard it on the The Daily Show that Obama had, in his 'closing argument' speech just the other day, used the climactic clause "work like our future depends on it."

I know that it does...I wish I'd been able to get more done, more said in terms of getting out the word of what I see and know to be true about this campaign and this moment in time. I don't see how people can actually still be undecided at this point, and if they are...well, let's just hope they can't make up their minds to get to the polls. And I can only pity those who are so vision-impaired by the wool (or milfy hockey-mom, or religious dogma) over their eyes that they can't see what this country really needs and deserves after eight years of the Bush regime, financial elitism and regressive culture-warfare.

Yes, I am an idealist, and I think that this nation is heavily populated this election year with idealists like me, who are aware of our domestic and global society's problems and have long been waiting for a chance to be actively part of the solution -- in a way that doesn't just involve shopping and maintaining consumer confidence, mind you.

This is the most participatory I have seen American democracy in my lifetime, and I'm damn glad of it. Creating a better world and a better future together? -- yes, emphatically yes. I want the grassroots to rise and topple the trickle-downs and fact-twisting gladhanders and smiling, smiling villains who have no regard for truth or decency. Not to mention to quell and humble the torch-and-pitchfork-wielding crowds of the late-stage McCain-Palin campaign rallies, an accumulation of real live vitriol and hatred that outstrips anything ever rhetorically thundered from the pulpit by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The difference in energy between rallies (not to mention the national conventions) has been immense -- and the dominant vibe of the Republican events, like it or not, has been hate and meanspiritedness, and the communal hope not of achieving some positive dream but of crushing down the dreams and aspirations of others in order to defend the status quo as permanently as possible. I have been feeling this all along and it makes me more certain than ever that this is a pivotal moment for the United States, in which we must decide what sort of a nation we want to be: one of social principles or one of self-defensive materialism -- one of humanism and cooperation or one of militaristic paranoia -- one of truth and responsibility or one of sanctioned deception and the ends used and warped to justify the basest means (let alone all the ends that a "President Palin" would seek under sanctimonious cover...). This is our chance to regain the high road and salvage our honour among nations, and to be again (and possibly as never before) "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

And so no, I'm not putting this under a cut despite its length and politicality*, because I want people to take this election seriously and not just as another day, same-old, whatever, business as usual, see-ya-when-it's-all-over. I know this is a crucial point in history, and I'm not going to downplay its significance and potential consequences. Hell, they've got Christian-cultural-conservative "prayer warriors" fixing their invocations on defeat for Obama / victory for Palin-And-McCain-Too -- so why not pull out all the stops on our wills and put them where our hopes are?

Or, to coin a phrase, put your mana where your mouth is, my fellow Americans -- and be sure that you've exercised your civic power and voted by this day's end. Even if you don't get a free coffee or ice cream scoop out of it.

[*Whether out of their own personal burnout or to de-stress from known political differences, several people on my LiveJournal flist had started/circulated a 'no politics' picture meme just a day or so before E-Day.....I, however, was not in a mood to avoid the issues and keep my opinions unvoiced.]
_

Pre-election cameos, satire and greatness

2008-11-14T03:04:00.002-06:00

Obama being on The Daily Show and McCain being on SNL are completely different things...
11/2/08 03:25 am
[Expansion of Facebook status and comment]

To be precise, it's the difference between "laughing with" and "laughing at"....McCain may have been being a good sport in his own opinion, but the humour of his opening "infomercial" and Weekend Update piece was of the "it's funny because it's true" variety -- which made it both funny and disturbing at the same time, because of the known lack of distance between parody and demonstrated reality.

Having the man himself (i.e., not an impersonator) come on TV to exaggerate himself only reminds how little room there is to exaggerate -- which certainly produces a negative impression for his campaign. McCain hasn't the operative wit to bely or knowingly tweak his alotted lines, much less the underlying reality to make it clear that they are comedic material. As per my going theory that serious conservatives are incapable of performing or grasping satire (and in general, the more extremist people are in their beliefs, the worse their wit)...

And, need I say it, Obama does have a grasp of this, and can be humorous without making himself ridiculous. Big difference there -- perhaps even bigger than McCain's lack of online-literacy. Fundamentally, it's a pretty big deficit if a presidential candidate (or a president) doesn't have the instincts to detect and understand, much less proactively create, the political satire that is bound to surround him in intelligent citizens' minds (such as the Current Resident when he was having his ass handed to him on a polished platter by Stephen Colbert...) .

McCain complains about how he's portrayed by the media -- he apparently doesn't see that there's grains of truth in it that are both significant and sticking to him. To quote the old dishwashing liquid commercial..."You're soaking in it." How is he going to prove that he isn't what people think he is, when his actions reiterate it over and over again? How do you refute satire or serious accusation, when both of them are dependent for their ultimate success on there being something in it that's true? It's not just a matter of "balanced coverage" or "equal time" in the journalistic media -- if the facts and the reality of things are speaking loud and clearly enough, are we supposed to blame reality for not "being fair" to the disadvantaged party? How very PC, to cry foul on account of being "popularity-challenged" in the midst of the culture war that one is vehemently waging.

Seriously...the McCain-Palin campaign has mounted an unprecedented degree of defensiveness and hostility against the acknowledgement of reality, doing everything possible to demonize the opposition and distract voters away from all the facts and valid comparisons/contracts involved in this campaign. Such as badmouthing "community organizer" as a fluff job without responsibility, or equivocating between Reverend Wright's fiery sermonizing (as if Obama himself endorsed or still tolerated it) and Sarah Palin's accustomed religious culture of exorcizing and xenophobic prayer warfare (which she does both tolerate and endorse, despite the campaign's attempts to downplay its persistence in her life and politics). Or the ongoing conflation of reinstated social responsibility with "socialism" -- they really mean Communism, of course, but using that word directly both plays into Godwin's Law and invokes both the spectre of McCarthyism and its logical refutation. The war of words over "selfishness," with a campaign that claims "Country First" as its slogan actually pulling at the strings of the basest material self-centeredness. The hypocrisy of "marriage protection" rhetoric coming from supporters of a man who betrayed and divorced his wife for a blonde trophy-heiress, while the most solid demonstration of "family values" in action is coming from the candidate who (anathema to fundies and dogmatic Catholics alike) believes in the preservation of Roe v. Wade against strategic underminings and effectively-negating restrictions.

[more serious]

There is a grassroots culture war going on, though -- between those who want to cling to what's materially theirs and impose laws to preserve what they're personally comfortable with, and those who desire the chance to work together and create a better future together despite their personal differences. In my opinion, the most potent thing that Obama is offering the American people is the opportunity to be co-creators of a better and sustainable 'American Dream', one that is not imposed from above or trickled down from the fickle tables of the rich, but involves a revival of cooperation and community activism, delivering power back into the hands of the people -- and reminding them that it was theirs to begin with all along. After the shock of 9/11 and the ramming-through of an autocratic federal regime, I believe that people -- thinking people -- are tired of having the government thinking for them, operating top-down and in opacity.

Bringing to mind the famous "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country," it seems that despite all the accusations of forcibly redistributing wealth, what Obama is actually aiming for is the enablement and inspiration of all citizens to work together for the common good regardless of wealth or class, while McCain hides behind his Kennedyesque slogan with a core message to cling on even more bitterly to whatever bolsters one's ego and assuages the emptiness of an undeveloped self. "Selfish" is different from selfhood -- it's the attempt to surround and protect and envalue oneself by external means when one lacks internal character. People who have selfhood do not need to be selfish in order to cushion their world or make much of themselves, because they know that what is inside of them is enough and needs no inflation/insulation. If Ayn Rand hadn't been such a kneejerk anti-Communist and deified "selfishness" as a virtue by that name, we might be having a far more intelligent national conversation about the nature of individual character and self-reliance that was the valuable part of her philosophy. But as it is, selfishness has come to be extolled and excused beyond all rational need, and unchided supercapitalism has made luxuries, appearances, entertainment technology and brand-name status items more respected and deemed popularly necessary than decent food and water and lodging -- which in any truly civilized society would be considered the baseline that all citizens deserve. So I am no fan of this selfishness that laces the current sociopolitical discourse: the "I me mine" has achieved grotesque stature over "Live simply that others may simply live." The etymological meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have long borne witness to this split between those who want to preserve their own values and socioeconomic privilege (even if they actually lack the sort of privilege that is being preserved...) and those who want to give everyone a fairer chance to make their way in life -- with relative degrees on both sides of wanting to control the social values and the freedom of choice involved in others' actions. And at this time, in this place, the pendulum has swung too far to the side of untrammeled greed and acquisitiveness, combined with a lowerclass-blaming double standard -- the worst aspects of conservatism -- and it is in dire need of a counterswing, into an administration and a society that does not put the Economy ahead of the populace, and where "Country First" is not allowed to be a flagwaving euphemism for "people last."

[/more serious]

Anyhow....with all those IQ quiz ads floating around with references to the candidates' statistical intelligence, I think it makes sense to consider the other forms of intelligence that come into play (or fall short) when one's under the pressure of the campaign trail and the potential weight of executive authority. So let me close with this favourite passage of mine from Dune:

"Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It
depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind. The
person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is
in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. And he must have a
strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in
his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move
within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will
destroy a man."

--from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

And then there's this.....

"Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth." ^[2]Yep......he's got it.

_

Political Animal Husbandry

2008-11-14T02:57:00.002-06:00

[reprise from LiveJournal post of April 29, 2008 (has previous comments)]

Okay, I'm pissed. Every election season where there's anything major at stake, it seems that the lion's share of electoral power is given to those who frankly barely deserve it. And I'm not even talking about the "superdelegates."

No, it's that lumpen and easily-led-by-the-nose mass known as the "average American," the "regular Joe," etc. -- the "God-fearing," "churchgoing" resident of the "Heartland" -- who is usually also described/labeled/led by the terms 'swing voter,' 'conservative' or 'moderate' -- which in my observation of politics thus far seems to mean just "moderately prejudiced and intent on preserving the status quo for their imagined benefit/self-protection."

Yeah, I'm a bit of an elitist, one could (and probably will) say -- I believe that people who lack political literacy, cultural literacy, literal literacy and/or accurate (not merely party-spoonfed) issues exposure/knowledge have no business being part of deciding this nation's direction. I do not believe that the uneducated populace can be trusted with the privilege of voting, and this has nothing to do with technical grades and levels of education but with the desire -- or lack thereof -- to eliminate ignorance from one's mind and life. Those who do not try to educate themselves on the issues at hand, and who do not seek out to the best of their ability what there is to be known about candidates and their actual stances and the longterm effects thereof if implemented, are nothing more in my estimation than pawns of party loyalty or cultural/familial tradition.

I do not like the current two-party political system and the antagonistic dualism that it breeds -- but it must be said that of the two parties I detest far more that one which commands the most fervent nominal loyalty, the "my party right or wrong" attitude that barely if ever considers a thought or practical observation that was not bred within its chosen intellectual hothouse of self-validating systems. At the moment I am quite in accord with John Stuart Mill's statement on the subject -- that is, that although it cannot be proven that all conservatives are stupid, it can be easily observed that "most stupid people are conservative." The reason why (this is me talking now) is that they are led by their most base and basic fears -- their concerns for apparent personal financial gain (rather than the less-visible fabric of the general welfare), for security, and for social conformity of 'creeding and breeding' and all that surrounds it. These are lower-level needs, as per Maslow et al, and if it is true (as some delight in airing about) that a conservative is a liberal who's gotten mugged, then is that not a blatant regression into fear and not an advancement in actual awareness? Post-traumatic paranoia, that's all it is -- hardly something to chortle smugly about.

As for moderates...well, as I said -- "moderately prejudiced." Moderately afraid of the unknown and unwilling to deal with its existence as real and equally-valid life; moderately clutching onto their privileges of class, race, dominant culture and/or universally-assumed religious faith; moderately suspicious of those not like themselves, and moderately without the cultural education or overview to see people as conscious individuals rather than as threatening cloned units of the designated Other.

(Which still doesn't entirely account for the existence of Log Cabin Republicans, but that's far more about class+wealth than it is about actual sexuality...)

Does nobody see that the oft-cited "beer test" of potential Presidential popularity is all about reassuring the least-educated social stratum of voters of one's normalcy (itself a statistical illusion) and implied non-superiority -- pandering to their fears and worries, condescending to their folkways, with no relevance whatsoever to the actual tasks of clear-sighted national and international leadership? I don't trust a candidate who's too comfortable with the touted "red-blooded American" in bar, bowling alley or shooting range, and who deprecates too much the professional and intellectual types upon whose intelligence and advice hris prospective presidency will actually rely -- let alone hris own intelligence. It's in the same league as baby-kissing, except that babies can't vote (and don't own guns or drink beer...). Personally, I'd rather see a politician act natural for hrimself, for good or ill, than put on a gladhanding show in the sticks -- and were the right to vote dependent upon one's being a member of the informed citizenry (rather than the indoctrinated, unexposed or otherwise "unwashed" masses), then there'd be far less of a created need for this sort of appealing to the lowest common denominator. An American President, by the known details of hris job and its scope, is not primarily a bowling nor drinking buddy to the American Everyman (Everyperson?)...so why should hse be compelled to pretend that that's where hris heart and ambition truly lies?

Of course......were the Electoral College abolished, there would probably be less of a created need to go kissing ass in Middle America, seeing as the impact of high-population (and more culturally diverse) areas is muffled and that of sparsely-settled (and more culturally isolated/insulated) ones inflated to satisfy the old paranoia (again) of maintaining individual states' rights. The whole circus of voting goes on as it does because of old compromises that simultaneously elevate and disempower the average "common man" voter, and that discourage citizens from having an actual array of candidates among which they can choose by their consciences and have some chance of satisfaction in the result (as per multi-party instant-runoff voting). That's another thing that needs changing, and will probably be easier to implement than my own "elitist" idea of only letting people vote who have some real idea what they're voting about. I'm in favour of a literacy requirement and preferably a Constitution Test requirement before one can vote in any elections that affect the national level of politics and lawmaking. And more than that, I'm in favour of requiring that anyone who votes must maintain or seek current exposure to articulate political opinions besides those of their nominal party or philosophy.

Even and especially if you can't stand what stands in opposition to your own beliefs (and particularly on the most controversial and emotional of issues), you owe it to yourself as a 'political animal' to keep abreast of it and be able to explain, understand and refute it (if need remain) intelligently and civilly rather than out of a kneejerk aversive reaction. This is the essence of an educated political citizenry, and essential to cultivate in any nation that would not be prey to demogoguery and mob rule of the majority over all their fellows. Whatever group or party would stand against such mental exposure is afraid of losing its hold over the faithful -- and I use the religious term intentionally, as it's the same basic issue. No one's opinion can be considered anything more than an opinion, nor should it be given any more power than that in the sphere of political action, unless it is an opinion formed and firmed of actual considered alternatives.

And if you don't like that, then you can just keep your opinions out of the voting booth and off the national stage. If you want political influence, then you have to trade in your ignorance and cultural isolationism.....now wouldn't that be refreshing to have as the rules of the game?

_

Election '08 rundown - personal overview

2008-11-14T01:56:00.005-06:00

Apologies to anyone who's run across this site and wondered where all my sociopolitical bloviation disappeared to -- the truth is, the latter days of the election season were so extremely emotional and controversy-laden all around that I was spending the vast majority of my time on LiveJournal and Facebook because their friending system allowed for a much faster (and existent) response time on opinions posted, as well as on comments to others' posts. The real-time factor there was a bit more insistent than the "publically-viewable and globally-searchable" factor over here. Obviously, I need more friends and hecklers on this thing.

As a comprehensive follow-up, though, I will give you all the major highlights of my campaign coverage, insofar as I can gather them together here.

But first.....here's where I stand personally. I live in suburban Cook County, Illinois, about 35 minutes by train from downtown Chicago. My interests, in a nutshell, are those of the minority against the majority who thinks they have the sole right to determine the way things ought to be. By reason of almost every possible category except that of the color of my skin, I am either a member of a relatively dispossessed (and often-demonized) minority -- or simply dispossessed. I am not wealthy and never have been; I lack (through this perpetual financial insecurity) a graduate or post-graduate degree that might give my words some automatic credence with others who rely upon those things as a sign of qualification. I lack powerful connections of family or friendship that might make my life easier by helping me along. I am not mainstream. And I refuse to have the wool pulled over my eyes by those who merely pretend to answer the needs of the people, or who manipulate their fears to drive them into a fold.

That said.....you can add my profile to the list of those who have favoured Barack Obama from the very advent of his run for president.

In which Sarah Palin's cultural intolerance hits the MSM....and I post a lot of links to theocracy

2008-09-03T06:50:00.006-05:00

Yesterday morning saw the publication of the Time magazine article on Sarah Palin's time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in which it was mentioned that she had threatened to fire the town's librarian over her opposition to banning books (allegedly on account of complaints of offensive language).

According to the New York Times article from this morning(Sept. 3), Sarah Palin actually did fire her town's librarian shortly taking office as mayor, then re-hired her due to public outcry/support from town residents. This is also mentioned in the Opinion column from that newspaper's editorial board (sans author credit).

In the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten's excellent op-ed takes on directly the issue of the "privacy" that the Palin family claims for itself, when by her politics Sarah Palin would forbid that same privacy and free choice to others.

I'm waiting for the Washington Post to land in my inbox so I can scan through it....hmm, they don't seem to have anything on the book-banning issue -- it's all about finances and abortion rights/restrictions, significant as those are.

This is not even covering the material that Dark Christianity has been turning up regarding her links to dominionist movements....for anyone who does not know what that term refers to and doesn't want to read the whole article before proceeding, it basically means those who believe that it is their mission to force the United States (and/or whatever other country they happen to be working in) to be a "Christian nation" -- i.e., a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Some religious fundamentalists and evangelicals basically see the state of the nation as morally deplorable but not their business to fix by force -- they may separate themselves from the rest of society/outside culture to whatever degree, and control their children's education and religious indoctrination, and agitate when they feel beleaguered by the advances/changes of modern society and the loss of assumed preeminence to Christian "traditional" values and observances (and political obeisances) within the United States, but it is the dominionists -- largely Pentecostals, of the Assemblies of God churches or the breakaway charismatic "Joel's Army" movement, a militant form of Christian Reconstructionism -- who believe that it is their duty to use every means possible to make their nation a full theocracy in which civil rights are re-forbidden to those who do not follow/fit the rules of Christian Cultural Conservatism (my capitals; happens to be more convenient to be able to refer to the CCC).

That would mean:

=/= Legal execution of queers of every kind, preferably by good old-fashioned Biblical methods such as stoning (that's one thing they have in common with radical Islam...); never mind gay marriage or adoption, as they intend a "final solution" to that problem.

=/= Enforcement of traditional gender roles; re-segregation/restriction of higher/career education according to permitted social roles; emphasis on women's fertility and wifely virtues as their primary purpose in life; "morality police" a probable development

=/= Elimination of divorce except on traditional (OT) Biblical grounds (which don't include domestic or sexual abuse); arranged and/or "shotgun" marriages in the case of teenagers to eliminate illegitimacy and single-parenthood; adultery technically again punishable by death

=/= Criminalization of both abortion and birth control, with death penalty prescribed for those who perform abortions (and punishment to the woman as well); total abstinence-only education; women's reproductive health no longer under their own control but technically controlled by physician and husband/father/son/male head of household

=/= Total educational regression -- creationism again taught in place of evolution; history rewritten to favour the CCC agenda; literature censored to an extreme, with inevitable bookburnings in the process; religious indoctrination integrated into all areas of education

=/= Re-criminalization of witchcraft, paganism, etc.; unbelievers not permitted to live. (Even the scrupulous white-lighters, people...and Christopaganism won't pass muster)

=/= Censorship of arts and media; destruction of "immoral art" of every kind; morally-educational standards required to be met in all areas of art; artistic immorality equated with sexual immorality and punished likewise

=/= "Immigration reform" -- extreme raising of borders against anyone not meeting moral standards of the CCC (similar to Spain not allowing heretics/political incendiaries to emigrate to the New World)

=/= Science dismantled in every controversial area; all research or technology banned that does not support sanctioned religious/moral aims; genetics, medicine and surgery re-censored to avoid forbidden uses

=/= All politics subjugated to religion; mandatory public prayer at all government meetings/functions; all laws to be decided not by their constitutionality but by their adherence to (selective) Biblical doctrine

This doesn't even take into account the hypocrisy and double-standardness that is already rampant within cultural conservative politics -- the idea that those in power can insulatedly indulge the liberties that they forbid to others -- lovers and mistresses, adulterous or not (as long as they remain behind closed doors and demand nothing), abortions, genetic testing and controversial medical procedures (for those who can pay or threaten well), recreational drugs, erotica & pornography, high art and forbidden literature/knowledge (on their own terms). The above list assumes that dominionists actually mean what they say and would enforce it as such without exception.

And yes, Sarah Palin has some definite ties to these people (as well as to these people, who vetted her for the McCain ticket). Her Wikipedia article has been whitewashed to say that she's just "Christian," but more precisely (truth in advertising...) that ought to be "born-again Christian" (as per the NY Times article cited above) and the kind of born-again Christian that, once in a position of national power, will do all they can to enforce their version of the Kingdom of God over the entire country.

This is why so many people on the hardcore Religious Right are applauding McCain's choice of running mate. Not only has he promised them an administration governed by pro-life policies, he's given them someone they can really believe in as a fellow Christian, whose moral principles are uncompromising and who will deliver unto them the licence and control they need to start making their dreams come true.

So, anyone who was considering voting for this McCain/Palin wonder-ticket (as per Senator Lieberman's sickening display of proselytizing last night...), please re-engage your brains and....just don't.

(And don't forget to celebrate Banned Books Week.......I'm certainly planning to do something to observe it properly....)

Fw: McCain's dangerous choice - facts re Sarah Palin

2008-08-31T06:02:00.004-05:00

Yes, I'm spreading it around.......

_____________________________________

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.¹
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.²
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. ³
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.⁴
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.⁵
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.⁶
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.⁷

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-1414076-3OccGlx&t=8

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 3.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Kagen Aurencz Zethmayr on August 30, 2008.

Sexual Politics -- or, Don't fall for the woman in red-state red

2008-08-31T05:01:00.007-05:00

[X-posted to Hyperlucidity and my other blog; feel free to pass on (w/ due credit/blame of course) if you want, just let me know about it.] _____________________________________________________

Okay, here we are with two things at the forefront, one expected and the other a bit of a twist: A, Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President, and B, John McCain choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (a real live WOMAN, disgruntled Hillaryites!) as his running mate on the Republican ticket.

Do you think this'll work to steal the feminist vote, this whole "cut off your nose to spite your face" angle to snare in those old-school feminists who are too attached to the idea of a certified woman in the Oval Office (or close enough to it) to care that her politics are the opposite of practically everything that old-school feminism fought for in the first place?

I sure as hell hope that people aren't fooled by this act, and I'm sure as hell going to spread it around every way I know how that this is a trick designed to catch women with estrogen like flies with vinegar (which actually does attract flies more than honey does, but that's beside the point and has nothing to do with human body chemistry...). It's a feint to the left that's a thrust for the right, trying to pull swing voters back into the Republican fold by appealing to that vilest form of sexual prejudice -- the idea that a woman in authority automatically gives a shit about women in general, let alone anyone else in the category of social minority. A token female doth not a kinder+gentler government make -- just ask anyone who lived through the term of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. Just like a token black+female Secretary of State (or a token Latino Attorney General) does not mean that there is any actual solidarity with those who have the same minority signifiers but lack the political voice and status.

This isn't the first time that Republicans have played identity politics against the causes for which minorities need to gather and remain cohesive. I'm sure that groups who solely see colour, ethnicity or sex as reasons for togetherness applauded the appointments of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzales without questioning the intent behind the inclusion. And now the GOP is eagerly anticipating that Hillary Clinton's supporters, pissed off 'cause Barack Obama (a MAN) not only beat her in the primaries but passed her over as his running mate (in favour of another MAN), will turn to McCain out of sheer vitriol and resentment, rather than remember the issues at stake, and the fact that Sarah Palin is one of those religiously-motivated cultural conservatives who have long desired to overturn Roe v. Wade and send other women (just, y'know, poorer women with less power and fewer options in the first place) back to the cultural Dark Ages of illegal abortions, inaccessible birth-control and rescinded autonomy over their own bodies altogether.

Hmm. I wonder how many people will turn their brains off and fall for that? Actually, some comments I've read online say that Palin'll grab the male vote as well, based on her physical attractiveness. So that's two kinds of thinking with the ol' hormones that McCain and his team are counting on.....heck, never mind the whole "college education" split between Hillary and Barack, even -- this one's going straight to below the belt.

Voters, please -- just because a woman's in high political office, or preaching on TV, or on the radio being a pundit, it does not mean that she shares concerns about "women's issues" or will do anything to better the state thereof. Conservative women-in-power care primarily for themselves and their party's (faith's) agenda, and will gladly sacrifice the legal status, socioeconomic conditions and the very lives of women in general, whether to the infallibility of "market forces" or "ad majorem Dei gloriam."

They don't include themselves in the populations they affect, and therefore (like Log Cabin Republicans) will vote against what one would think to be their own interests and concerns -- and which would be, perhaps, were they not insulated from seeing it by their own social position. Because, as much so as celebrities are courted by Scientology, attractive and articulate women are prized by both the Political and Religious Right as figureheads and spokepeople, as proof that can be whipped out to bely the idea that Republicans (or Evangelicals) are systemically misogynistic and anti-female in their policies.

In other words: it's a trap. Don't fall for the stereotype of women caring about women, or caring about anything but what their own actions show as their agenda. Don't assume. Don't assume that seniors care about other seniors, that veterans care about other veterans (or active military personnel), or that anyone cares about anyone, categorically speaking, until and unless their actions prove that it's actually part of their platform.

And that's a point at which "issues voters" on the left(ish) in particular had better keep their eyes on the issues and not let themselves be misled by that purty gun-totin' feminine fly in the ointment.

Putting in my political oar on the Obama/Clinton race

2008-02-11T09:14:00.002-06:00

-

I suppose it's about time I got political and stated exactly why I'm for Obama over Clinton, seeing as others have been having their say openly.

I'm usually not that open about what I'm in favour of so much as what I'm against, but in this case I can explain both -- to my mind, Barack Obama shows a deep-seated drive of public service, while Hillary Clinton shows a deep-seated drive of ambition, pure and simple. Her main selling point is that she is a woman (rather than making the detail as little of an issue as possible, considering that the voting population is kinda split fifty-fifty there and one needs to deal with both halves fairly) -- and as for being a Democrat, I barely even see how she qualifies to be on the left of the aisle. Forcing people to buy health insurance is not the same thing as "achieving universal health insurance", for example, especially when one talks of garnishing wages as penalty (and when one has close corporate backing in the pharmaceutical industry)....and if, as Lurkitty excellently pointed out, Hillary shares in the presidency of Bill in professional experience as well as in political reputation, then why would I vote for the life partner of a man who advised John Kerry that if he wanted to be successful in running for the White House he ought to set his campaign platform against gay rights?

The fact is, Hillary shows herself as willing to do anything to win, and thinks that voters ought to see that as a victory for them -- but her principles are so malleable in that pursuit that she counts in my book as Republican-lite, moderate-ly prejudiced, and willing to abandon any/every core constituency of the left (thinking them in the pocket or over a barrel anyhow) just to court the swing voters and independents who are just a little bit dissatisfied with the range of GOP and rightwing options available. People who want a Democrat-by-name but not a 'leftist' who might actually shake the boat and deliver change.

So they gravitate to Hillary's stability and her more-experienced political polish -- her use of prepared talking points and pointed humour, her political connections and inside edge not for changing the way business is done but just putting a different nominal colour over it. And that is, I'm afraid, a rather top-down vision of vision and implementation (especially where the counted-upon elite superdelegates are concerned), whereas what we see with Obama is really a far more 'grassroots' and 'popular' direction, where it is not the political insiders who are assumed to have control of the process but the 'civilian' voting population -- the people who want and need real change in this country and are putting their weight where it is most likely to be delivered to them and not undermined for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

Of course, there's the international side of the struggle, too. With all the talk of "Islamofascism", has anyone considered that Barack Obama is a far better 'sleeper' for combatting Al Qaeda and other jihadists, because he has had experience abroad and knows about Islamic cultures from the inside? He has the potential to give a far greater appearance of diplomacy than Hillary Clinton, who as a 'privileged' American white woman represents an immediate provocation to radical Islamic values. This is not me being "sexist" -- this is reality right now at the present time. Yes, Benazir Bhutto was a female leader and presents a logical parallel, but she was Pakistani and Muslim herself, not Western -- she was part of her culture and not assumedly set against it. If one is considering how best to "rehabilitate" and strengthen the United States' image with the rest of the world, the racial and gender issues take on a decidedly different weight, insofar as any President who wants to salvage America's political repute has to be able to communicate cross-culturally and not assume anything of the stereotypical American insularity that has made us politically resented even by those that don't hate us. Our current lame-but-still-[kicking]-duck is a culturally-inept and inarticulate buffoon who's never bothered to understand anything outside of his own privileged sphere, sheltered as much as possible from having to suffer the consequences of his own actions and ignorance. The last thing that we need at this point is a national leader who projects American insularity and overconfidence in our self-proclaimed status as "The Greatest Nation on Earth." (I think that whoever coined that expression ought to be boiled in oil...:-)

I have to say it flat-out -- I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Dave Barry's comment re her planning her run for President while still in the womb doesn't seem too exaggerated, imho -- it seems that she has set her sights on making history and the first female president for a long time now, without thinking whether that's what this country really needs right now -- or what it needs. I don't think that she's really been listening....rather like someone who doesn't hear what you're saying because they're planning what they're going to say next. Hillary is calculating. She is ruthless. She has no humility in the face of her goal and what it entails in the way of serving the American people -- this is, one might easily conclude, simply the highest notch she aims to carve on her proverbial gun.

In some ways, I think that Obama has more 'feminine' virtues than she does -- feminine graces, even. I mean, not to rehash the entire character-contrast subtext of The Crying Game, but does it really take a genetic female to bring the traits of gender balance and equal respect to national politics? What does "the first woman President" really mean, if the only main thing setting her apart from the other candidates -- on either side of the political fence, seeing as she tends to vote like a Republican -- is that she wears skirts and nylons in public? Is that a revolution worth fighting for as a primary cause? Is it enough of a revolution? Hell, if we were able to get the full version of ENDA passed, that'd do a lot more across the nation than just this aiming for a token dose of executive estrogen at the top of the heap.

People keep talking about the gender issue and the race issue swaying people predictably and irrationally -- but really, how predictable is it? Obama isn't just black, afterall, and the way that people respond to both candidates is not just reducible to which traits define them most strongly. Some people do think that simplistically -- some don't. And if I, by this time in my life, didn't think long and hard about why I was inclined to support people and make sure that it wasn't just based on kneejerk identity politics, I'd be a pretty irresponsible voting citizen.

_

Re: Your post to Religioholics Anonymous

2007-10-04T01:58:00.002-05:00

-
I'm sorry, Regina, but you've obviously misunderstood the purpose of this group. We do not accept proselytizing of any kind, whether from Christians, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists or any other group who believe that their program is the only true/right/permissible way. That's precisely the sort of attitude that stands in the way of the Kingdom of Heaven, if you would but see it....and it is people like you, in the general sense of being insistent upon the absolute rightness of their beliefs and their absolute right to impose them on others, who are the cause of the Tribulation in this world, regardless of whom or what they say they follow.

That is why I say that "the meek shall inherit the earth" -- because they have no compulsion to force others to do as they do 'or else', no herdlike need to make others conform just as they do. The absolutists -- your side and all the other belligerent sides who want their faith to dominate the globe -- are not the peacemakers, are not the merciful, are not those who seek justice, are not those who truly hunger and thirst after real righteousness. They are not the followers of Christ, yet they have seized upon his name and taken it in vain, have latched it to their own pathological agenda of social control and insular security.

Christ did not seek to rule the world as a kingdom -- far on the contrary, he sought to free humanity from the domination of religious authorities and their stranglehold on the defining of morality. Don't ask me how I know these things, unless you care to pit your received beliefs against my direct...revelations. I know things that you do not. I know that you are being led, as many are being led, to preach that which they do not understand and demonise that which, again, they do not understand. Your screed of a creed is but the religious equivalent of a chain-letter....you haven't thought it out for yourself, and perhaps you've never really thought at all about the depth of these things you trot out so earnestly from the Scriptures. God will not punish people for not evangelizing (a virtuous example is more important than all the preaching in the world), but there are grave consequences for setting people against each other in the name of faith, and for doing violence against people's souls and minds in the name of faith.

Your mission to "spread the Word" is not needed. What is needed is your ability to follow virtue for yourself in your life, regardless of what others do or do not do, without trying to force them onto your path. Every person's soul is their own affair -- between them and God, as the expression goes -- and you do not help them by exhortations and threats. Carry your own cross, instead of telling others how to carry theirs -- live your own life that stands as your own example. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear -- but don't go bludgeoning them over the head if they don't jump to and fall into line.

Tend your own field. If the harvest is truly good, then others will see that it is so and follow what you do. But there are other good harvests elsewhere whose methods may be better for them to follow, and they all are part of the same universal yield. Let the matter go -- manage what you have in your trust already (as you imply you are a minister), but let others manage what is theirs. And accept that you do not know what path is best for all -- they must find that out for themselves, of their own choosing and call. It's called free will, and you do need to respect its continuing existence as part of the plan.

Peace,

Aureantes

P.S. -- As for achieving the requisite "Good Heart Condition" you mention, I strongly recommend oatmeal. Lowers bad cholesterol, you know.

[(Edit. 8/31/08): The font of the passages below was much larger, but I downsized it so as not to be quite so hard on the eyes -- it is otherwise verbatim.]
===========================================================
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:28:30 -0000
To: Religioholics_Anonymous@yahoogroups.com
From: "Regina" <sanctifyhisname@yahoo.com>
Subject: What Satan Doesn't Want You To Know

The hourglass is nearly empty. The Great Tribulation has begun and Armageddon looms in the very near future. There are a total of TWO things that you need in order to obtain Eternal Life and Man-Made Religion is not one of them. (1) An Acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. (2) A Good Heart Condition.

We urge those who wish to obtain Eternal Life in Christ's Kingdom to read the following very important message. We don't aim to twist arms or convince anyone of anything they aren't ready or willing to believe as their hearts will ultimately dictate what they perceive to be truth. However, it is also our responsibility to warn those who do not accept this Truth, will face Judgment at Armageddon. For this reason we pray that the eyes and hearts of all who read our message are opened to the Truth whether that is now, or in the near future when our words come to pass.

The Kingdom Message of Salvation is the Truth and validity of the Bible as a whole. As ministers with the Light of Life Ministry, we are doing as we are commanded within the Scriptures. Because we have been enlightened to the Truth, we have a heavy responsibility to pursue our Ministries. 1 Corinthians 9:16 warns of the necessity and woe to those that do not declare the Good News.

"For if I preach the gospel, I have no reason to boast, because an obligation is placed on me. And woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"

This is because once we have acquired Wisdom about the Truth, it is our duty to spread the message as far as we can over all of creation. If we fail to warn others, the Creator holds us accountable. To walk away is to be overshadowed with negativity. Ezekiel 3:17-18 gives insight on this.

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman over the house of Israel. When you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from Me. If I say to the wicked person: You will surely die, but you do not warn him—you don't speak out to warn him about his wicked way in order to save his life—that wicked person will die for his iniquity. Yet I will hold you responsible for his blood."

OUR MESSAGE OF TRUTH

The main theme of our Message of Truth is that those who wish to have eternal life must declare Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior. This must be done in order to be one with His coming Kingdom.

We realize that many will challenge our faith and the faith of others who also declare Jesus to be Lord. They will say that we must meet certain requirements of water baptism, a belief in the Trinity and other man-made religious ideals. If those people have the right heart condition, they will see the Light. If not, they will remain opposed to what is ministered to them. That is their Free Will choice. Even if they claim to be foot-step followers of Christ, they will be deemed not worthy of Salvation unless they exhibit the Holy Spirit from within them. If they believe falsehoods about Christ, cling to their man-made religious belief systems and reject the truth will be marked accordingly by the Cherubic Order of Angels. All people are judged by what is really in their hearts.

As part of our Ministry to those that oppose the Truth, we point out that a humble heart is the only thing that saves anyone. Without it, you are endowed with negativity. What your heart is filled with is what springs forth with abundance from the mouth. Luke 6:45 is clear on this point:

"A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart."

Proverbs 4:23 is clear on the need to safeguard your heart against the wickedness of negativity being stored there:

"Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life."

By knowing and understanding the Truth of the Word, you treasure up within your hearts what guides you (the Holy Spirit) so that you do not sin knowingly against Christ or his Father.

"I have treasured Your word in my heart so that I may not sin against You." Psalms 119:11.

The problem with sin is that it cultivates negativity. From the mind where it begins or originates, it creeps down into your heart. Then you're in trouble. That's why it's not a sin to think a bad thought, if you dismiss it. You did not act on it. Therefore, it is not a sin. But if you dwell on the wrong thought, it will creep on down into your heart and become a part of you. So, above all else, safeguard your hearts.

ALL WHO OPEN THEIR HEARTS TO CHRIST ARE ACCEPTABLE

People of all nationalities, regardless of race, color or religion are open to the Salvation of Christ.

"Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people." Revelation 14:6.

"Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all who inhabit the world, both low and high, rich and poor together." Psalms 49:1-2.

"Then Peter began to speak: "In truth, I understand that God doesn't show favoritism, but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him." Acts 10:34-35.

REMEMBER - IT'S A FREE WILL CHOICE

Everyone has Free Will Choice in the decision and are able to choose one way or the other. That's why we will not try to force the Truth on to anyone.

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, love the LORD your God, obey Him, and remain faithful to Him. For He is your life, and He will prolong your life in the land the LORD swore to give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deuteronomy 30:19-20

"But if it doesn't please you to worship the LORD, choose for yourselves today the one you will worship: the gods your fathers worshiped beyond the Euphrates River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. As for me and my family, we will worship the LORD." Joshua 24:15

"If you carefully obey My commands I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and worship Him with all your heart and all your soul, I will provide rain for your land in season, the early and late rains, and you will harvest your grain, new wine, and oil. I will provide grass in your fields for your livestock. You will eat and be satisfied. Be careful that you are not enticed to turn aside, worship, and bow down to other gods. Then the LORD's anger will burn against you. He will close the sky, and there will be no rain; the land will not yield its produce, and you will perish quickly from the good land the LORD is giving you." Deuteronomy 11:13-17

"This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands." 1 John 2:3

SALVATION - KINGDOM MESSAGE COMPLETED

Now, either you will accept or reject the Truth we have ministered to you. Since everyone should come to understand that actions result in consequences, we deliver the following warning. If you decide to refuse the truth, then you will know what is ahead--even if you reject that also, at this time. Later on, you will see our words come to life. If you accept the Truth now but are later tempted to cultivate negativity within your heart, then the warning we share might help to prevent that from happening.

YAHWEH'S BITTER-SWEET WARNING TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH

He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life. He that disobeys the Son will not see life. The Wrath of God remains upon him.

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36

Once you have been given the Message of Truth, if you do not obey it you are exercising your Free Will choice. However, it will result in eternal death at the Judgment. Just as Satan and his angels cannot have free reign in creation - neither will it be permitted of those that exercise that choice. Your fate is upon your own head.

"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of everyone's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." Acts 20:26-27

The above scripture reveals we will be clean from the blood of those who make the wrong choice. If you are so cultivated with negativity that you hear and know that what we speak is Truth and you continue to sin willfully by rejecting that Truth, then you will lose the Sacrificial Hope of Salvation. Time will eventually run out. Armageddon is the final Judgment Chapter.

"For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" Hebrews 10:26

"to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of our God's vengeance..." Isaiah 61:2

"The tumult reaches to the ends of the earth because the LORD brings a case against the nations. He enters into judgment with all flesh. As for the wicked, He hands them over to the sword [This is] the LORD's declaration." Jeremiah 25:31

"I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak." Matthew 12:36

"When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:8

WHO WE MINISTER TO AND SANCTIFICATON OF THE CREATOR'S NAME

This GOOD NEWS of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth and bear witness to all the nations. The nations will be made to know Yahweh. His Name must be sanctified before the nations.

"I will honor the holiness of My great name, which has been profaned among the nations—the name you have profaned among them. The nations will know that I am Yahweh"—the declaration of the Lord GOD —"when I demonstrate My holiness through you in their sight." Ezekiel 36:23

"So I will make My holy name known among My people Israel and will no longer allow it to be profaned. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel." Ezekiel 39:7

ARE THERE ANY FREE RIDES TO ETERNAL BLISS?

Anyone that believes they can get a free ride through eternity without going through Christ, please read:

"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Once you have received the Truth, you are under obligation by the Creator.

"Wisdom is supreme—so get wisdom. And whatever else you get, get understanding." Proverbs 4:7

The Ministers of the Light of Life Ministry

Freedom of Religion: The Mayflower vs. the U.S. Constitution

2007-07-04T10:52:00.001-05:00

-
The main disjoint between the United States and itself, of course, is that of its traditional earliest settlers -- i.e., the 'Pilgrims,' 'Puritans' or Anabaptists -- and the other religious malcontents who followed suit in emigrating to the New World. In contrast to Spain, who enforced restrictions against 'heretics' settling in its colonies because they were intent on converting the natives to Catholicism, England saw it as a convenient way of getting the dissidents and deviants out of the way -- even if they weren't guaranteed to get along with each other. This made America, by default, the first truly heterodox territory-nation in the Western Hemisphere -- or at least since the diplomatic empire-building of Alexander the Great.

The Puritans wanted 'freedom of religion,' as everyone knows.....well, they wanted freedom of their religion against the corruptions of everyone else's, is more like it. The Anabaptists had already found the Netherlands too liberal and tolerant for their tastes, if that's any indication of enduring differences. Their colonies had a sizeable dominance over New England -- yet their denomination was never officially denoted as a 'state religion' -- only a 'city-state religion.' Rhode Island and Pennsylvania also gained charters of their own, but they were not Puritan colonies, and it is notable that the first instances of interdenominational strife in the colonies (though to those involved it might as well have been interreligious entirely) were those of the Puritans refusing to tolerate other sects/denominations in their vicinity -- harassing, assaulting, whipping, tarring & feathering those who did not follow the Puritan ways (which is why Rhode Island was founded in the first place, as a haven for 'heretics' and freethinkers being persecuted elsewhere in the greater region).

So, the first trend that one group of co-religionists started once free of the (real or imagined) pressures inhibiting the practice of their faith....was to start pressuring and inhibiting others from practising any other faith or manner of living. They acted as if they had been granted a charter not merely to settle but to subjugate -- and thus we have the birth of the Religious Right, before the nation itself had been founded.

But what is older is not always better, though it tends to have a strong hold on cultural attitudes -- as the fitful pace of civil rights legislation/saturation in this country has been demonstrating for generations. When it came to creating a framework for the new nation as a whole, the men who were most closely involved with the final product had a definite desire that no religion nor denomination should be enabled, whether through apppointment nor through negligence, to assert itself as the state religion over others. And they were close enough to the past to see what could happen in such an unregulated situation. They said what they thought was necessary, and no doubt thought that posterity might listen -- yet, on the grounds that they were all nominally Christian-or-some-variant-thereof-but-at-least-not-atheist, people have since claimed erroneously that "America Was Intended to Be a Christian Nation."

America was not intended to be a Christian nation. America was 'intended', if anything, as a way to get rid of disruptive domestic elements from England, France and other parts and make their toil productive for their overseas sovereigns. The first rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation" -- that is, everyone deserves a say in the way that things work. Originally that was restricted to white adult male landowners...then the property requirement was lifted...then race, then sex, though there's still the educational dilemma of whether a populace can be considered informed enough to vote unless they can read the dominant language. But it is well worth noting that the legal framework of the Constitution, despite any references to God/Creator/Maker in the seminal documentation of the nation, never restricted any rights according to religion. That, my friends, has all been the work of tradition, social prejudice and entrenched nativism, but was never meant to be a legal disbarrment. Hence, whatever their other social assumptions regarding race, class, education, sex, etc., one must conclude that the United States as a nation was intended to have religious equality and freedom for all -- not just some, not even just a majority of co-religionists or faiths of similar moral conservatism, but all.

That does not mean lack of freedom for religions (unless those religions commit crimes against others); it does not mean the banning of religions from all public expression, as under Communist regimes. Let's get it cleared up -- the only thing that is required of a religion in this country is that it not obstruct the rights and basic freedoms of others, and that is the basis for every advance of explicit civil rights (as not everything can be foreseen two centuries ahead) that elicits cries of "State persecution!" from traditionalist religious denominations today. They are not being oppressed. They are not even being repressed. (Now you see the non-violence inherent in the system)

As it was stated, so let it be guaranteed under law, with no equivocations and panderings to the "born-again" ministers of state and their voting blocs -- America must guarantee not only the freedom to worship, and the freedom to worship/commune as one feels is right, but the freedom not to worship, and the freedom not to live in fear and trepidation of being persecuted for not following the rules based solely on religion's pervasiveness in former days. Freedom not to worship rules made by and for other religions, and not to be punished for offending those sects' delicate sensibilities, whether by one's daily life and livelihood, by one's own spiritual practice, by one's visible relationships or by one's very existence as a visible person. If the laws do not allow for an encompassing view rather than one that caters to an established religion, they are not laws that can be fairly applied to all citizens. In short: state-enabled rule by excuse of religion is effectively the same thing as endorsing a state religion (albeit with slightly less in the way of purges and executions)....and that is against the law of this nation as it still fundamentally stands. Our Founding Fathers did not foresee nor have the power to root out all the blue laws and moral objections that would linger on for centuries as dead-hands on the practice of our freedoms...they are our weeds to uproot, as this nation is our garden to tend, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. But let us have faith in something that is not bound to either extreme of militancy.

I am glad that I have an education and the ability to think for myself -- some people are never allowed to get that far in viewing the world they live in. And then there are some who consider themselved educated by dint of higher schooling but apparently haven't learned much. Those many who now believe in American theocracy as a sacred mission have a pitifully poor sense of this nation's prenatal history as a free range for religious social tyranny and extremism. They don't remember history -- and I think you know the rest of the quote. Even in the present crisis, the best answer to one religious extremism is not another extremism, and it never was. It is only in the assertion and rediscovering of the "self-evident" truths of human equality, of dignity and responsible freedom, that the best of our nation and of human civilization can be preserved against those -- all those -- who truly do wish to destroy those truths in the name of their gods.

Things to Do: clean out the lawbooks, dust out the irrational social mores, and remember how far we've come -- and how much farther we need to grow if this nation's ever going to grow up for real.

[For further information on the "Blog Against Theocracy" project, see http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/]

Petition comments re federal hate crimes legislation

2007-06-10T22:01:00.002-05:00

[For a truly impressive piece of thorough and verbose cultural-religious paranoia, check out the comments to this post...]
-

K. Aurencz Zethmayr has sent you an important action alert - read below for more info, and take action at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544

As you may or may not know, I have a few subscriptions to various 'action alerts' and petition topics -- and the latest one that I've weighed in on is this one supporting the addition of the Matthew Shepard Act to existing federal hate-crimes statutes. Here's what I said, and the link is below if you want to follow it and have your say:

'I believe that this is one of the most badly-needed pieces of civil rights legislation at this time in history, as a large number of criminal acts, both graphically notorious and generally unreported out of fear, are committed on the sole basis of hatred against those of different sexual orientations and genders. There is no excuse for that, regardless of the number of people who may share similar prejudices and thus seek to minimize or rationalize away such unwarranted and antisocial behaviours. Hate crimes are never justified, no matter who the aggressor is and who the victim is -- unfortunately, many people need this spelled out to them, both in the field of law enforcement and in the general population at large, and will continue to think that "queerbashing" is permissible because of their personal and/or religious views unless this category is specifically and prominently added to existing hate-crimes legislation.'

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544

Thanks for the read, and pardon the inevitable crossposting -- feel free to pass this on if you like the way I phrased it, etc....

Aurey

------------------------------------
ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/!

ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2.com, the largest online network for people who Care2 make a difference. With over 5 million members, we make it easy for you to live a healthy, sustainable lifestyle and protect the environment, human rights, education, women's rights, animal welfare, and much more... all in one place! Join our community at http://www.care2.com/

Children should not be raised on kiddie-tailored propaganda

2007-06-01T04:47:00.000-05:00

=========================================================
Publisher aims to teach kids right from left
A Torrance executive says he sees too many children's books with liberal views. His titles aim to tilt the shelves the other way.
=========================================================

There's a radical concept that I'd like to put forward....

Instead of complaining about "liberal" bias and putting out rightwing children's books in the name of ideological balance/overbalance, why don't people focus on finding and conveying the truth, regardless of whose "agenda" it may seem to support? Afterall, especially when some of these books are being marketed as "nonfiction", shouldn't they actually be supported as 'not being fictions' set up just to argue a point of view?

If you're going to make a story for kids that's supposed to teach them about the real world and how it works (or doesn't), base it on something that has actually happened in reality, and in the same reality that you're setting it in. Don't take your lemonade-stand fable from a Communist milieu and call it typical American liberalism; maybe let your gay penguins have the non-happy ending and one dump the other for a wife (which is what actually happened). That's life -- if you're calling it realistic then stick to what's really there. Princes and fairytales are accepted as being of the realm of fantasy and metaphor, but don't sell contrived propaganda to 'impressionable young minds' and call it an honest perspective. You know what?--Heather really did have two mommies. And she's just as perfectly well-adjusted as (and possibly a lot moreso than) any kid raised in a standard mom-&-dad sex=gender dichotomous household. That's truth. It happens and has been happening for years now, it's real, it's as functional as anything. Same with little Buster Bunny's travels, 'cause that's really information too. Truth. Real people, real existences. You don't like it, then get out of the business of even pretending to have an objective viewpoint.

I feel very strongly about children's books and what they teach. I've read a wide range of literature aimed more-or-less didactically at kids, from Grimm's Fairytales to Tootles to The Chronicles of Narnia. You know, the first tome actually has more enduring worth in it than those more-modern examples, even with all the religious assumptions and violence and dubious magic and what-have-you. Those fairytales do less of the mental violence of being targeted at children to shape them as thoroughly as possible, and are far more psychologically realistic despite all their fantasy -- they're not even as sexist as C.S. Lewis comes across (ever read the Narnia books and gleaned his attitudes?).

In my opinion, kids deserve to have better than mere lessons and manipulations at every turn, and any author or publisher who sets out trying primarily to entrain them into an ideology -- regardless of the nominal agenda -- does not deserve to be in a position of reaching them via those words. At that age, I'd consider it child molestation -- just as I tend to consider formal religious instruction (as well as formal anti-religious instruction). Children deserve to be treated honestly and with respect, not just as future party members or mini-activists. If you can't manage that, I think censorship may be in order, and precisely where most people would never think to apply it.

(And just to be clear on my values, I also hated that "socialist" one with the beautiful fish giving away his shining rainbow scales just to be accepted by others. Bollocks. Self-betrayal is never a defensible virtue in my book.)

Another one leaves the temporal fray; the words go on.....

2007-04-12T06:39:00.000-05:00

==============================================
KURT VONNEGUT: 1922-2007
His popular novels blended social criticism, dark humor (Los Angeles Times)

Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at age 84 (AP release, via Yahoo News)
==============================================

If you've been reading this poor underfed blog through its sketchy history so far, you'll notice that I was similarly distraught (is that too strong a word?--no, not really) at news of Hunter S. Thompson's death ("The best minds of our generations...")....and that certainly applies now as well, even though Vonnegut didn't take his own life -- the pressures, and the general insanity in modern American life, were certainly felt the same, though expressed somewhat differently, and in a way this is a general continuation of the same mourning, the same memorializing.

I met Kurt Vonnegut earlier, though as with many authors and artists I was not quick to jump on the bandwagon of becoming a full-fledged devotee -- as a matter of fact, due to my general wariness of fads and fashions, it took me a while to make the connection between the 'popular' and absurdistly sci-fi author whose books my other siblings collected and the almost-classically serious author who'd struck my mind with a brief and bluntly-tragic tale that came across as disturbingly real and completely un-'comical' to me when I was still in my single-digit years. "Harrison Bergeron" was one of the first short stories I read as a child that really made an impact on me -- in seeing how the world can treat those that it fears, how the tallest stalks are (more or less ruthlessly) cut down to enable the 'emotional security' of a general mediocrity, the blandness of a society without peaks and storms or genius or even the sometimes-tyranny of natural strength and beauty. Every tall stalk on the mental/creative order recognizes this story when they see it...I'm not sure about the rest.

Here's what I said in my hyperlucidity group, insofar as loss and meaning:

"The memorials of great and notable individuals remind us what we're missing now, and highlight the themes that may have been let pass by too many for too long, so that they can be remembered and seen and even heeded again. I remember that Mr. Rogers' death was reported on an "orange-alert" day, during the 'Terror' of the post-9/11 push into war...we lose people when we need them most, when the world needs to be exposed to more, not less of them, not to have no more of their voices atall. And not for them to be passed over in the public eye for those who have/had nothing to say, nothing to make their lives worthwhile in the greater scheme of things -- not even the attempt to bring something of meaning -- or even the meaningful denial of "meaning" as commonly and comfortably assumed -- into the reality we share. Damn mere 'celebrity' -- especially the type that's crassly built on denying and deriding anything more than its own shallowly-gilded edifice or slick contemporary trend...this is what really matters."

Yes, I'm tired of Anna Nicole Smith....and Donald Trump, and all the other people whose significance is bound to their wealth, their bodies, their lovers and spouses, their power while they live and nothing more. I have many and various reasons for being disgusted with that, as my role models and affinities have always been those who've done more and/or otherwise than merely conquer or rule, or look good to the camera, or share beds and obscenely-large fortunes. They may retain fame after death, but they do no good to anyone but themselves and their coterie (and tabloid reporters). I believe there's a poem by Sappho on that subject....in this translation I found, it's titled "To an Uneducated Woman":

When dead you will lie forever forgotten,
for you have no claim to the Pierian roses.
Dim here, you will move more dimly in Hell,
flitting among the undistiguished dead.

--Sappho, fragment 55 V

--though, these phrases are the ones I remember better, from the first translation of it that I saw in college and still have somewhere stashed in my bedroom -- "Rich as you are, death will be the end of you. [...] You had no share in the Pierian roses. [...]"

Et cetera. I think the gist is fairly clear. We don't need more models or millionaires -- or even another "people's princess" to pull at a nation's/world's voyeurism and heartstrings alike. But we do need more people who can show the rest something more, especially in the concerns of their own consciousness and humanity, and prod them inside to claim their own possibilities and not be led like sheep.

And more people who understand what "Pierian roses" really means.

Fairness Doctrine and no hate speech?--how anti-Christian!! [AFA fwd]

2006-10-19T01:15:00.001-05:00

Friends, this is a very important crisis facing our rightfully-theocratic culture that was ordained by GOD to be a leader and ruler to all nations....if you don't stand up now and show your support for a strictly-fundamentalist and Christian Christianity as our official moral structure, naked blazing-eyed and foaming-mouthed rabid demons of unspeakable perversion will automatically enter in to take the place of our Dear Lord and Saviour.

There can be no compromise with the forces of secular humanism, no middle ground, no common values with those who are determined to turn our beloved America into a perpetual orgy of unbridled indecency, heresy, pluralistic social mandates and carnal instincts. There are those who would condemn us as "narrow-minded" for exercising our duty to speak out against fornicators, somdomites and baby-killing harlots, but we will not be deprived of our right and obligation to judge the nation and all within it by our standards, and force them with love to the one true and delightsome narrow path of righteousness.....

(Are you wanting to strangle me yet? I'm sure that some of you who know me are likely finding the ironing delicious, even though the message of outraged judgementalism reeks of both bile and gall (yes, I know they're synonyms). Oh, and choler as well. :P

At any rate, do take this piece of hijacked fundy-mail below to heart, and VOTE in November. Remember, they're full of passionate intensity -- even if they're bass-ackwards perverted in their haids -- and a bunch of determined fanatics will always prevail against rational souls who do nothing. So do something to try and fix that, 'kay?)

====================================================

AFA ActionAlert <contact@mail2.afamail.net> wrote:

From: "AFA ActionAlert" <contact@mail2.afamail.net>
To: K. Aurencz Zethmayr <aureantyev@yahoo.com>
Subject: What if the Liberals Win in November?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:59:00 -0500

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 11, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

What if the Liberals Win in November?

Dear K.,

How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win. The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country. Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:

* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.

* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.

* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.

* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.

* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.

* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.

Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at http://www.afa.net/ today!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

ValuesVoters.com - Be an active citizen and vote your values!

Mercy Ships - Enduring Acts of Mercy - Providing Hope and Healing

American Family Filter - Strong, Internet filtering software and porn blocking technology.

You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert.

In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us!

If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#2058) for your annual CFC participation. Questions or comments about AFA? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.

American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036

Regarding the joint Madonna/Veggie Tales furor...

2006-09-30T00:35:00.000-05:00

[expanded slightly from my comment at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/09/madonna-crucified-veggie-tales-maimed.html The immediately-following is most of the text from the American Family Association's email alert regarding the editing of Veggie Tales.....check for bias and assumptions, of course, as it is rather full of those:

NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ

Dear K.,

NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.

NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.

In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."

The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."

NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."

Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.

Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."

NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)

This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ]

Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it.

With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally.

The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert)

All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.

Attention, religioholics (and those oppressed by them)--we're working on a cure....

2006-09-20T04:49:00.000-05:00

Which means another of my notorious online groups...>:) Religioholics Anonymous is opening its doors, to provide those addicted to the mindless worship of their faith with enlightenment as to the nature of reality:

No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all.

Here's what we got..........

Religioholics

[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]

Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.

O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?

Let's explore a bit, shall we?

This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure.

-

Yep, I made me up a new word.......

2006-09-20T04:41:00.000-05:00

Credocide --

[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.]

The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests.

Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law......

Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.

Posts re the latest religious firestorm, again....

2006-09-19T23:22:00.000-05:00

[Collected posts I've made in my newsgroup hyperlucidity over this situation]
==================================================

Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm

Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day?
Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy?

--Aurey

P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore?

(Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam)

(Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology)
_______________________________

Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am

I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant.

Aurey
______________________________

[This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]
_____________________________

[re The Pope's message of greater dialogue achieves the opposite ]

Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am

Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here:http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective.

Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings.

--Aurey

Whose side am I on?--what a question to ask....

2006-09-19T23:18:00.001-05:00

-
It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice.

The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point.

But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person.

Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront.

That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:-

Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman".

[Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]

For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof.

[Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]

But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come.

[Gee, won't they be surprised.....]

Observer's notes from a pseudo-religious debacle....

2006-09-17T06:17:00.000-05:00

Some perceived assumptions and between-the-lines observations here:

* Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does.

* It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities.

* From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures.

* The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson.

* The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another.

* This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias.

* This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword.

* This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)...

* Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes).

It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith.

* To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"

* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other.

* I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction.

* If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term "credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right.

* End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance.

Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in.

And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions.

Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question.

Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course....

___________________________________________
===========================================
Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation:

Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP)

Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph)

God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph)
Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.

His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.

The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran.

Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]

What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far
_____________________________________________________
=====================================================
[All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]

Bad form, old W....very bad form.....

2006-09-17T06:08:00.000-05:00

===============================================================
Negotiations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 13, 9:37 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_22

===============================================================

Okay....so, is this so hard to understand, or just to prioritize properly? (I know, I know, you can't expect people to have human consciences anymore, not when national security's at stake...)

If you say that you have a right to treat your enemy captives without Geneva Convention regulations as guideline, then what reason do your enemies have to use any restraint whatsoever when they capture any of your guys? These things were established for a reason of mutual self-protection, not just some imagined namby-pambyism of "being nice to the prisoners"....and honestly, unless you've either been through a POW/torture situation yourself or read/seen and felt a damn visceral lot of the subject, you're not entitled to make decisions that may wind up putting your troops in that kind of unbridled jeopardy. Especially when you're dealing with people who behead journalists and and stone homosexuals....oh wait, that's one ideal ya got in common there, isn't it...?

Commander-in-chief, my ass...the man and the minions/handlers about him have no sense of valuing the lives of their fellow Americans, if they think that selectively ignoring treatment standards is going to make anyone inside or fighting for this country any safer....

Song lyrics: "Spin" (geez, guess what inspired it...)

2006-09-13T00:30:00.000-05:00

Here's a little something I had almost completely written by the end of a certain day (exact dates below)--the melody's really great but I haven't yet got an digital audio clip to upload.

Spin

This is the way of the world—the swift reaction of the hive;
This is the way of the world: no foe be left alive…
so the word’s given to us from above.

And you don’t know how—you don’t know how to see...
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll make their move, and play their part for all posterity.

This is the way of the world—this is the way it all must be.
This is the way of the world—so we can sleep at night in ignorance serene,
while the fools run the show above our heads.

They don’t know how—-they don’t know how to see.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll weave their web, and make damn sure they never have to learn.

This is the way of the world: put pride above humanity—-
and try to rule all the world; don’t heed the clamoring of us who see too far,
with disasters envisioned in our heads...
...while you hold the teeth of dragons in your hands;
while our future’s burning in the desert sands...
It must be seen in the end-—it must be learned before we fall,
what every day must defend: that every life is accountable to all—
that this world can’t be run above our heads…

Do I know how?...Do I know how to see?
Give me a tragedy--throw it stark and real before my eyes…
Give me a tragedy, and let it show what lies behind those walls of yesterday.

This is the way of the world—-but we can bend it by our sight.
This is the way of the world—-ours to make wrong or right.
Dare we hope—dare we pray
that truth be found...that truth be found...?

Dare we hope—dare we pray that truth be found.

–words and music by K. Aurencz Zethmayr—(9/11/01—10/11/02)

Just to piss off anyone who's been taking sides in the recent fiasco....

2006-08-16T03:04:00.000-05:00

NOBODY'S GETTING A COOKIE, DAMMIT!!! NO COOKIES FOR YOU!!!

*growls*

Okay.....so I've been watching the headlines online these past couple of nights, and I see both Israel and Hezbollah claiming victory for their side (typical swaggering ideological crap, you know...)...anyhow, it occured to me that what is really needed from the U.S. and the rest of the civilized international community is a resounding and definite statement that Israel and Hezbollah have both LOST.

Lost because they couldn't control themselves from getting down in the bloody mud and sand, and in doing so lost the respect of every decent nation that can express itself. Neither side has won, and neither side deserved to "win" over the dead bodies and shattered homes of both sides' civilians. If governments and ideological military bodies are going to act like spoiled and violent children, then they ought to be responded to as such, with no quibbling about any victory involved. Let there be no pretending that this was a "justified" war, or that either organization (though one be an official national military and the other regarded as a "terrorist" movement) can claim the moral high ground. There is no such thing to be claimed, not until civil diplomatic dialogue regains its priority over armed conflict as a preferred (and encouraged) choice of action.

In other words, "You've both been very naughty and you shan't have any bragging rights over it. It takes two to tangle, and you just haven't learned shite, it seems. So grow up, dammit, or the next time we'll all swat you both on the arse...."

And by the way, Israel, cut out that damn 'G-d-is-our-realtor' spiel and grow some humanistic credibility for dealing with other nations. If you want them to recognize you, then you have to recognize that they've called this place home for a good long uninterrupted time *without* being transplanted in to fill out some Manifest Destiny. Even the Arabs in World War I fought for their own nationalism, rather than having it arranged by fiat as an entitlement deal. Learn to co-exist with the sovereignty of other nations (as certain entities and faiths must also learn to deal with it and not deny or bully), or you will most assuredly someday be destroyed by that unallayed hostility and offensive defensiveness. Deal with it. Grow up. Stop leaning on other countries' resources and sway, because it only heightens the going impression that Israel has no power nor foundation without the armaments and funds and influence of the U.S. to hold it in position in the Middle East. Such an arrangement also implies that Israel has no honour of its own....and if no one can honestly defend your name without having a stake and agenda of their own in you, then I ask you truly, what does that amount to?

Hmmf. If only it could be said so, and taken to heart. If only the U.S. had a moral standing of its own from which to speak, instead of only the power and the sway. But dammitall, it needs to be said and it needs to be heard, because these are times when no one -- no one -- can claim an absolute justification for what they do. No country, no regime, no religion, no political party, no person alive can take their ideology to an extreme and expect to escape the consequences of their deeds by the strength of some fervent belief. Balance will out, and the extremists, all of them, will meet the harvest of their actions whether they like it or not. Hold back the absolutists -- and curtail and undermine their braggings at every turn, every side -- and perhaps there is some chance that they will turn aside from being all of them wrong, to reach a higher plane of human decency and what we call civilization.

Anyone think that'd make a viable political platform....? I think I'd call it, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword -- Paradise not included."

[also posted at http://aureantes.livejournal.com/52127.html and as original reply at hyperlucidity....]

=Admit No Impediments=

2006-06-07T23:48:00.000-05:00

The price of societal evolution is eternal vigilance...

Especially seeing as the more vocal among the moral conservatives have made it their objective to keep bringing up that ethical atrocity known as the Federal Marriage Amendment each and every year until they manage to push it through Congress through sheer force of public annoyance...(do they think that'll actually work?)...

Well, I'm glad it got stopped, this time. But, despite my thanks to the senators who voted it down, whatever their personal leanings on the issue, I know that there needs to be a lot more work, not just in defending against the assaults of reactionaries but in truly rallying the forces of the progressive and humane among us -- not in half-hearted demurrals of authority to permanently forbid -- which is in itself illogical to an extreme when dealing with the evolution of legal rights and liberties -- but in bringing forward all the many reasons to allow and to expand the civil (i.e., secular, and general for all cases) definition of marriage IN full name and dignity. And this is a fight for visibility that has to start without delay, without resting on our vicarious and tenuous laurels just 'cause Bush and his cohort haven't succeeded yet in remaking the U.S. Constitution in their own theocratical image.

Last I heard, June was GLBT Pride Month, and the Religious Wrong has now mounted and failed its 'Tet Offensive' against the festal observance. So this year, all the rest of this month, let's make all those celebrations count as demonstrations, all our declarations as manifestos of a....a more-perfect ideal of union, more perfect because more inclusive and more true to ourselves and to every individual. Let the churches and synagogues and mosques and temples forbid whomever they will to be "married" according to their own rites and definitions and venues, but in a pluralistic nation the civil law should always be larger in spirit then the mainstream religious establishments -- otherwise its very existence becomes redundant, and the state effectively sanctions all the prejudices of the religions to whom it surrenders the reins of general law and its interpretation.

"Marriage" is not a word that belongs to the churches and the televangelists, to the Vatican or to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Orthodox Synod or to any assembly of religious authority -- and to let them define it and withhold it is an act of discrimination in itself on the part of those too cowed to assert that the law must serve the structural needs of all citizens, not just those of a particular faith (or similarity of faith), regardless of biological sex or social gender. The general law that serves for all must not discriminate against some merely on the basis of "moral majority", whether real or merely assumed by silence or suspension of verdict. We 've gone through that before as a country -- and don't you think we should have learned by now that legalized social discrimination doesn't work, won't last against inevitable social change, and wastes the true moral capital of the nation on hatred and paranoid defensiveness?

Marriage, as I see it pragmatically, is a civilly and legally-recognized bond of mutual (assumedly romantic) attraction to the point of choosing to share one's household, daily life and destiny with another individual, with or without the intent or ability to bear and/or raise children (even though blood/disease testing for a marriage license does presuppose intent to breed). By existing requirements, it is a contract entered into by consenting adults ("human" is presupposed and supported by the rest) of sound mind, of their own free and uncoerced will and without either one's intent to deceive the other. And really, that's all that needs to be defined about it as perpetually-standing rules, because those are the basic requirements of any stable and legal consensual relationship. To pin it down any further than that, particularly within the Constitution, is to make it an impedence to human reality, both for the future and right now (since time and affections have not been standing still and waiting for legal permission to proceed). And at the moment, I doubt you could find, on average, any more determined and devoted 'marriages' than the unions which now exist and persist and navigate their survival without benefit of the name that they fully deserve.

Which, really, is a far more a disgrace to the factions of society that are intent on enforcing their moral discrimination than to the demographic cluster that they're warring against so fervently....actually, I feel like putting that in even stronger words. So here goes:

The "sanctity of marriage", if one is particularly fond of using that term as a point of distinction, is currently and ironically best exemplified among those that some dare to refer to as "anathema", "abomination", "immoral" and other vehement epithets that fit distinctly ill with their speakers' own assumption of any positive moral or spiritual authority whatsoever, whether on this earth or beyond it.

There. Those that judge, expect to be judged yourselves, and by your fruits shall ye be known. I.e., if you're well-known for stoning your fruits and committing like actions, you're in some really deep trouble. And meanwhile the stone which the builders rejected, the same shall become the head of the corner....and seriously, people, any self-respecting Messiah would be ashamed to associate with these so-called "people of faith", much less condone them attaching his name to their vain and reprehensible crusades.

Re: "There is a Bomb in Gilead...and Hitler's giving medals...."

2006-05-31T20:25:00.000-05:00

Um, yeah...ya know what else I realized about this shite? It means
that Roe vs. Wade is going to be overturned within the next two
years, or as soon as a poster-child case can be found. All this
release of "federal guidelines" is intended to pave the way so that
there can be no strong-enough objection to prevent rolling back
abortion rights completely (well, unless you can afford anything and
everything--as usual).

There will be no exceptions allowed for a mother's health ("See,
we're taking care of that--we simply assume that everyone's
pregnant, so no one has an excuse"), for financial hardship ("Well,
didn't you plan.../:)...?") or for rape/incest ("She's healthy
enough, she can certainly carry the baby to term and then get it
out of her life and forget about it"). Hell, why should it matter
anyhow? "Your Honour, she was pre-pregnant anyways when I followed
her home..." Baby-first thinking, all the way down the line.

Seriously, people--any comprehensive social program meant to produce
healthier live babies has to take into account both sides and
emphasize better health overall, whether for healthy breeding or --
*gasp*-- for one's own health as an individual. As a well-informed
teenager, and as an adult legally capable of making one's own
personal decisions without undue interference. Any set of public-
health policies that pointedly ignores that in favour of such a lump
reproductive classification can hardly be described as a step forward
for 'women's health', no matter what officials and healthcare
providers say. It's merely a cushion of benign concern to cover
their asses as they prepare to march the U.S. backwards in time.

[Linkto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR20060/51500875.html
http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/there-is-bomb-in-gilead-and-hitlers.html (aka previous blogpost)]

There is a Bomb in Gilead--and Hitler's giving medals...

2006-05-30T05:33:00.000-05:00

Apparently this news didn't have a chance to register on my headline-radar from the other weekend, seeing as I was out of state visiting my fiancee....yeah, and she's pissed about it too. Shocked, appalled and both of us growling mad. Just for the record, we don't plan on having any children, though it seems that the conscious and deliberate intent of adults means approximately nada these days....

What I'm referring to, of course is this:

Forever Pregnant
Guidelines: Treat Nearly All Women as Pre-Pregnant

By January W. Payne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page HE01

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.
Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.

[..Statistics on infant mortality and low prenatal health conditions...yeah, that's a big problem for a supposedly-developed country, not denying that...]

Preconception care should be delivered by any doctor a patient sees -- from her primary care physician to her gynecologist. It involves developing a "reproductive health plan" that details if and when children are planned, said Janis Biermann, a report co-author and vice president for education and health promotion at the March of Dimes.

[....Okay, here comes the really really pressuring part, though---]

Experts acknowledge that women with no plans to get pregnant in the near future may resist preconception care.

"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy], . . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.

Ahhhh, right....."standard women's health care." Would you pray tell me then, how does one get out of standard women's health care and all its prying questions and assumptions? Is it not enough to state your intentions to abstain from breeding?--must one have a complete sterilization to be considered exempt from the new healthy-baby agenda? And what about lesbians?--now that we have a 'gayby boom', will they be taken seriously if they say their form of birth-control is "not sleeping with men"? Are clearly masculine women and even pre-op (or non-op, non-hormones) transgendered men going to be embarrassed by their doctors treating them like every other biological woman, just 'cause they're theoretically able to conceive?

And what about the other side of the equation--biological men of an age to be sowing their wild oats and spreading sperm?--you don't see them mentioned in this little pack of guidelines, even though they provide half the genetic material and generally a good deal of the initiative behind every pregnancy, planned or (inevitably) unplanned. Shouldn't every teenager post-puberty and up be treated as a potential father/sperm-donor whose health should be kept in optimal stud condition, and his lifestyle habits and disease risks evaluated in respect to his breeding potential?--or would that be some kind of a personal intrusion? Even if that sort of treatment and questioning made for greater awareness and self-control and "planning" on their part as to the whole baby-making thang?

Look, people -- I'm not against having healthier babies (it's a lot better for making healthy adults, afterall), and ironically enough I'd been recently posting to one of my groups (post reproduced earlier here) on the need for better prenatal heath -- but for both parents-to-be in every case. Meaning that everyone ought to take care of themselves the best way possible for their intentions, whether to breed or not to breed. That's the way it ought to be, and that's the way for people to be responsible adults and handle their own affairs. I don't think that the government has any right leveling a mass assumption of 'pre-pregnancy" on teenage girls and women, and I think that it's a step backwards towards paternalism over women's bodies and restriction of their lives on behalf on their reproductive potential...which we've had workplace issues over before.

Apart from the cultural implications, it is very clear to me that this polite new semi-mandate has one main goal in mind coming now from this administration...and that is neither to reduce unplanned pregnancies (how can it, if it only targets women?) nor infant mortality (joint genetics, quality of care and access to it are also high factors), but purely and simply to reduce abortions....directly, the ones done for reasons of threatening maternal health, but with more insidious effects on the whole area of sex and reproduction. To encourage every woman to think of herself as already pregnant in taking care of herself --contrary to the idea of encouraging planning-- sends the message that it's ultimately out of her control so she might as well prepare for it, that every pregnancy planned or not must be carried to term so long as she's healthy anyhow, and (this to men, eventually) that a woman taking good care of herself healthwise must automatically be a woman who is open to bearing children. Which really is a step backwards in terms of seeing the individual rather than just a vessel of fertility or not.....but hey, didn't Martin Luther say something about breeding being women's sole sanctifying purpose in life? Faith-based organizations will take note of this, believe me...

Oh.....plus it sends the usual double-standard message that it's okay for men to be overweight, unfit, undisciplined (and unattractive) schlubs with irresponsible diets and all the smoking and drinking they want, so long as they're healthy enough to have sex (and take a pill to get it up if they have to). Performance is everything, substance is nothing....and why should men have to worry about their future babies?

Meanwhile, I think that in a few years we'll be seeing exemplary mothers (for birthing, not for raising) presented with medals by the Fuehrer--sorry, President--for their services to the nation. Afterall, you need a lot of healthy young to raise for cannon-fodder in perpetual warfare and a military/police state, not to mention satisfying the growth needs of that great brazen idol known as The Economy.......

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

And the point of punishing the media is what now?

2006-05-30T01:20:00.000-05:00

Regarding the article cited below:
Congress Agrees to Raise Broadcast-Indecency Fines
Conference to Decide Maximum Penalty
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006

Okay, okay....to some this is a bigger issue than others, of course, especially if you've got young children of your own. No one's going to disagree that parents have a right to protect (or a duty to dissuade?) their children from broadcast material that's too ribald or sexual or violent for them -- but isn't that what all those religious and family-oriented channels are for, not to mention the hi-tech invention of the V-chip and the low-tech invention of being able to talk to your family in the first place about what gets watched? Doesn't having other people watching out for what your kids watch means they want to control what they see, regardless of your own choices or parental inertia or philosophy?

Not to mention keeping an eye on what other adults are allowed to see or hear....

I think the main question is what the definition of "indecency" is, and who is going to take it on themselves to establish a standard. With the penalties going this high, it's likely to eventually quash a lot more in the way of publically-broadcast material than just what most of us would agree is patently obscene or offensive....I mean, what about that controversial episode of "Postcards From Buster" that was pulled last year or so? It didn't have anything 'indecent' or 'adult' going on, but there was ire enough that a lesbian couple was shown as being 'normal' and human.

And admittedly, this is not referring to cable -- cable TV and satellite radio have argued the case well that not everyone has automatic access to them anyhow. As long as you have to subscribe to it and have the well-enough publicized option of blocking channels and ratings.....well, right, of course. Can't put a damper on paying customers....

But really, what's with the paternalism anyhow? What's with the constant protecting people against what they're likely as not to have seen already, or not be long in encountering? Since when has "realistic human behaviour" been something to be treated like a dirty little secret, when it's a dirty big reality of real life anyhow? Designated children's programming per se is already wholesome and mostly G-rated in content, and kids who have a list of established favourite shows are unlikely to veer off it (I know this from experience--other shows are just boring filler around the things you really want to watch). I'm not in favour of trashfests and tabloid-shows, mind you (most of which currently get by with bleeping out profanity and just being ambiently sleazyin their subjects), but I am worried that these heightened penalties will push more protective self-censorship of things that are only "indecent" if you're a member of the Religious Right with a moral axe to grind. So where's the official line going to be drawn when it comes to letting children (and people without cable/satellite?) be exposed to ideas and social realities that the official powers-that-be don't approve of airing on the (temporarily) open airwaves, and who's qualified to decide what things are best prohibited for the public good?

Ya callin' me an anti-humanist or somethin'?

2006-05-30T01:00:00.000-05:00

Initial Subject: Re: "Animal rights camp to export terror" (Telegraph, UK)
Stimulus: "I'm all for treating animals well and getting rid of unnecessary torturous experiments, like cosmetics, but the truth is.. we do need animal testing for many medical problems. If you have diabetes, you can thank the chimps who were experimented on to come up with glucose balancing medicine. Ditto for thyroid medication and other medicines many of us take daily and don't think twice about. Yes, maybe we should just die and decrease the surplus population. I already hear your argument, Aurey ;-)"
Disclaimer: I never said I was in favour of PETA and similarly-aggressive groups, nor of forcing an end to all animal testing.

Heh....well, my argument is in favour of medical research, but not in
pushing the envelope of life too hard and too greedily....
I'm more in favour of having people lead healthier and more
able/fulfilling lives rather than necessarily longer ones, and I
think that more attention needs to be paid to prenatal (and pre-
procreation at all) health of both parents and child, rather than
having every extreme premature case "rescued" and put on an incubator
no matter how remotely viable. Besides, I'm also all for reducing
the chasm in quality of health care between rich and poor, and I
think that financing/resources are often far better alotted to making
sure that medical advancements and due professional attention are
made available to as many people as possible in all regions, rather
than pushing on constantly ahead on cutting-edge advancements that
will only widen the divide between those who can afford the best in
care (both necessary and elective/cosmetic) and those who can't.
And yeah, I think that PETA is scary. Personally, I don't see why so
many celebrities support/do ads for them, unless there's some sort of
a Scientology-type different angle that they're being fed. I'm
against J-Lo using fur in her fashions (as demand increases
hunting/farming, not to mention that I can't stand J-Lo anyhow),
but I don't deny its virtues as a practical covering if the
climate/weather demands, and I'm not against leather, especially not
so long as there's a meat industry in the first place that results in
hides being harvested.
[And don't try to push veganism on me as an ultimate ideal, 'cause
I'm well aware from my own and my siblings' allergies/sensitivities
that no, soy is not the answer to everything. Different people
have different needs and issues--deal with it. Personally, I was
born an omnivore.]
I think that there should be more effort in fashion/design to make
faux animal materials look convincing and wear better so that there
is less visual prestige to having 'the real thing'.

Oh, and I hate seeing roadkill on the highways where animals can't
cross any other way, and I think that game hunting these days is
hardly a credible sport, especially as culling "trophy" animals is
against the natural practice of predators. All of which falls under
the general heading of selfishness, hurry and unfair advantage. But
I know that medical research animals are generally treated well and
valued for their (albeit involuntary) contributions...well, make that
more of an "I knew that..."--because scientific research may well
have gotten more callous since its pioneering days, what with
corporate expansion and incentives. But I hardly see them getting
more humane on the whole with having to be on the defensive against
targeted ideological attacks. There needs to be a middle ground, and
neither the radicals (who want a war and are preparing for it) nor
the pharmaceutical companies (who want their profits unhampered by
public controversy) are making use of it.

Aurey

P.S.--My family's total past and current ecological affiliations
include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon
Society, the Coalition of Concerned Scientists -- and Brookfield
Zoo. Just to be comprehensive about it.

Hmm, and just what's so bad about a pentacle....?

2006-04-11T01:11:00.000-05:00

[Re: Wiccan Soldier's Widow Petitions for Recognition.

Original story and link to the audio of the complete story can be found at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5334805

Quoted from NPR's website, as listed above:
"All Things Considered, April 10, 2006 · The widow of a Nevada National Guardsman killed in Afghanistan wants her husband's Wiccan faith recognized. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs permits 38 religious symbols to adorn headstones and memorials, like the one commemorating Sgt. Patrick Stewart's unit. That list includes the Christian cross and even a symbol for atheists, but the government has not yet approved the Wiccan pentacle."] ============================================

The only truly fair (and definitely legal) thing to do in this case is either to allow the pentacle or take down all the crosses and everything else....otherwise there's clearly a bias and preferential treatment being given.

Now....as to WHY this is currently being denied, I think we can all clearly see that it's on account of the pentacle being assumed as evil by Christians (fundamentalists, Catholics and even-more-moderate/mainstreamers), because they count it as witchcraft/Satanism whether it's inverted or not.

But...under a truly non-establishmentarian form of law (non-preferential in terms of any religion being assumed/mandated), what one religion merely thinks of another and its symbols should not have an effect on the legal rights of that other religion to have its symbols recognized and used as a proper denotation of faith. It's
like (in business) claiming possession of someone else's trademark only to defame it. Just because some paranoid Christians may say that the pentacle means devil-worship, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to stand in the way of a fallen Wiccan soldier getting his due dignity.

ALSO...that means that even the inverted pentacle as a proper symbol of Satanism, and even a swastika as symbol of Odinism or Asatru (assuming that to be the self-chosen denotative symbol), should deserve the same right-of-use as religious symbols so long as the practiced faiths falls under the legal boundaries of 'freedom of religion'...controversial, yes, but listen:

I think that the primary societal justification of any religion's legal freedom should be this -- that its followers do not harm, molest, exploit, coerce or defame others (including among their own community) as part of the primary tenets of their belief, and that they do not advocate violence or political mandates against outsiders on account of whether they themselves follow the same beliefs, rituals or specifically cultural/moral restrictions.

If your religion holds to that, great and welcome to the free exercise and expression of it in a free world -- and if not, then why the hell should it deserve any respect or toleration as a matter of "personal belief"?

An apt word for these days: "heffalump"

2006-04-10T02:23:00.000-05:00

Oh, you're gonna love this one that I found....it fills, I think, a sore need in today's play-it-safe-and-get-the-votes world. Here's the pitch:

'Brokeback Mountain' author angry about best-picture loss
Associated Press/Article Launched: 03/14/2006 5:39 PM PST

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film "Brokeback Mountain," has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film's best-picture Oscar loss.

Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday's issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.

The best-picture Oscar went to "Crash," which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.

Academy members who vote for the year's best film are "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city," Proulx writes.

The 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize-winning author points out that "Brokeback," which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, was named best picture at the Independent Spirit Awards one day before the March 5 Oscars.

"If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices," Proulx advises.

She even lashes out at Lionsgate, the distribution company behind "Crash."

"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.

She decries the "atmosphere of insufferable self-importance" inside the Kodak Theatre, the Oscars site, and describes the audience as a "somewhat dim LA crowd." The show, she writes, was "reminiscent of a small-town talent-show night."

"Clapping wildly for bad stuff enhances this," Proulx writes.

She notes that "Brokeback's" three Oscar wins, for original score, adapted screenplay and direction for Ang Lee put it "on equal footing with King Kong."

When Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the best-picture winner, "there was a gasp of shock," Proulx writes.
"It was a safe pick of `controversial film' for the heffalumps," she writes, using the elephant-like "Winnie the Pooh" character to describe academy voters.

"For those who call this little piece a Sour Grapes Rant," Proulx concludes, "play it as it lays."

Calls by The Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.

So there you have it, folks....HEFFALUMP is the new word of the day!!!

Closely related to its more-famous political lookalike the mugwump (a political candidate or figure who paranoidly avoids taking any firm public stance that might jeopardize his chances of election/reelection), the heffalump also has discernable homophonic ties to the word "philistine" and "halfway" and the slang euphemism "effin'", reflecting the author's anger as an artist at the Academy voters who played it safe by choosing a film that mostly reiterated and illustrated what most civilized people know as basic concepts of human/social decency rather than actually challenging their attitudes and boundaries of acceptance, making them think too hard about something they'd often rather sweep under the carpet.

I'm not saying myself that Crash is a bad movie, mind you, but I have heard a lot of criticism of its relative simplicity/exaggeration/'preaching to the choir' on matters of racial tension. In the arts as well as in politics, actually being perceived as promoting acceptance (and the avoidance of tragedy...) of "the love that dare not speak its name" is sometimes just too big of a liability in comparison to "can't we all just get along?". One could clearly see the sociopolitical calculation in the distribution of awards, however it started and however many voters contributed to it. It was there. It is not a misperception.

And now we have a word -- a fun and fulsomely scathing word! -- to summarize in shorthand those who want to be seen as socially enlightened but won't take risks of alienating the supposedly-moral mainstream...such as every politician who says he/she supports gay rights but reserves "marriage" as a term too sacred, or demurs on the custody and raising of children as a responsibility that shouldn't be entrusted save as a last resort...everyone who believes in "separate but equal" social restrictions and freedoms; the acceptance of "private" activity so long as it's silent and invisible as any sort of real relationship or active community/part of society; the U.S. military's famous compromise of "don't ask, don't tell"; the half-hearted prosecution of crimes, allowing defenses of violence and murder as having been 'understandably' provoked by transgender deception or gay sexual solicitation/innuendo....and even the spreading trend of decriminalization/protection of "gender expression" that STILL leaves unchallenged the multiple obstacles of social sex-coding, medical probations and legal-documentation hoops and hurdles in the way of legal gender recognition....

And in religion too -- the political pandering to what's established/respected by precedent; the cliquery of even liberal monotheists as if they were all the religion that ever mattered in society; the mostly-unquestioned tenet of popular faith that social preference, if not 'official national religion' status, belongs to Christianity over-and-excluding all other faiths from serious concurrent consideration...oh, unless of course they have a well-known habit of fighting, boycotting and/or killing for the respect they want. Funny how the most uncivil religions....enh, need I continue that one...?

Yeah. Heffalumps. Unable to put their full and visible weight behind what needs to be seen, needs to be changed. Thank you, Annie Proulx -- you've made a much-needed contribution to contemporary social rhetoric, and I'll be doing my part to spread it where it needs to go.

"Black vs. Queer" government deal--aka the smart way of splintering minority power...

2006-04-03T22:44:00.000-05:00

(also cross-referenced on other sites, including full text below for a closer look after commentary)

Re: Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays

Hmmm....logic check here, anyone?

"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."

Now what other group of people in the world can a person get away with saying that about? If gays were Muslims instead, there'd be the friggin' Stonewall jihad over shit like that!

And that little "Black Contract with America on Moral Values"--

In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs....

--first of all it's morally obscene, and secondly why the hell is this news not being broadcast all across the country, that the GOP is essentially bribing black churches to aid in denying full civil rights to another minority group? Does it not matter because there wasn't slavery involved, just like no socio-political situation can ever be compared to Nazi Germany until you actually have mass killings and concentration camps?

The reason the Third Reich got so far in their campaigns against minorities -- ethnic, religious or "degenerate" -- is that they knew how to divide people against each other, to have them constantly vindicating themselves as good/loyal citizens and others as troublemakers who deserved what they got...the less they demanded equal rights or made themselves visibly deviant, the underlying reasoning was, the less that anyone could possibly have a problem with them....the whole "sweep yourselves under the carpet" approach, which in the case of "invisible" or semi-visible minorities has always been a convenient way of making the assimilated minorities blame those who stick out (drag queens, Hasidic Jews, butch lesbians, stereotypically effeminate gays) just for visibly sticking out.

[Reference the Daughters of Bilitis for this one...they were a groundbreaking social organization for lesbians, but they were also committed to the idea of "blending in" as feminine in dress and public behaviour as a group imperative.]

Any reasonably intelligent ruler/administration knows that the best way to maintain power is to keep the less-powerful factions fighting against each other rather than letting them see their common causes/complaints and unite against those on the top. Currently, we have a prominent number of token/exceptional black political insiders, who serve as a reassurance that the government is committed to racial equality -- even if socio-economic equality is the furthest thing from the White House's collective mind. We have a clearly expressed political desire afoot to permanently prevent same-sex marriage, even though the idea of marriage as being solely for procreation went out the window ages ago...we even have gay and lesbian commentators who say that to gain the right to marry would be a trap into the same old 'traditional-values' social system, and that maybe it shouldn't be a goal afterall.

Loyal queers...in a way, or at least being used as such, tolerated so long as there's not too much uppityness for full social equality -- look, have we not heard of this before?

In shorthand: blacks are being visibly courted through their churches, gays are being re-demonised as society's scourge (as if that ever stopped, in some areas that socially aren't even out of the nineteenth century or maybe even the seventeenth) -- and if enough blacks and other ethnic minorities feel that their socio-moral concerns are in line with those of the government -- if they have that feeling of being in good with the government on the same sympathetic ground -- then they won't notice quite so much that they're still stuck in the same old ruts as before, still prone to poverty and privation, neglect and criminal assumptions.

Notice too, that nowhere do these ministers say that black men on the "down low" ARE gay or bisexual as even a temporary/curable condition...because that would be an insult to the very image of strong/macho black masculinity that they're playing into, the same proud stereotype that made this phenomenon happen in the first place 'cause black men couldn't dare to be with each other for fear of compromising the social reputation of their race. Just like, for example....oh, gay Catholic men entering the priesthood 'cause their immigrant neighborhood communities had such a high and insular pressure towards marriage and procreation that there was no other discreet option. Same for nuns who didn't want to be mothers. Hell, all through history people have entered religious orders to get out of the babymaking demands of society.

But in black society it's not about real desires, right?--it's all the fault of the "homosexual agenda" (does it float around on its own just seducing unwary people together?) and women not putting out enough to satisfy their men (again, the supposed insatiable potency of black males--see "Aryan sexual paranoia", perhaps?). Throw AIDS
into that as a punishment-consequence (again!) and you got yourself a moral crusade....

This makes me sick. Thank you for posting it, and I hope the word gets around as quickly and thoroughly as possible that this manipulative shite is going on. People who can't see and learn from the patterns of the past before things reached their worst are far more likely to see the worst repeated.

Aureantes

============================================
[as posted in hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology]:

In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, indiscriminately_tactless wrote:
Anything I could say about this will be said. I'll just re-iterate my "Ugh," of disgust and contempt, however.

************************************************
Norcross church wants ‘tough love’ for gays
Anti-gay Rev. Lou Sheldon headlines ‘family values’ summit

By ANDREW KEEGAN
Friday, March 31, 2006

Married black women who do not have regular sex with their husbands are to blame for the "down low" and the rise of HIV infection among African Americans.

That was just one message delivered during a two-day summit on "Protecting the Biblical Institution of Marriage and Family Values," held March 25-26 at Kingdom Builders Christian Center, a large predominately black church in Norcross.

"Apostle" Jamie Pleasant presides over the congregations, which cites more than a thousand members, according to its web site. He has a doctorate degree from Georgia Tech in Business Management and started the church in 1995.

Addressing the "down-low," a term that describes married black men having sex with other men in secret, Pleasant told hundreds of worshipers March 25 that God intended man and woman to procreate.

"The marital duty is not being fulfilled," Pleasant said. "Why are we with you women? Just think about it...we have a strong sex drive. You need to do your part and keep the marriage bed pure. Whenever your husband wants sex it is your duty to say yes."

`Preachers never lie'

Rev. Lou Sheldon, chair of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group opposed to gay civil rights, was the guest speaker for the weekend. His organization is actively recruiting large black churches in its effort to battle the "homosexual agenda."

In January, Sheldon, who is white, and 70 black pastors who supported President George W. Bush met in Los Angeles. The summit yielded the "Black Contract with America on Moral Values," the Los Angeles Times reported. In exchange for black churches focusing on defeating marriage for same-sex couples, the churches will receive money through the government's faith-based initiative programs, the paper reported.

Sheldon, who told the Norcross congregation that he has been fighting "gay rights" since 1972, began his sermon by declaring, "Preachers never lie."

"We have a battle on our hands," Sheldon said. "The homosexuals lose every time an issue is on a ballot but more and more activist judges and legislators are supporting them. It is important that people of color speak up because the press will listen to you."

Sheldon then played a video to illustrate his point. Images of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights marches were mixed with photos of leather-clad men, drag queens and topless women marching in Pride parades.

"The homosexual excuse is `we want civil rights,'" Sheldon said after the video. "Have they ever been denied the right to vote? Have they ever had to sit in the back of a bus? They have hijacked the freedom train to Selma."

Gay adoption was also a key theme throughout Sheldon's two-hour talk.

"The homosexuals have gone from their bedrooms to the classrooms, and the press is always playing up the well-dressed homosexual helping these minority children," he said. "It is up to us to make sure our little children are not being violated."

Cries of "mercy" rang out when Sheldon claimed that 85 percent of all lesbians have been sexually molested.
"Our heart must go out to them," he said. "They don't trust men and need female counseling."

Sheldon concluded his address by telling attendees, "There is no such thing as a gay gene. It is a tragic and unfortunate learned behavior that must be stopped or homosexuality will destroy society."

`Impotent' words?

The author of "The Homosexual Agenda," Sheldon encouraged worshipers to purchase his book that is filled with statistics similar to those mentioned during his talk.

The National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay group focused on fighting both racism and homophobia, works to refute claims by anti-gay groups that the majority of African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage.

Sylvia Rhue, NBJC director of religious affairs, attended the meeting in Los Angeles this year where Sheldon addressed black church leaders.

Despite his anti-gay rhetoric, Rhue said Sheldon, 72, is not as effective as many people believe.

"His words and shenanigans are impotent, incompetent and ignorant," Rhue said. "His pronouncements shrivel and die in the light of truth and show how desperate he is. They cannot win by telling the truth and we cannot lose by telling the truth."

Jay Brown, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political group, said Sheldon's statistics are downright lies.

"These are bogus studies being pushed by a messenger with absolutely no credibility," Brown said.

`Tough love' for gays

After the program, the leader of Kingdom Builders Christian Center told Southern Voice he does not hate gays.

"I love homosexuals," Pleasant said. "That's why we have programs here to help them change."

Pleasant equated the church's role in dealing with gays to that of a parent.

"If a child does something wrong and you spank them, it's not because you hate them," he said. "It's tough love."

Questioned on the apparent contradiction of using the civil rights message advocated by King, which included gays, in the fight against gay rights, Pleasant said that both Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King were wrong.

"While I respect everything they did for us, I truly believe what the Bible says comes first," Pleasant said. "What we're trying to do is protect society."

Pleasant said the church would work to defeat any measure it deems "un-biblical," including gay marriage and gay adoption.

Alton Pollard III, director of the black church studies program at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, said the ongoing racism of the white church and society plays an important role in why many black churches reject homosexuality.

"Stereotypes of black hypersexuality and fertility, male and female, are central to the grand reluctance of many black churchgoers to be more affirming and inclusive," Pollard said. "Black people have been blamed for every sin under the sun ... they will not willingly accept yet another."

"Thinking Like a Terrorist"....here's the reasoning about L.A.

2006-02-19T22:40:00.000-06:00

This, regarding the FAIR media alert re the purported planned-and-foiled terrorist plot against L.A. -- as posted and commented on at hyperlucidity:

Preceding post: [Actually, I thought it sounded rather trumped up when I read the
story originally....seemed a bit too convenient an incident (and
already "foiled," moreover) to bring up as evidence that the
administration's carte blanche re civil liberties is working.
There's also one *major* flaw in the official story as I read
it.....but I'll bring that up later -- key idea though, ya gotta think like a terrorist
*convincingly* if you're going to fake a terrorist plot. Details at
11...*snicker*]

Simple thing, really....do you honestly think that a pan-Islamic
terrorist cell would target a building simply because it was "the
tallest building in Los Angeles"? And this after successfully
attacking the World Trade Center towers (symbol & center of American
financial power) and the Pentagon (symbol & center of American
military might)?

No. That's stupid. Actually, the only reason that that skyscraper
would be a target for *anything* is that a lot of Americans have a
decent amount of concern for Los Angeles and its environs because of
the cultural/commercial reputation there. We like Hollywood, in
short...and an attack on L.A. = attack on Hollywood, glamour,
creativity, ambition, freedom of the arts....well, bollocks, that
ain't a target that Al-Qaeda cares about, it's one that "we" care
about. And that's why it's a red herring to make us all sigh in
relief and trust our fates and civil liberties to the government,
because they say that they thwarted a terrorist attack.

Terrorism by definition is the methodical intimidation of a populace
through the infliction of maximum physical and
psychological/emotional damage.
Here are the main things that you have to remember about *planned
targets* for terrorism:

* They have to be prominent and/or relevant.
It does no good to attack somewhere that isn't going to be readily
recognized by the citizenry. They must have a quality of instant
and/or iconic identification, or of universal relevance to daily life
and necessity. Airplanes, sports stadiums, skyscrapers that are well-
known in and of themselves for the business that goes on in them.

* There have to be a lot of people in/around them.
Terrorism requires appreciable human carnage, so that it damages the
emotions and morale of the populace. Much as I hate the arrogance of
Mount Rushmore, it's not a useful target for terrorism. Grand
Central Station at rush-hour, though...*possible*, but trains are not
as likely as airplanes, which are far more dramatic and cause more
lasting paranoia. Airport terminals, though they may have more
potential victims, don't have as much velocity and impact to work
with.

* They have to mean something important as representative of
the "enemy" as seen by the terrorist.
The targets on 9/11 made sense, because they were embodiments of U.S. dominance/imperialism in two areas, the military and the financial/economic sectors. Unless something can be seen as a real locus of power that is being
destroyed/damaged by the attack, it is unlikely to be chosen as a target of terrorism.

So....in short, that's why I had a gut feeling that that reported
thwarting was a tale full of crap and machination. Just like the
whole purported biological warfare threat in mid-late winter before
the start of the war, with the stocking-up on plastic-wrap and duct-
tape.....and again I say unto you, bullshit (which is what I was
saying then, too, actually).

Winter's a really bad time to attempt biological warfare as a
terrorist weapon, because people aren't as likely to be congregated
together out-of-doors or in large stadiums and such, they cover
themselves more if they do, the air's much colder and/or drier and so
contagion range is likely to be shorter and breathing passages less
efficient to absorb what's in the air....in short, it's really not
that effective a season for toxic gases and such.

It's a great season for fighting in Iraq, though, as compared to
waiting until the desert warms up and the sand gets into everything
and the heat fouls up your computers and navigational instruments and
the metal of the tanks turns them into furnaces on treads...whether
you're not used to fighting in the Middle East or you are, it makes
sense to mount your technology-heavy offensives in the cooler season
as opposed to the hot season -- and that's precisely what the
U.S. administration was gunning for, in my opinion...getting the public
anxiety/fervour strong enough over this to start attacking Iraq as
soon as possible, while it was still easy going to start and maintain
a desert campaign efficiently.

At least, that's the way I see it. Thinking like a terrorist has its
advantages. So does thinking like a general who wants to get his war
on already...strategy, people, strategy...

Okay, now that we have the "cartoon wars" going on....here's a sermon.....

2006-02-19T22:33:00.000-06:00

[forwarded from my forum hyperlucidity, where this and a lot more
gets written in drabbles as the news goes on...]
=================================================================

Personally, I think this debacle over the Danish cartoons has done
more than anything in the mind of the average rational person to
discredit the stance of those rioting and getting violent over them,
despite whatever the official statements and apologies and such have
been so far. No one religion/culture deserves special kid-glove
treatment unless all do, and we already know that the most vocal
factions in the Islamic world are unfortunately not those calling for
respect for other faiths and nations or treating them with civility.
It's more like, actually....hmm, the Republicans in Congress accusing
the Democrats of partisan politics when they vote against legislation
that is itself hostile and partisan from the start.

Now....personally, I'd like to leave any question of the United
States' virtue out of this -- we know my opinions on the war, and we
know that I have no fondness for the way that national foreign
policies have hobnobbed conveniently with princes and dictators (as
it suits their agendas) while worsening the plight of the average
working stiff in any aid-dependent nation.

But that has had nothing to do with religion...rather, religion has
been used as an excuse and a popular cause for retaliation, as much
so as national pride. It's not that kind of personal, people -- it's
not a matter of repeating the Crusades, and even there the factor of
faiths was a smaller thing than the matter of underlying greed and
striving for territorial control. Liberate the Holy Land? -- sure,
as much as we liberated Iraq...it's the same basic thing, when
ideologies are trumped up to rouse the public spirit, and governments
are just as willing to kill and suppress people of their own basic
creed (and even nation) if they happen to get in the way of the
greater plan.

But to have such a pricklish sense of vested dignity that one thinks
it justified to run amok and riot over the use of a holy figure in a
cartoon is...a bit much. A bit thin-skinned, a bit childish, a bit
spoiled in the demand for respect where none is given and much bile
is spewed on a regular basis. And, reasonable minds must admit, the
satirical points made were not devoid of truth.

If having an attitude of fanatical extremism exposed and pricked by
mere cartoons -- and this goes for ANY belief -- is too much to take,
so much that mobs must rise and chaos ensue in protest, then that
only proves that those who are quivering with outrage and fury at the
jab and the insult, hell-bent on demanding apologies and reparations
and capitulations are all the more deeply and tragically WRONG.

Strong words, right?--afterall, moral terms and absolutes aren't
supposed to be brought into the politics of nations and global
affairs anymore, not so long as hairs can be split and legalities
dissected and prerogatives claimed within the dry technical
boundaries of law. But this *is* moral, and the law has lost its
sense of moral discernment, had it bled dry by design to let
hypocrisies reign. Strong words must be used again, and strike to
the core of the matter.

Extremism is inherently wrong and pathological, no matter where it
arises and what creed (or lack thereof) it claims. Claiming
orthodoxy ("right belief") as one ideology's possession and all other
faiths, paths and philosophies as misguided, inferior, immoral and
right to destroy, is inherently wrong -- no matter from where the
impulse comes. One's beliefs may be worth dying for personally, but
they are never worth condemning others to death. Never. Claim
the "divine right" of spreading your way by force through all the
world, and you step over the line of morality. Any credo
of "manifest destiny" -- whatever its form -- is wrong, was wrong,
will always be the wrong way to conduct human affairs.

Unfortunately, though...

Unfortunately, Islam is one of those religions in the world whose
origin and history from the very start has been marked by reactionary
resentment and a quest for ascendency over the faiths and cultures
that preceded and surrounded and dominated it. In claiming
supersedence of both Judaism and Christianity by virtue of a superior
prophet and scriptures, it announced itself as being in struggle from
the start, emerging out of the inferiority complex, if you will, of
the Arabic peoples who lacked a unified and respected monotheism of
their own in a predominantly monotheistic world. Not just an
assertion of "we-too", but a "we-better-than-you" -- as with all
movements when they assert the chosenness of their mission over all
others.

And this has nothing to do with finding ultimate truth within Islam,
mind you -- I have every respect for those who can find their truth
personally and live it honourably *for themselves* -- but it is an
immensely unrefuted and uncontested point within most of the Islamic
world, that Islam must and will triumph over all faiths.

As it is within America's so-called "heartland", that American
conservative fundamentalist Christianity must and will win out in the
end (and better fight for its aims sooner than later, 'cause the
Rapture's a-comin')...but then, most of the vitriol there is aimed at
domestic purported enemies than global ones, except for enforcing
their version of "moral values" in policy wherever the U.S. holds
effective sway...

At any rate, the idea is a backwards one that badly needs fighting-
against. *Not* that there's no value in people's religions, no
transcendent worth, nothing worth preserving, but that the ingrained
idea of any one religion -- or nation, or ideology -- being supreme,
perfect, and sacrosanct from all reproach or challenge or levity MUST
be brought down wherever it exists. Because that is the root of all
fanaticism. If you've ever read or seen _The Name of the Rose_, you
might recall that the root cause of all those apocalyptically-themed
murders was to protect against the dissemination of blasphemy in the
form of laughter, with comedy, satire and travesty being perceived as
insults against the dignity of God.

Which, of course, *always* needs fierce defending by the faithful...

I remember hearing on the radio one morning a few years ago that Pope
John Paul II had chosen not to sign to a declaration of religious
human rights, on the grounds that it would compromise the Church's
missionary efforts.

No faith is supremely perfect. No institution is supremely perfect.
Anytime an ideology becomes more important than the community of
people it's applied to, it loses its way. The reason revolutions
devour their own children is that maintaining the purity and control
of a philosophy becomes more of an ideal than maintaining and
bettering the state of humanity.

So that's the thing -- really, no one should get away with putting
their own religion on so high a pedestal that they themselves can't
tolerate laughter or an unflattering truth. People who are so deadly
serious are also bloody immature, and a danger to others around
them. Idolatry at its core doesn't consist in whether or not a
picture or a statue is allowed, but in the worship and importance of
images above their realities.

In preserving the sanctity of a symbol while ignoring or violating
that which it ought to represent. In using the Ten Commandments as
an excuse for social tyranny. In taking the name of Jesus as a flag
for trampling on one's brother, or extolling the virtues of the
Virgin Mary while demeaning and repressing the women who are real and
alive in the world around. Or invoking the spectre of the Holocaust
as the one atrocity that can never ever be equalled or even compared
with, keeping it in hand as a constant justification for every deed
of oppression, violence and chauvinism thereafter. Making it a crime
to burn the American flag -- stop me if you've heard this one --
while systematically unraveling all the liberties and justice and
greater human possibilities that it was made to serve as the banner
for in the first place.

And in that respect, all those who show themselves willing to resort
to threats and violence and destruction over the implications of mere
images are truly and pathetically idolaters. They have lost the way,
whatever their way -- if ever indeed they had it.

_______________________________________________________________

[Hmm....anyone else wanna pitch in some thoughts? I know I'm being
rather bold and absolute in my assertions of truth, but hey--I ain't
gonna execute anyone for not going my way....>:)...]

Paranoid gold in a gilt-plastic world....

2006-02-14T03:47:00.000-06:00

...which may very well be the next subtitle of this blog. I like it, and I think it likes me, and maybe just maybe it'll get me some decent attention for being all witty and such. At any rate, I know that this blog shouldn't be lying fallow, especially when I have so much stuff that I'm posting within my own groups that I need to forward here.

Update: my little news/commentary forum hyperlucidity--the eternal pathology is growing rather well, though I could always use more interested parties to get commentational with. This is a group/list for 'liminal' people who have a vested interest in current affairs and political developments but don't always have the means to cull out the news that applies to them, or to see the lines that show what it implies, where it leads on to, where it looks like things that have happened before. Patterns and history -- pretty important stuff there, no matter what minority is on the bottom or what controversy's on top. This is also where most of my best articles for here tend to come from, after a little expansion and polishing-up.

Also, I'm going to start posting more of my own poetry and fiction selections here, because it ain't much fun to just have me wittily dissecting how the world's falling apart. You might as well have a chance to see how I do think the world ought to be, or at least the more personal side of why it bothers me as it is now. If you like my writing, tell me so, and tell other people too. Even better, help me get it published...you know, I'm not too fond of the idea of sitting off in a near-deserted corner of the Internet prehumously accumulating my posthumous works.

Anyhow...yes, time for a change and time for a lot of updates and regular throwing-in of fresh material. Not trying to please anyone but to satisfy the demands of that impulse which pushes things out from thoughts to page, from one mind to another, just on the off change that something will come of their being brought to light.

Regarding The Da Vinci Code.....>:)

2006-01-02T08:26:00.000-06:00

[Admittedly, this is a very "religious" topic, but it does have a lot
of bearing on modern politics--well, on politics and civilization and
history overall...not to mention the state of modern popular
fiction...]

Whatever other controversies there are over whether it's accurate or
cobbled-together or what, I think there's one very good reason that
the central premise of The Da Vinci Code -- the "sang real" or "royal
blood" interpretation of the Holy Grail -- makes no sense atall in
terms of Christianity, and that's that it expressly undermines
everything progressive and 'enlightened' about the principles that
Jesus taught.

I'm not going to take on the question of whether he really existed in
history or not -- from the colloquial tone and idiosyncratic events
in the Gospels, not to mention their multiple iterations, it seems
clear to me that he did, and it's common knowledge to scholars that
the story was gathered and edited after the fact. If you don't
believe that, then whatever -- he was a minor Jewish rabble-rouser in
his time so far as the Roman authorities knew, so one could hardly
demand him to have a larger footprint in their histories.

Anyone who has read the Gospels at any length will notice that Jesus
specifically rejected any idea that the claims of blood and family
were stronger than those of individual faith itself, and that many
times he said that anyone who placed father or mother or spouse or
children higher than him was "not worthy" of him, even refusing to
recognise his own mother and (adoptive) siblings once when preaching,
saying he had none. When a woman in a crowd called out, "Blessed is
the womb that bore you and the breasts that gave you suck," he
replied, "Rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it." I.e., blood relations get no special favours or grace on that
count alone.
Certainly, the Old Testament is full of lineages and chosen heirs and
such, but that's the prior history, not part of the original
Christian message -- and everything of the divine right of kings,
right down to Queen Elizabeth II, is founded off the Old Testament
tradition and scriptural justifications, not the New, despite this
being an accepted concept of "Christendom" for most of its history.

I'm not even going to address the issue of whether Jesus had sex with
Mary Magdalene....or any other of his disciples, for that matter, as
I think that his personal silences speak louder than later-official
words on quite a few matters of 'moral values'....but I think that
one thing that he himself would definitely not have done, given any
divine foresight, is have any issue of his own lineage, because
they would automatically (given human nature to cling to any visible
status) be regarded as superior to others and be looked to for
leadership, in a way that had nothing to do with their own personal
virtues and would undermine the entire concept of equal/paradoxical
rank in the Kingdom of Heaven, where "the first shall be last and the
last shall be first," and "he who would be master must be the servant
of all."

In the case of Islam, Mohammad's children and their marriages and
descendants complicated the matter of religious authority and its
succession immensely because of different factions both claiming
priority by virtue of a blood-relationship with the Prophet -- this
being the origin of the Sunni vs. Shi'ite strife that underlies much
Middle Eastern conflict.
In Roman Catholicism, the institution of the papacy has certainly had
much disputation and was even split between Rome and Avignon at one
time...but the consequences of that have been much diminished by
time, seeing as the feuding popes in question had no heirs/resulting
bloodlines to keep fighting over the rightful succession after one
had gained a lasting ascendancy over the other.

Apart from the inevitable claims of nepotism when one does recognise
family members as having a higher moral/religious authority (let
alone a more-divine-than-thou essential nature), it seems more
prone to subsequent corruption and/or stagnation of one's original
message (whatever it is) to let one's offspring be assumed as moral
heirs rather than choosing persons of proven understanding and
discretion. Therefore, anyone who does have a higher path of truth
to share would be wisest to never have children atall, lest they be
recognised and taken for something which they were not.

Whatever strategic errors Jesus made in his ministry (with cohorts of
the kissing kind, for example...), it is utterly against the grain of
his teachings to think that he would have himself established any
bloodline that might have served to dilute and co-opt the
significance of what he was trying to do. Moreover, even just on the
symbolic level, having the secret lie in a "royal blood" rather than
a sacred cup essentially rejects the concept of communion for that of
a categorical rank and distinction -- which highlights even more that
it is not something Jesus would have wanted nor perhaps even
permitted.....yes, and I can just see him arguing with Magdalene over
this, assuming a physical relationship there....

In the popular alternative reading of things where Jesus never died
atall but emigrated off to France instead...(and why France *anyhow*,
except by retro-adoption by the royal line there?)...well, perhaps in
a safe obscurity they might've had kids. I don't think that that
happened, though, considering how much of the significance of
Christianity rests on the whole death/resurrection idea. So maybe
there was a pregnancy and he didn't know about it before the
crucifixion....though, given the recorded events afterwards, that
hardly seems too likely....the thing is, with any grain of divine
common sense, he wouldn't have wanted there to be any known
descendants.

So, whether there were indeed any lineal descendants of Jesus of
Nazareth or not, the great secret of Christianity's cosmic
significance does not and should not lie there, in so easily gotten
and easily tarnished a thing as blood-relationship. The only
familial relationships that Jesus ever extolled in his ministry were
those of fellowship in the spirit...everything else so commonly
praised -- even his own ancestry as recounted in the 'Begat-itudes'
(little in-joke there)-- would be merely termed an accident of birth,
not a status of the spirit itself.

So--there's my little bit of Biblical exegesis on that matter, which
certainly comes down against reading too much into that novel as a
revelatory theory. I said more or less from the start of reading it
myself that it was only "second-level insight" (turning things upside-
down, where rivers are not rivers and mountains are not mountains),
even though it's fairly clear to most students of religious history
that the emergent Christian religion edited out a lot of the more
revolutionary and egalitarian aspects of the original movement in
order to present themselves in the most acceptable light as an
institution -- this including the re-subordination of women as in
traditional Jewish culture, and turning that all into canon law.
Second-level insight is easy to find, and not that difficult to
write -- any basic student of conspiracy theories knows how to play
the what-if game, if only to set up a field of alternatives to
the "official" story.

More specifically so than that, though, it is essentially untrue to
the preserved essentials of Jesus' message (all the red-letter
material in some Bibles) that its significance should be potboiled
down to a union of male and female energies (and centered on the
merely biological level, to boot) when it's fairly easily discernable
that he was getting at the transcendence of that duality, both
socially and intrapersonally.

Anyhow. You certainly don't have to believe any of this, but I think
it makes a lot more sense on a practical and a theological level than
literally believing what you read in The Da Vinci Code. On a wild
guess that most of the people who have made it a bestseller are not
given to reading primary-source material in either religion or
history, I offer this as a scripture-based clarification that
perpetuating himself genetically is never what that personage called
Jesus had in mind as any great sacred mystery for people to ooh and
aah about two millennia later.

Though, there's certainly gotta be some book out there already
speculating on cloning Jesus from his blood out of a relic....perhaps
even building a Biblical-era amusement park around it....though,
elementary chaos theory and the laws of fiction dictate that a
cloned Jesus will inevitably run amok and turn into an Antichrist....

*snickers*

Yeah, that'll make a great movie.....

__________________________________________________________________
P.S. -- Pass this on if you like, but please do make sure that I get
the blame for it.

Breed no more Bushes...

2005-12-30T07:29:00.000-06:00

============================================================
> Report: NSA eavesdropping wider than White House admitted
> By Reuters -- http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24215626.htm
============================================================

There's been a lot written about this since it came out, on every
side and angle of the political fence, so here's the highlights/main
opinions:

Some people say that since the primary filtering process being done
was essentially pattern recognition and not mainly/initially content
examination, that it was a completely justifiable and essential
course of action. Others say that the sheer volume of communications
data collected, plus the lack of guidelines for its (total) retention
sets a bad precedent in general for accumulating information on
citizens, since there is no guarantee limiting how it will be used,
especially seeing as this administration has also been keeping tabs
on a great many non-terrorist activities that it disapproves of.

In general, there's a fine line of technical
legality/constitutionality that has been invoked here, and even that
has proven to be untenable as a by-the-books defense....so, the
interests of leadership and national security have been highlighted,
and the need for utmost speed and efficiency therewith to pursue
them...but all this doesn't mitigate the fact that not only did Bush
avoid the normal warrants court in seeking to gain private
communications intelligence, but that he firmly and defensively
believes it his right as President, as leader, to have such
immediate powers without question. Which, no matter what sort of a
crisis we're in, does not sit well with the explicit structure of
this nation as one under a consistent and balanced-between-the-
branches rule of law (though, neither does the constant
pressure "from the White House" on the legislature to enforce its
agenda, or "from the White House" on the media to negotiate the terms
of its news exposure). As some columnists have commented, it would
have taken little time and practically no obstacles to get warrants
for these taps through the formal court already in place, so why
avoid the legal process -- unless to make a show and a sticking point
of executive authority, as he is now doing?

I suppose the most instinctive thing to say in response to all this
is, "Who does he think he is??" -- does he really believe that as
President he is above the law? And I think the answer to that is a
resounding, "Well, obviously....." -- judging from the way he has
reacted to criticism and challenges from the start of his first term,
and from the insularity and sycophantism that he cultivates (has been
cultivated to) within his circle of advisers. We have seen already
that this has had an extreme influence on policy, leading informants
from various fields to shape their reports to match the results (and
dependent agenda) known to be preferred by the administration. It
has already corrupted the stream of intelligence, and in more areas
than just the sphere of the now/still-ongoing war. Science itself,
logic itself, is under pressure to conform to the wishes of a
temporary (one hopes) regime, instead of holding to the closest
truths it can achieve. That in itself is cause for alarm, especially
in a nation where the structure and succession of power are supposed
to eliminate the perpetual dominance of any single ruler or
dynasty, and to force all politicians to stand or fall on their own
merits, not as part of a party bloc.

The American constitutional ideal of politics is that of public
service done on behalf of the people of the nation (all of them), in
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States -- and no higher
power than that. Not even God, technically, despite those who have
some crackpot idea that this country's Manifest Destiny is to become
an experiment in theocracy instead of in human reason and dignity.
Even the plan (in the Texas redistricting affair and Tom DeLay's
campaign money laundering) for a "permanent Republican majority", by
the literal terms of it, is an arrogant breach of the ideals that the
nation was based on, in spirit if not in clearly-evidential clause,
because the structure was always and ever intended to change to serve
the people, and intending to establish any nominal party or agenda
as a "permanent" controller of government flies in the face of a free
democratic system, announcing itself as a wanna-be Reich whether its
proponents will admit it or not. To an honest politician (wherever
there is such a thing) it's not about the party but about the
people's needs, and not about aggrandizing power but responding aptly
to the changes of the nation itself. The fact that so much, here,
has gone into the gathering of both power and information, clearly
angling to the needs of this administration as if it were the only
one that ever need be considered, sincerely begs the question of
whether aspiring presidents and all politicians ought not only to be
limited in their terms but prohibited from procreating at all (or
adopting, like Julius Caesar did Octavian), so as to spare the nation
the burden of supporting their family dynastic ambitions, and the
secret avuncular grooming of blood-heirs to the perceived throne.
The more obstacles that can be placed in the way of politics-as-
power, the better for us -- it should no more be an adjunct of wealth
and caste than teaching, farming or collecting the trash and doing
what best can be done with it. If that means proposing that the U.S.
Congress and all the highest federal agencies and branches be not
approached with 'family' loyalties in tow, then perchance the
seriousness of that demand would help deter those who have only their
own self-service and permanent empire-building in mind.

Rather ecclesiastical, yes, on the face of it -- though, I'm not so
stupid as to think that celibacy in itself is enforceable nor
wise...just that one not have children to pass on one's reputation
and expectations to, or that will feel obliged to give favours or
follow orders as given by a parent. Or, the (over the long term)
extended politically-influential family that bears some good fruit
and some indifferent, some bad, but all bearing the same trade name
to be grouped by. Neither am I in favour of shamelessly shilling for
one's wife's (or husband's) political career after one's own terms of
office are done.

Politics, in this country out of all others, ought never to be a
means of constructing a false royalty, nor a false sense of
superiority to the citizenry at large. And that, precisely, is the
crisis of political breedership that we have on our hands right now.

What?--you mean it's really all about getting more MONEY?

2005-12-09T06:47:00.000-06:00

===============================================================
[commenting on this article]

Study: Illegal Immigrants Not Drawn by Jobs
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A11

===============================================================

Okay, so here's how it goes -- U.S. corporations "legally" send their
factories (and jobs) south and overseas to not have to pay as much,
and Mexican illegal immigrants get themselves north so that they'll
get paid *more* (much of which they often send home to remaining
family in Mexico, effectively drawing on one national economy to
support another one)...thereby increasing competition in the U.S. for
a lessening number of labouring, factory and other semi-skilled
jobs. That part is true.

Which has led to, and will lead to more of, a decline in the general
working-class standard of living, aided and abetted by the higher
birthrates typical of people with less schooling, earlier ages of
marriage, and stronger religious/cultural mores. A 'positive' view
would be that this will help to equalize the economic conditions
between the U.S. and Mexico and the other 'Third World'/developing
nations it likes doing its business in -- but I doubt that that'll
happen peacefully, and I don't think that many people here would
consider it an improvement. [The current administration's proposal
(the "guest worker" program) of granting an effective amnesty to
people already here illegally seems to omit any clear requirements or
even polite requests/preferences (in contrast to official immigration
and visa standards, should anyone care to examine them) that the
persons thus admitted should be an asset and not a drain to the
nation's infrastructure and economy and overall productivity. [dated; research in detail if desired] Which
makes me come off sounding pretty protectionist, I suppose....but
then, the best ways to make and keep a nation strong involve
maximizing the existing population's potential -- not waging a "race
to the bottom" via mutual economic exploitation.

If anything, American companies raising wages in their foreign-based
locations (and attending to human rights for their workers, too)
would be one of the best ways possible to encourage people to stay in
their own countries and take pride in them where they are, rather
than heading off to other lands for the sake of economic opportunity
without any intended allegiance to the host nation itself. Though,
that does require a certain illogical amount of national loyalty on the part of
the so-called "multinational" corporations, to realize that their own
home country/ies' best interests are served by not taking advantage
of others' homelands. It might even require a certain amount of
loophole-closing and honesty on a global scale -- but beginning with
national governments having some dignity and pride in their own
people, and refusing to let them be exploited and sold short for the
sake of illusory economic progress -- i.e., that kind that is
currently measured out on stringent terms of domestic de-
stabilization by the IMF, but whose benefits tend to either remain in
the hands of foreign investors, or never to trickle down through the
government agencies who have been dis-encouraged (subtly or not) from
taking care of their own people's needs. Governments do not and
should not exist for the sake of serving the government's needs but
those of the people, without whom they would not exist.

And whom do corporations serve, then, in these days of borderless
buying and trading and investing and maximizing profit margins? I'm
inclined to say they're largely guided by the interests of pirates.
By which of course I mean those who intend to take all they can via
their dealings in other people's labour and goods, with as little
restraint as possible.

Though, back in the good old days, pirates risked their own lives for
their plunder (gad, it's the least they could do!), and even had
governments out hunting for them, and stiff penalties--like death--
for their crimes. These days, they have the government so in their
pocket that they're not only going unpunished but rewarded for
squeezing the most they can get out of investments they never put in
a day's labour for. Capital gains and investment dividends don't
just come from nowhere....somewhere, somehow, someone is paying far
more than they should so that someone else is paying as little as
they can get away with. And a lot of people are working for
practically nothing so that others can get money for doing no work
atall. If the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as
any supposed representative democracy would seem to recognize, then
why tolerate the assumption that any socioeconomic elite, no matter
how powerful or pampered from birth, is exempt from the laws that
govern the less-powerful, or somehow too important to ever suffer
full penalties for their deeds, no matter whom they injure, ruin, or
even kill through their choices.

A long way of rhetoric from illegal immigrants from Mexico...but
really, maybe not. After all, everyone's just trying to get ahead,
and we ought not to let the sheer convenience of "hating the
foreigner" get in the way of seeing the underlying reasons why people
do what they do, and what's really precipitating and enabling the
situation. Those caught in the middle at the borders and in the
cities aren't the ones in control, and perhaps they ought to look a
bit harder at those that are.

Again with blaming the gays......(latest Vatican directive)

2005-11-26T00:51:00.000-06:00

Article in question:

In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 23, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/international/europe/23vatican.html?
th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
________________________________________________________

Hmm...please do note the specific wording of this declaration, as it
seems to specifically ban not only active homosexuals and those
of "deep-seated" tendencies, *but also* those who "support the so-
called 'gay culture.'" Meaning, straight allies aren't safe, and the
Vatican is definitely trying to eradicate all pro-gay/pro-acceptance
influence from the church hierarchy.

Which also means that it's official--gays are being used as
scapegoats for pederasts, when it's been stated time and time again
that pederasty and molestation are not the same thing atall as an
adult homosexual orientation. And yet....it's just so *easy* to
blame sexual orientation for this in the popular eye, when really
it's not about sex or gender at all but about control and abuse of
power over others.

Just like in prisons, dare I say, very little of these sexual abuse
scandals had anything to do with whether the priests in question was
attracted to males per se. The one thing we can state for certain is
that they were attracted to the proximity of young persons under
their religious authority, who could be easily manipulated, coerced,
and shamed into keeping quiet. That's not about sex, it's about the
lust of power--and any organization that preaches itself as
infallible and puts individual conscience in the finest of fine print
can be accurately diagnosed as being possessed by the lust of power
itself. And ridding the Roman Catholic Church of gay and open-minded
priests will not exorcise the real sickness that persists at its
bureaucratic heart.

Hmm....scapegoat, scapegoat....you know, that reminds me of something
in the Bible....:-?

My general theory of modern neo-feudalism

2005-11-08T16:59:00.000-06:00

[NOTE: Yes, this is actually something current I'm posting from my
little newsgroup....feel free to forward/link it on, with due
credit/blame of course.]
________________________________________________________

In hyperlucidity, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr" wrote:

Yes, there has been a lot of stuff going on in the world, despite the
fact that I've posted on very little of it.

Take, for example, Bush's proposal of a pan-American free trade area,
which met with loud popular protests and a more or less tacit
division of political leaders at the recent summit in Buenos
Aires....the idea is still not settled, and it is one that bears
careful examination before being adopted, especially considering the
current state of these economies and the typical "flight patterns" of
corporations trying to maximise their profits and cut labour costs.
Unless there is an effective and relevant trade union presence in the
U.S. and a majority of other countries that might be disposed to
side with the Bush administration and sign onto this (Mexico, for
example, or anywhere else significantly dependent on the goodwill of
the U.S.), it would be a very convenient reason to outlaw
trade/employee unions altogether as an untenable obstacle to
the 'flexibility' (upward for the big guys, downward for the small)
of economic activity and interaction. That's something that bears
watching.

My general take on the direction of things is that the Bush
administration and its allies are trying to implement a neo-
feudalism -- and in case we all haven't had a thorough grounding in
medieval socioeconomics, I'll summarize:

Feudalism is a hierarchy of authority and allegiance in which the
common worker (peasant or landed serf/slave) is utterly beholden to
his direct employer, who in turn is under the thumb of a larger state
or corporate entity, who in turn (possibly skipping a few levels up
the food chain) is under the utter authority of a political,
commercial or religious leader, who are at the top all bound in a
more-or-less common collusion of interests to keep everyone else
under control--though if they are in conflict, all persons involved
are supposed to act with total loyalty and obedience to their lords
and masters. There's no appealing to anything like a universal democratic
process or outside authority (or outside judicial or legislative
trend, as Bush and some of the Supreme Court justices want to
solidify firmly, as the world gets more socially progressive in
Canada, Australia, Europe, etc.)...there's no effective standard of
values besides that which those in power choose to implement and
promote (and may or may not follow themselves). There's not even the
assumption that a ruler of one country is actually 'loyal' to that
country and its needs--he may just be playing it as a pawn for
increase of territory elsewhere, or perhaps for a nice fat golden
parachute (in the business world)--or guaranteed security for life if
he lets the corporations have their way in all things at the people's
expense.

Things like the oft-cited code of chivalry, in modern or medieval form (loyalty to lord and Church, compassion to the poor, protection of women and children, etc.), are policies (just like every set of rules and policies, pragmatically speaking) designed to officially address known, existing and commonly-accepted behaviours in their time--not to set up anything like a standard of social equality. And in the olden days, the peasant or serf did have the right to depend on the protection of his lord's fortress against raids and warfare--these days, to the contrary, there is no sense of "noblesse oblige", no responsibility in authority. The peasants are sent off to be cannon fodder in war (okay, persuaded to by circumstance--afterall, it is a volunteer army these days), and bear the brunt of every downturn that the rich can absorb and/or avoid for themselves -- and yet they are expected to remain loyal and diligent and compliant.

The communications and transportational infrastructure (*cough*
Amtrak funding *cough* HDTV conversion *cough* FOX News...) is
typically eroded or rudimentary in feudalism, making the common
populace in general dependent on the opportunities,
knowledge/attitudes and social structure of their home areas, with
radically low opportunities for regional mobility except in wholesale
moves/migrations. In addition, the 'social welfare' function in
feudalism is completely delegated to religious or private interests,
enforcing arbitrary moral standards of acceptability/compliance for
any shelter, food, medical attention or job assistance -- "parish
work", in short. This is what dismantling and/or privatizing/de-
secularizing the entire social security/welfare structure means in
end result.

Other typical social symptoms of feudalism (though not limited to it)
are: massive insularity within communities, fear/hatred of minorities
and foreigners, repression of deviancy or difference within their own
(even/especially superior deviance), low education as a norm (with
accompanying mistrust of the overeducated), early marriage/breeding,
generalized social/political/religious inferiority of women (with a
few token decoys to keep the rest in line), and blind belief in
whoever's setting the religious/political rules -- because that's all
they've got to depend on.

So....if this sounds familiar to anyone, I think I'd suggest you read
up on the Middle Ages and the things that brought about the gradual
end of the feudal system in Europe -- like religious heterodoxy,
sudden decreases of population/birthrate (thank you, Black Death and
birth control...), world exploration and broader cultural
contact/learning, widespread scientific inquiry, increases in
education and literacy, diverse sociopolitical philosophies, the
expansion of trade and commercial structure to enable small merchants
and artisans to become a solid middle class rather than dependants to
a lord (or unprotected itinerants), and the erosion of religion-based
social determinism in justifying injustice (as in "divine
right", "subhuman" races, etc.).

And support all those things at their best that stave off the "Dark
Ages" from our lives. History's still going on, and there are a lot
of ways that some people and entities are trying to turn back the
years on the rest of us...the unnerving thing, really, is how close
they are already to accomplishing it.

You know what's really wrong with protests...?

2005-09-23T21:27:00.000-05:00

It's all the lengths that people in authority will go to to prevent them having any effect. Tomorrow is the day that thousands of people are going to converge in Washington and have a demonstration in front of the White House. The object of their attentions, their pleas and demands will be nowhere in the area.

He's a stinking coward.

Not that he's avoiding any physical danger, but that he's evading his own responsibility as head of state. When the people, as per their constitutional rights, "gather peacefully to petition the government for redress of grievances," don't you think the government perhaps ought not to ignore them? Or, as I've just today learned via one of the main groups organizing the demonstation, to restrict the news media from covering the event at a decent proximity so that it doesn't occur in a mainstream-media vacuum?

Here's (part of) what I got in my email today--it's an appeal for emergency donations:

We really need your help right now. All the major antiwar groups are coming together for this action at the White House, but only one organization, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, has the financial responsibility for the powerful unity rally - for the stage, sound and setup. Now we have the opportunity to have this massive outpouring broadcast to millions - if you can help!

We have learned that C-SPAN is planning to cover this incredible assembly of opposition to the war. They will broadcast to millions - but there's a catch. The government is restricting C-SPAN's access on one side of the rally site, and their satellite trucks, which provide the live feed, are now only authorized to park much farther away.

In order for C-SPAN to have a live feed of the rally, hundreds of feet of additional cable as well as cable ramps must be rented. This will cost many thousands of dollars, on top of the tens of thousands of dollars that must be spent for the joint rally stage and sound to reach the huge number of people assembling, for the thousands of placards, hundreds of thousands of flyers, port-a-johns, the buses, banners, flags and everything else that it takes to make a demonstration successful.

You see, these groups--these people--don't organize rallies and marches just for the hell of it. They are putting their resources into trying to make a difference--trying to reach the nation's leadership, trying to reach the rest of the country and the world--and yet constantly, from Day Zero and before, they have been given the shaft in terms of the very goal of communication itself.

"We won't give you the permit--you'll ruin the grass in Central Park."

"Okay, we'll give you the permit, but you have to take your route all the way over here where no one has to see you, and we won't let anyone join you from the sidewalk."

"Okay, we'll give the the permit, but there won't be anyone there listening and we'll keep the media from getting any decent coverage."

And that's assuming that the counter-protests--the pro-Bush demonstrators scheduled to take the field concurrently and the next day--won't send in any of their own to infiltrate the peace rally and try to make trouble under other groups' names. Not that I want to give them any ideas, of course.....but I'm certain that it's happened with trade protests already, the sort of violent outbursts and vandalizing that work to give protestors a bad name. In reality, protests these days are so law-abiding and decent that the only thing they got majorly arrested in Chicago for was peacefully blocking Lake Shore Drive...just the obstruction of the everyday itself.

But I'm sure the conservative rallies will have all the mainstream news coverage they want.....meanwhile, in the four years since 9/11, I've seen better coverage of U.S. peace rallies on BBC World News than on the local network affiliates. To coin a phrase, isn't that just a bit....obstructionist? As in, obstructing and defusing all the legal rights of assembly and petition and demonstration that were clearly included in the Constitution. I mean, it does specifically say "redress of grievances" and not "just to show support for the administration and kiss ass"....

But that's the thing--the rich and the powerful will do whatever they have to--get whatever guards and police on the case, move their trade meetings to an island (or a secret fortress or whatever), live as far away fom the cities as they can--to avoid dealing with, hearing, or seeing the people their actions affect in real life. To not see what they don't want to see, to not hear things they don't want to hear--and truth and ethics be damned, even though that's all that the "other side" is counting on to prove their cause.

"A little revolution, now and then"....would actually be refreshing. It's a shame to see the majority of the truly "law-abiding" people in this country on the opposite side from the ostensible law.

___________________________________________________________________________

Links:

"War Protesters Seek to Put the Heat on Bush" - Yahoo News

ANSWER Coalition

United for Peace and Justice

--and I'm not including more publicity for the Republican damage-control groups on my blog, but they're mentioned and linked in the Yahell article listed first here.

Re the latest on homosexuality in the priesthood....and here's my own theories

2005-09-22T20:51:00.000-05:00

In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr"
aureantyev@y...; wrote:

First of all, just to express my essential lack of surprise--
afterall, as a traditionalist, the new Pope is hardly likely to buck
the kneejerk trend of conflating all pedophilia with adult
homosexuality, or to take every opportunity of "purging" the ranks of
all who might possibly compromise the virtue/image/mission of the
Roman Catholic Church (a bit late for that, overall, but hey...call
it a second Counter-Reformation).

Two points, though:

A, all self-respecting sexual deviants reject juvenile predation and
coercion--and likely with very good personal reason--therefore,
anything that is a non-consensual sexual violation by an adult of a
minor is an unjustifiable abuse of trust and authority.

And B, where the hell would the Roman Catholic Church be without
the thousands, millions even of men who found their spiritual and
intellectual vocations there through the ages in the absence of
being able to have a "normal" life, i.e., marriage with the duty of
fecundity and ruling a family? Just read even one Andrew Greeley
novel, for example (I recommend "The Cardinal Sins"), and you realize
that especially in America, the priesthood has long been the only
acceptable way for a good Catholic boy to honourably sublimate and
conceal his homosexual identity--and some repress or exercise their
needs more honourably than others, whatever their basic tendencies.
The many who prefer men and use discretion therewith should not be
tarred for the few who molest boys and teens and further abuse them
with the pressure of a guilt they do not deserve.

In Europe, sexual "deviancy" in general had long been tacitly tolerated under
the aegis of the Vatican, and so long as it was reasonably discreet
and was not molestation--anything forced or abusive that could force
a scandal--it has caused no essential problems save those of
favoritism to one's lovers or preference to the children of one's
mistress--take the Borgias, for example. Concubines both male and
female were tolerated and/or politely ignored, and the main issues of
contention when they did arise were hypocrisy (well, of course,
though the faithful in the lower social classes were hardly in the
know of who was sleeping with whom) and simony--technically the
buying and selling of church appointments, in this case for sexual
favours (either directly or indirectly, as in granting a bishopric to
the son of a mistress).

The particular rise of molestation cases in the U.S. can be
attributed to two main things, besides the technical (and arguably very
politically-based) requirement of celibacy itself -- the longstanding
exclusion of women from the Vatican choirs, an example which in
Europe caused both the flowering of boys' choirs as a tradition and
the musical trend of cultivating castrati for both religious and
operatic music (meaning that young boys and/or the fabulously glam
castrati superstars became prime objects of sensual attraction if
they hadn't been before--there aren't any more castrati divi,
but the all-boys' choir is still a fixture) ....

.... and then the social pressures of transplanting Catholicism via
immigration into the more crowded and suspicious territory of urban
America, which naturally made the gaining of any romantic or sexual
satisfaction a bit harder for everyone. And, seeing as the United
States was by then mainly set in the social pattern of Puritan-borne
Protestantism, the moral and social absolutes were more stringent in
a common-law sense, much less tolerant of difference or
sensual indulgence.

My view is that the social pressures of trying to maintain
Catholicism and its older ethnic traditions (in parish enclaves
within an often disdainful overall WASP milieu) added to internal and
external pressures on all those with any conflict with the
neighborhood parish=close-knit village culture. Both the priesthood
and the veil appealed as always to those not suited to raising a
family, but with far more a component of social coercion because of
the (pervasive) urgency to marry and bring more babies into the
Church. Thus, there was even more tendency for personal sexuality
(even if not practised in itself) to find a haven away from these
demands -- so, for gay men, for lesbians, and also for those who had
more an instinct for power and predation than for any honestly
physical relationship and its responsibilities. I.e., the real
sexual and emotional predators who should ideally not have been around
children or anyone so vulnerable in the first place in any role at
all. Not that they can't make very impressive priests and high-level clerics, though...

Personally, I think it's a sick system overall to demand and enforce
these rules en masse, but a lot healthier to allow private affairs
between consenting adults than to force all urges underground even
further. A lot of people, and family of mine, will hail this as a
purification of the Church -- but it will A, not solve the problem of
sexual abuse of power in itself, and B, lead to a great many
gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even whole LGBT-supportive parishes
leaving the Roman Catholic Church decisively, unwilling to be blamed
for all the crimes of hypocritically pious individuals. Incidentally
undercutting whatever good Pope John Paul II did with his single
exhortation for love and personal acceptance regardless of sexual
orientation. Not that he didn't consider homosexuality "objectively
disordered" as in the catechism (see second article cited), and not
that this policy wasn't in the works under his reign -- but at least
he tried to be socially-conciliatory on the surface.

On the other hand, though, that may have done more harm than good
over the years in allowing people to feel complacent about their own
faith, rationalizing that it's okay to be gay and still Catholic, or
that the (lately) single most temporally-powerful religious figure on
the planet was a "good man" for his tolerance and bridge-building
even though it was only of a thinly social nature, still condemning
the official sins as he proposed compassion and the non-withdrawal of
parental love to the sinners....a magnanimous gesture, that.

I was surprised, after the death of Pope John Paul II, to see how
many people in the online groups I'm in regarded him as such a
positive social figure. When it comes right down to it, the only
thing that I ever had cause to respect him for was condemning the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (though these days a pope's temporal
authority doesn't make or break wars like it used to
when "Christendom" was assumed as Catholicism...) -- point is,
many of these are people with no reason atall to be grateful or
conciliatory towards a religious structure in itself that condemns
many or most of their personal beliefs and practices. A structure
that both would eliminate them from the world if it could and has
tried it with great zeal before. Why give the persecutors such
credit, and their "infallible" leader, moreover?--isn't that a blow
against your own validity? In my opinion, the very best part of
Roman Catholicism is the Franciscan Order -- closest to nature,
closest to their fellow human beings, closest to the ideal of a faith
lived in action, not just in words and dependence on top-down
authority.

Unfortunately, I could very well see them being the next on the
chopping-block, with all their human rights involvement and actual
respect for others....not exactly orthodox, these days.

===============================================================
Inciting Articles:

Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 15, 2005

New Vatican Rule Said to Bar Gays as New Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 22, 2005
__________________________________________________________________

The majority and theoretical material of this post was first "published" at my news/current events/shape-of-things-to-come group hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology on 16 September 2005.

Yeah, there's a war on--here, let me /show/ you just how one-sided this one is....

2005-09-20T21:04:00.000-05:00

Mainly because it's been being fought under our noses and out of sight of TV screens, where far too many of us still get our news pre-digested, not even able to read between the lines of a printed page, never taught to test for truth. Maybe because there's that other war-- or two, or three--that has been built up and given the spotlight as an honourable cause--America against this, against that, a sanctioned outlet of us versus them, us versus evil. The war that goes unspoken or derided as a mirage is the one that is U.S. versus us--the steady erosion of rights and dignity and the welfare--yes, literally, the well-fare, the well-being--of the ordinary American citizen.

The one who doesn't have an escape pod for every disaster, resources and insurance and medical provisions to cover every loss without hassle or delay, names and connections to get a job in a pinch whenever he or she needs one--or hell, just wants one for the credentials. The one whose name is not a passport to perks and privilege, whose labour is for the sake of survival not amassment of landed wealth. The common man--whether common or not in skills, intelligence, honour and personal virtue--who is being edged steadily back to the feudal ages, under the triple thumb of state and church and all-powerful-&-unquestioned "employer" from whom he must beg his daily bread. Leave God out of it--he's only a name in this machine, a placebo to make people think there's someone looking out for them, a source of true justice and unbiased, unstinting love. Bullshit, at least for the daily grind--only a pill one takes with all the others, and now on the pretense that it'll help one's health, lower one's blood pressure, increase one's life expectancy--and for what? For more of this crap, this technicolour pablum, this sham of a culture, this artifically sweetened and chemically fertilized, hyped-up, accessorized, wholly inconsequential vanity of vanities that is the existence of the American consumer-subject?

iPods and circenses, my friends....an armory of mass distraction--and the unwitting accomplices in it are twofold.

There are the willing marketers, salesmen, trendsetters, survey-takers, test panels--paid and unpaid alike, selling themselves for these corporate gods, external idols, false saviours for whom one will lie, cheat and steal to get a buck, to win a prize, to land the big one, anything to replace the real with the synthetic, the essential with the persuaded luxury, the energy of integrity for the dregs of ephemeral fame, attention, something from the Powers That Be.

And there are the well-meaning but all-too-ambitious politicians who voice their outrage in every moment but the ones that might have counted in the first place, thinking so much for the long-term and the interest of lasting harmony and stability (and political tenure for themselves) that they refuse to take a firm stand against the thousands of little encroachments, erosions, cracks and lapses that the enemy has given them an ostensible choice on--and that they refuse to lead any firm alternative or argument to sway the other side of the aisle, letting the battles be lost and thinking that they have a positive war they're fighting all the same--trying to win support and dollars from the people for their moderation, when it is their very moderation that has let the fox into the henhouse and approved him having his way--ah well, bargaining and quibbling over a wing or a leg here and there, but mounting no decided objections to his presence in itself.

There is a war going on. It is the war of power and wealth against those who are ignored, underrated, have little or no voice, little choice in their lives. It is the war of privilege against a common humanity, of moral hypocrisy against a common decency. Of paperwork against people, the letter of the law against the very virtues that it was supposed to support and encourage. The administration is destroying the people--and it does not care one whit more than it has to for a good soundbite, a dramatic photo opp, another little token to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of those who want to believe that they live in a system that makes sense. But no "god in a machine" is coming down to set things right, and the fox is still feasting in the henhouse. Criticism alone won't get him out.

If you think that made no sense...(assuming you traced it)

2005-07-14T05:53:00.000-05:00

...then what else is new in this world? I'm rather used to having people not get what I mean, and even more so when it builds off the elaborations of cerebral duality.

Nonetheless, I'll maintain that it does have truth, even though of course I can demand no recognition of the fact. I try very hard to keep fact and fiction distinct -- not always segregated, but clear at least. Hyperlucidity is one of the places I try to deal more with the "real" world as the issue, even though some of the things inside may seem weird to a stranger's reading. Others may seem too mundane, straight repostings from the daily news -- so what's my motive, what's the purpose here?--I mean, there, or anywhere I try to explain?

It's not the same as Pravda, at least--though, how can you not love Pravda (at least for the reading of it)?--the firm credulosity, the determined weaving of observation and science and folklore into one proudly authoritative package...it breathes new life into the meaning of the word "superstition." No, I am not Pravda -- though, this is not to say that I make no claim to truth (in-joke, that's what "pravda" means). It just takes going about it in a different fashion, more dissection with less conclusion. I'd rather suggest lines of thought than lay them down firmly in every detail, and though I can certainly write a manifesto or a catechism doesn't mean I have any present use for doing so. I'm mainly just trying to - make people think.

Of course, for some people that's an unbearable torture. Those people never last long with the kind of conversations I tend to get into (not bragging, just saying...) -- they haven't enough mental foliage to comprehend the canopy nor the marshy undergrowth in mine -- nor do they have the woodscraft to penetrate into the heart of the forest. Best to lose them at the gate lest they get into trouble.

But, if this intrigues you rather than confuses altogether, maybe you ought to come in a bit deeper into the jungle, off the beaten path. It's more dappled in here, but you can see the roots much more easily, and multiple strands and limbs and tendrils...connections are closer, though tangled, and you run across more at a time.

But all that's just a sheer metaphorical ramble. Suffice it to say, I have a (fairly new) new group where I talk about things that connect to the outside world, but (intendedly) geared to address concerns closer and more relative to us -- and who "us" is, as a matter of fact, a rather interesting and controversial topic.

Which, again, I think I'll refrain from spelling out too clearly right now....

Scientology -- I got the dirt on how it works...you wanna read more?

2005-07-14T03:41:00.000-05:00

Here's the crux of the matter, and the reason behind Tom Cruise's
immoderate behaviour of late: Scientology split his brain apart, and
he doesn't think or act the same anymore as what we would call
a "self-aware" person.

If you want to know more about my research and theory on Scientology,
either write me privately or apply to the newsgroup 'Hyperlucidity--
the eternal pathology' ....the relevant post on this is in the message archive there at
message #277 , and I have even more extensive material (the full account of my work on this when I
delved it out) in my thesis Language and Selfhood: Power and
Coercion in the Art of Words.

_________________________________________________________
Note: I don't accept people with blank profiles into my private online groups unless they've introduced themselves sufficiently
beforehand, enough to know that they're not, you know, crazy religious fanatics or government spooks or totally fluffed off their heads. And please do be sure to read the description first, of course.....we don't want to confuse people who were just looking for a simple chatty coffee-klatsch about nothing atall of deeper consequence.

"Post-Modern Evolution" (the foundational proposal)

2005-07-13T05:10:00.000-05:00

Original Date: Fri Jun 3, 2005 5:42 am

"Post-Modern Evolution"

by K. Aurencz Zethmayr / posted June 3, 2005 at my LJ blog and thence to hyperlucidity

[If the content of this bothers or offends you, then go away and forget about it--though I warn you that your belief or skepticism will have no effect on the validity of these concepts, or on their operation in the world and people around you. Those who do not believe in evolution are condemned to...well, become extinct...>:)]

My newest theory, and one that ties into everything subcultural as well...not to mention providing that direct reason why we're logically in the direct firing line of the Religious Right.

Post-modern evolution--or, to spell it out, having arrived at a point in the human species' evolution where it is experimenting and exploring at an unprecedented pace. And, in that process, exploring and revisiting all that has come before--including things not even in its own direct genetic lineage.

Before birth, a human fetus recapitulates every stage of evolution that has led to this shape, from gills to a tail. Now, we're doing something even more creative, and which has vast implications for the range and diversity and interconnectedness of all life itself. We're finding inside ourselves that which may have never existed on this planet or plane, but which is still "part of us"...we're consciously living as territorial and feral entities, whether creating new packs and clans or moving as loners through the world....we're learning more and more that there are myriad forms of energy sustenance besides just caloric intake, and that some of us need that in high and specialized degree.

And that's not even taking into account anything distinctly "spiritual", though I think I can say that a great many of us, the more sensitive ones at least, suffer greatly from a sense of alienation from the normal round of human society, its priorities, even its developed emotions themselves. Whether we feel as angels above it, or as therians and fae indifferent to its shiftings--or as empathic vampires all too tangibly aware from the outside of that which we somehow cannot completely share ourselves...these are only hypothetical perspectives, feel free to add on--there is a sense of being essentially different, and of that difference causing pain because there is no sense of a place in the world for us--hardly even a way to express the anomie of knowing you're "abnormal" in such a way that cannot be medicated away (though there's always other things to drug for), cannot be simply persuaded out of, converted away from, swept under the rug of conformity and the expected course of things.

Even those closest to us, sometimes, though genetics don't happen purely out of the blue...they do not know who we are, what we are--how on earth can they help and ease the growing pains, when they know so little, and when we ourselves have (I speak in general) far more a tendency towards rules than reasons, towards clan ideologies rather than continued searching--and moreover, so little a sense of destiny overall. The only ones who speak pervasively of destiny are the Starseed, Indigo, Crystal demographics...and bluntly speaking, a lot of it comes off as wishful sci-fi crap, just as much as Scientology--and written by regular New Age human adults (female of course, though no offense intended) who think we all oughta worship the little enlightened genii who'll show us the way.

But I'm an Indigo myself, by the way--one of the older ones, whose mission is to try to cut the crap and translate to people what's really going on in a practical way, to lead them clearly. As a matter of fact, I know very clearly that's my task, as it was told to me. And I have very little illusion about that being a glamourous or even well-respected role--I'm a bit of a rebel gadfly of a cerebral leader, more goading than dictating, more outside than inside even when I'm in the middle of things. But I can see the whole picture--and no one else seems to have done that yet.

Anyhow, we're the waves of the future gathering, in a world that's not ready to grow. What is that gonna mean?--a whole lotta repression and suspicion (especially here in the U.S.), a lotta chafing against the status quo and its patterns, a lotta going underground, so to speak--catacombing, communing, creating our alternative families and support systems as best we can. It's been done before, after all--and not to sound too :uber-psychic, but I've been hooked on that theme for years, and it's always been my ideal to gather that way, though never forcing too hard upon the needs of solitude.

So...those are the lines I'm thinking along, together with greater advocacy in the areas of education, social identity (gender, sexual orientation, religion), and basic civil rights altogether, particularly by those who are articulate enough to be taken seriously by all. It's not even a matter of intelligence so much as clear and well-mastered communication, something that a lot of the right-brain dominants among us (and I think most of us likely are either close-to-the-middle, balanced, or right-brain dominant) just haven't got as a useful habit, not when it comes to trying to reason with the outside world.
______________________________

Anyhow...that's the start of my manifesto-manifestation. More to come.

[from Aureantes Talks... ]

The conservative Intelligent Design movement....(brief comment)

2005-07-13T05:02:00.000-05:00

[This is, with some additions, what I posted on the AlterNet message board for one of the
stories re ID and its effect/methods to deal with it in the classroom - http://www.alternet.org/story/22039 ]

The Real Threat of Evolution.... -->Posted by: Aureantes on May 24, 2005 11:29 PM -->

...is the idea that these bass-ackwards, head-in-the-sand creationists might possibly not be at the top of their own evolutionary ladder. That the best of humanity might lie elsewhere than in the ranks of the faithful, that a conservative politician in a three-piece-suit might be someday as outdated as a pithecanthropus, that America might not be the greatest country in the world, that the status quo of the good old days might need some revision and growth after all, even reinterpretation--in short, the very simple-yet-complex fear of being superseded, both in reality and in the process of human consciousness, morality, honour, ethics, whatever they pride themselves on as a separation to keep from realizing that everyone and everything must keep on growing and learning and adapting in order to survive.

Personally, I believe in emanation, not creation--with a direction and purpose, yes, but not arbitrary, and certainly not dropping in a species from above to have dominion over the earth and its creatures. Biological domination, apart from environmental circumstance, takes intelligence on the inside of a creature, not from the outside via deus ex machina.

The paranoia that's always lain at the heart of every religion-based scientific reactionary trend is the fear of being displaced from the center of the universe, from the apple of God's eye, from having unquestioned rulership and exploitation rights over all. It happened with astronomy, it happened with evolution, and now people are still trying to drag it back into that literal Ptolemian egotism that allows no doubt as to plan or priority, and conflate it withall their other fears as well. In short, they're afraid of not being the superior species, or type, or culture. Creationists fear for their existence, because they have reduced it themselves to such an absolute of domination or utter helplessness, irrelevance in the scheme of things. Therefore they must bolster their delusions and try to force others to believe them as well. If not, they just might become...well, extinct. >:)

Pharmacists (and others) w/ incapacitating moral scruples....

2005-07-13T04:56:00.000-05:00

Original Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:05 am

[Posted as reply in another group, in response to a member opining it
wrong to "coerce" pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their
moral beliefs.]
==========================================
"I'm with you except for one thing: passing a law obligating
a pharmacist (or anyone else) to do something against their moral
principles is a NO-NO in my eyes. If the pharmacist won't fill
someone's script because of moral objections, then take it up
with the store manager and get someone else or some other company to
fill your script. Enough people going to the store manager or
another company about their script not being filled on moral
principles will ultimately result in removal of pharmacist X to a
different job.
To force an unwilling pharmacist to fill a script against
his/her moral code is just as bad as any other form of coercion.
As for me, I'm strictly pro-choice."]
=================================================================

If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions given to him
(and incidentally, I sincerely doubt that any female pharmacists are
having these "moral" dilemmas), than why the heck is he in the
profession?

A pharmacist is by definition the person who dispenses medications at
the express request/order or a physician. Call it enabling, whatever-
-that's their function, deal with it. They dispense drugs. They can
keep whatever suspicions or doubts or dislikes they want as to the
uses involved, but a valid prescription legally ought to be honoured--
or, information given as to another pharmacy that will not be so
(pardon the term) "obstructionist".

It is /not/ part of their job to second-guess either the physician's
judgement or the patient's needs, regardless of their own personal
beliefs. I live in Illinois, and I'm glad that Gov. Blagojevich
(yes, I can spell his name w/o looking it up) had the extreme
common sense to pass this measure telling pharmacists to fulfill the
logical duties of their job.

Aurey

(Chronically and unmedicatedly intellectual :P )

_______________________________________________________________________
Furthermore...... (I added)

Most consumers are sheep when it comes to complaining to stores and
getting any positive changes out of it. In some areas, going to
another pharmacy may be extremely difficult if not impossible. Free-
market economics are not always operating under free conditions,
contrary to the gospels of Ayn Rand.

And most of all, have you NOT NOTICED that this whole idea of
protecting "moral beliefs" in the workplace is basically a cover for
Christian right-wingers in any/all professions to refuse to do
their jobs without bias or prejudice, to withhold services and
information selectively according to their own opinions and not the
real needs of the patient, customer, client or student?

That means all medical personnel, high-school counselors (guidance
and school psychologists), librarians, public-school teachers,
police officers, and everyone else whose job description ordinarily
and properly states that they are not to let their own moral scruples
interfere with the actual job at hand, nor let them favour any person
above another in terms of attention or quality of care,
confidentiality, dignity, and civil rights.

Some people, in case you've forgotten, do not 'morally believe' in
civil rights.

All told, I'd rather 'coerce' them all to err on the side of putting
another's /needs/ above their own /preferences/. Anyone got a moral
problem with that?

Aurey

Isn't an "unwinnable" war more useful, though?

2005-06-15T19:29:00.000-05:00

Some people I've read criticise George W. Bush for not having fully realized the size and complexity of the task of "securing" peace and freedom (and cooperative oil contracts) within Iraq -- they say he's an idiot and all manner of other derogatory things. They refer back to his drunkenness, his drug use, anything to make the point that this guy has no idea where he's goin, what he's doing, or why he's dragging the rest of us into the firing line ahead of him.

Please, folks--this man is more canny than you know. After all, who else in American Presidential history had the blinding foresight to spend his time and energy in college not on any piffling particular of discipline like law or political science but on the essential business of schmoozing itself. Socio-political networking and buddy-building was his real major, as the Bush vs. Kerry duo-documentary "The Choice 2004" (Frontline) conveyed very objectively and clearly, and for that he no doubt should have been valedictorian rather than maintaining only "gentleman's 'C's" in his studies. Diplomacy?--he's a master of it, so long as it suits his current needs. This is not a stupid man, and his choices for foreign policy and personnel are not mere diplomatic gaffes but do have, mirabile dictu, a method that underlies them.

So....who ever said that Bush really wanted a winnable war? Having the war ongoing does two very useful things: it keeps him in power through the threat that no other leader would be firm enough to sustain the "good fight" that he has fabricated, and it provides a rationale for whatever civic austerity measures and reactionary/repressive legislation he and his bunch want to put through. It nicely blurs over the slow-but-steady erosion of security for the average person, as they are after all merely sharing a small part in the uncertainty and patriotic suffering of our forces overseas. He takes on the doubting world as a Crusader king, an image that conjures up to many more of heroism and virtuous triumph than of the necessary feudalism and total monarchic rule that made such ventures imaginable upon the backs of the people. As I think has been amply demonstrated by resent disclosures (such as certain memos/minutes?), Bush wanted a war, and a big flashy one to cover up cold-blooded actions with the hot-blooded exploits and drama of extended combat. Peace, and the leisure of critical thought and close examination that it brings, is his real enemy.

Just like in "1984", the war is never really meant to be won and completed, no matter how the opponent shifts in name -- it's the guilt-complex-inducing background noise of 'our' troops dying that's meant to keep us docilely in line, and the threat of terrorism in response to 'our' own acceleration of insults and injuries to the rest of the world that is meant to keep us afraid of changing horses in mid-stream -- even if a different horse (perhaps one with actual combat experience to temper/hone his ideology?) would have seen the mess and gotten us the hell out of the swamp we're in by now.

Pre-emptive wars = "Weapons of Mass Distraction"....isn't that a catchy line?

Anyhow--do give the man a little credit. I think he knows exactly what he's doing here.

============================================

Website - http://www.geocities.com/aureantyev/AureantesRealm-portal
Groups Hosted - http://www.geocities.com/aureantyev/current_groups
Portfolio/Feedback Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AureantesRealm
Official Blog - http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com
Informal Blog - http://livejournal.com/users/aureantes
News Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity

_________________________________________________

Fifteen minutes of fame....what Andy /really/ meant, dammit!

2005-05-30T01:42:00.000-05:00

The most famous Andy Warhol quote of 'em all, now a household phrase invoked at every opportunity for fame, fortune, visibility, et cetera....and yet, we regard it as a ration, a set and finite span of time to be used or wasted and then--"out, out, brief candle"--no more.

Personally, in that spirit I haven't even begun to nibble at my own fifteen minutes, barely done a thing to try and seize the spotlight for myself. Why?--because it might be for the wrong reason. I don't want to waste my time on something that might be unworthy, petty, something less than all that I'm supposed to be and to show. Some people, you can tell when their fifteen minutes has come--there's a completion you can feel, that in a way this event, this issue encapsulates them, and they aren't going to turn up again, in news or in memory, except in relation to that one thing. A one-trick pony, perhaps, a one-hit wonder. The ironing is delicious.

Some people, on the other hand, may show up in the radar beam--even in the highest levels of celebrity--but you get a feeling they're not done yet--their story/saga/movie of the week has yet to receive its final draft from the writing team; there's still another twist or two to come in the theme before one can close the casefile.

And yet, what did Andy really mean? What he really said was, "In the future everyone will have fifteen minutes of fame." Not that that was a maximum allowance--more of a minimum lifetime requirement, I'd say.

And yes, it was a typical idealistic-artistic manifesto-ish thing to say...but do you see where he's coming from there? It's like a sabbatical rest-day law, or mandated health benefits....everyone deserves, everyone will, by virtue of their equal rights as human beings, be guaranteed fifteen minutes of fame. Absolute, word-on-the-street, everybody-knows-your-name fame. People will think of you, will notice you, will not ignore you. You will be a somebody. Everybody will be somebody. Nobodies of the world, unite--we shall not be invisible.

And of course, as most manifestos are apt to see far less than the original lofty spirit of their intent, we have a degraded version of that around us constantly now. Reality TV--game shows--lotteries--contests (and their underminings) that have far less to do with worth or quality or dignity than with the most atavistic drives for attention. People will eat maggots for attention, dress up in a cow costume for a singing audition, sell their bodies for advertising space, expose themselves and fight with their families and lovers onstage...anything to be noticed.

Does anyone see the desperation here, that after so much time this situation of fame has become even worse than before?--that there's a Never-Neverland (geez, thank you, Jacko...) of the "celebrity" world, which we hope to connect to if we're lucky, and then the everyday world of "real people" scrabbling to get out of the general crab-pail?

Look at that, and look at the socio-economic situation. Look at the gaps and the poverty of attention, how fleeting it is and yet how far people will go on a hope to escape their poor anonymity. Andy Warhol may have been a total pop-culture flake, but when it comes to fame his dream of the future has yet to be realized in its real and revolutionary form.